Hello everyone, On behalf of ALSs who didn't go to Paris, and indeed at least some of those who did, I would like to find out from the various At-Large attendees how you perceived At-Large's strategies and accomplishments. We were involved in a number of issues; the Summit, GNSO review, gTLD creation policy, and of course the ALAC Review. There were first (and in most cases very productive) meetings with GAC, NCUC, SSAC, GNSO and the registrar constituency. There was effectively no time to play tourist, though I do recall driving past the Louvre once or twice. Smokers will remember Paris as their dream venue, where you could light up without dirty looks, at least some of the people rolling their own cigarettes in the street were actually using tobacco. And Sebastien was as perfect a host as anyone could ask for, right up until the final evening at "Jimmy the Frog's" (or whatever the French name for it is...). Yet I cannot come away from the Paris without having felt At-Large to be the object of some kind of manipulation. I can't tell by how, or quite how, but it was definitely there. We had zero response on a travel policy that will certainly negatively affect At-Large's ability to accomplish its role over the coming years. And while I stand behind the positions taken on the issues, from a distance I can see how we came across as shrill and obstructionist. I am frankly tired of lurching from one panic-based ALAC reaction to another. It is distressing to see so few members of ALAC shouldering all the group's policy work. And I would really like, for once, enough opportunity to understand issues early enough to be able to take positions that are part of the solution rather than just trying to fix problems. Some of this is of ICANN staff's doing, through a pile of trivial little things that while not technically incorrect _seemed_ designed to keep us off balance. The timing of the release of the Westlake report seemed almost deliberately timed to force hasty response during Paris. The consultants themselves were clearly uncomfortable with the way that timing played out, and I seem to recall one of them indicating privately that they would have preferred to consult during Paris and release the draft docs afterwards. I am especially and thoroughly disgusted with the manipulation of the public forum, which was stage-managed to the point of being considerably even more useless than usual. And ICANN's translation strategy, while having made some improvements is still far behind what it needs to be for ICANN to go beyond the anglophone world. Of course At-Large is not without blame as well. The thing Westlake recommended with which I most agree was for the need of a strategic plan -- a prioritized list of issues and policies that require our focused attention and resources, set out enough in advance to give us the ability to be constructive participants. There are far too few ALAC members doing work that should be spread around to 15 people. On issues such as the RAA, my instinct says we should preparing ourselves for work on this yet I don't even know where to start. And if the involved people here don't know the basics upon which to discuss policy, I know it will be even harder getting ALSs aware (let alone involved). I have this sneaking suspicion that, sometime in the future, we will be in a panic situation rush-releasing a response on this too. Is this just me? Or does At-Large really need to seriously take stock of its strategies, priorities, and the allocation of our eager-to-help staff resources? In advance of the Summit I'd really like to see us with our collective act together better than it is now. Just PLEASE don't tell me that the response requires a return to obsession with process. And finally, getting back to the stuff still on the table. 1) It is now up to At-Large to propose _constructive_ reaction to the ALAC review, that builds upon whatever slivers of it that are agreeable and offers something of substance to the governance committee. 2) Given that the gTLD thing is a done deal and Twomey is busy contracting teams of mercenary Solomons ... what can we do to keep the objection procedure narrow enough to serve its obvious intended purposes (keep off TLDs that are of widespread revulsion) without using it to stifle communities that are large and benign but objected to by some cultures (ie, .gay)? 3) Are we ever going to have an internal debate on the travel policy? Is there a way to craft input that doesn't sound totally self-serving? Please keep some of this in mind when planning for the ALAC call next week. - Evan
Evan, I definitely agree with you on this. On the issue of certain ones of ALAC shouldering almost all of the policy work - we need to build in some kind of accountability framework for ALAC. For example, how could any ALS that didn't attend those meetings have any idea if their elected ALAC members (both voting and NomCom) are doing the work they should be or not? How can they effectively vote if they don't have access to this information? Even if we could all see how many meetings our reps attended (during the year as well as in person) and how many were missed. Also, have they given input into any policy items during the year? Without even this bare bones information, its impossible to ascertain the effectiveness of ALAC. This is just one point of the many that you raised. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 12:44 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Paris debrief Hello everyone, On behalf of ALSs who didn't go to Paris, and indeed at least some of those who did, I would like to find out from the various At-Large attendees how you perceived At-Large's strategies and accomplishments. We were involved in a number of issues; the Summit, GNSO review, gTLD creation policy, and of course the ALAC Review. There were first (and in most cases very productive) meetings with GAC, NCUC, SSAC, GNSO and the registrar constituency. There was effectively no time to play tourist, though I do recall driving past the Louvre once or twice. Smokers will remember Paris as their dream venue, where you could light up without dirty looks, at least some of the people rolling their own cigarettes in the street were actually using tobacco. And Sebastien was as perfect a host as anyone could ask for, right up until the final evening at "Jimmy the Frog's" (or whatever the French name for it is...). Yet I cannot come away from the Paris without having felt At-Large to be the object of some kind of manipulation. I can't tell by how, or quite how, but it was definitely there. We had zero response on a travel policy that will certainly negatively affect At-Large's ability to accomplish its role over the coming years. And while I stand behind the positions taken on the issues, from a distance I can see how we came across as shrill and obstructionist. I am frankly tired of lurching from one panic-based ALAC reaction to another. It is distressing to see so few members of ALAC shouldering all the group's policy work. And I would really like, for once, enough opportunity to understand issues early enough to be able to take positions that are part of the solution rather than just trying to fix problems. Some of this is of ICANN staff's doing, through a pile of trivial little things that while not technically incorrect _seemed_ designed to keep us off balance. The timing of the release of the Westlake report seemed almost deliberately timed to force hasty response during Paris. The consultants themselves were clearly uncomfortable with the way that timing played out, and I seem to recall one of them indicating privately that they would have preferred to consult during Paris and release the draft docs afterwards. I am especially and thoroughly disgusted with the manipulation of the public forum, which was stage-managed to the point of being considerably even more useless than usual. And ICANN's translation strategy, while having made some improvements is still far behind what it needs to be for ICANN to go beyond the anglophone world. Of course At-Large is not without blame as well. The thing Westlake recommended with which I most agree was for the need of a strategic plan -- a prioritized list of issues and policies that require our focused attention and resources, set out enough in advance to give us the ability to be constructive participants. There are far too few ALAC members doing work that should be spread around to 15 people. On issues such as the RAA, my instinct says we should preparing ourselves for work on this yet I don't even know where to start. And if the involved people here don't know the basics upon which to discuss policy, I know it will be even harder getting ALSs aware (let alone involved). I have this sneaking suspicion that, sometime in the future, we will be in a panic situation rush-releasing a response on this too. Is this just me? Or does At-Large really need to seriously take stock of its strategies, priorities, and the allocation of our eager-to-help staff resources? In advance of the Summit I'd really like to see us with our collective act together better than it is now. Just PLEASE don't tell me that the response requires a return to obsession with process. And finally, getting back to the stuff still on the table. 1) It is now up to At-Large to propose _constructive_ reaction to the ALAC review, that builds upon whatever slivers of it that are agreeable and offers something of substance to the governance committee. 2) Given that the gTLD thing is a done deal and Twomey is busy contracting teams of mercenary Solomons ... what can we do to keep the objection procedure narrow enough to serve its obvious intended purposes (keep off TLDs that are of widespread revulsion) without using it to stifle communities that are large and benign but objected to by some cultures (ie, .gay)? 3) Are we ever going to have an internal debate on the travel policy? Is there a way to craft input that doesn't sound totally self-serving? Please keep some of this in mind when planning for the ALAC call next week. - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
With respect to accountability measures, I can tell you that the staff are working on publishing the information you are asking for below. It may take another week or two. You may already see who on the ALAC is taking on what obligations with respect to working groups, as this is published on st.icann.org/alac. On 03/07/2008 19:23, "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote: Evan, I definitely agree with you on this. On the issue of certain ones of ALAC shouldering almost all of the policy work - we need to build in some kind of accountability framework for ALAC. For example, how could any ALS that didn't attend those meetings have any idea if their elected ALAC members (both voting and NomCom) are doing the work they should be or not? How can they effectively vote if they don't have access to this information? Even if we could all see how many meetings our reps attended (during the year as well as in person) and how many were missed. Also, have they given input into any policy items during the year? Without even this bare bones information, its impossible to ascertain the effectiveness of ALAC. This is just one point of the many that you raised. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 12:44 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Paris debrief Hello everyone, On behalf of ALSs who didn't go to Paris, and indeed at least some of those who did, I would like to find out from the various At-Large attendees how you perceived At-Large's strategies and accomplishments. We were involved in a number of issues; the Summit, GNSO review, gTLD creation policy, and of course the ALAC Review. There were first (and in most cases very productive) meetings with GAC, NCUC, SSAC, GNSO and the registrar constituency. There was effectively no time to play tourist, though I do recall driving past the Louvre once or twice. Smokers will remember Paris as their dream venue, where you could light up without dirty looks, at least some of the people rolling their own cigarettes in the street were actually using tobacco. And Sebastien was as perfect a host as anyone could ask for, right up until the final evening at "Jimmy the Frog's" (or whatever the French name for it is...). Yet I cannot come away from the Paris without having felt At-Large to be the object of some kind of manipulation. I can't tell by how, or quite how, but it was definitely there. We had zero response on a travel policy that will certainly negatively affect At-Large's ability to accomplish its role over the coming years. And while I stand behind the positions taken on the issues, from a distance I can see how we came across as shrill and obstructionist. I am frankly tired of lurching from one panic-based ALAC reaction to another. It is distressing to see so few members of ALAC shouldering all the group's policy work. And I would really like, for once, enough opportunity to understand issues early enough to be able to take positions that are part of the solution rather than just trying to fix problems. Some of this is of ICANN staff's doing, through a pile of trivial little things that while not technically incorrect _seemed_ designed to keep us off balance. The timing of the release of the Westlake report seemed almost deliberately timed to force hasty response during Paris. The consultants themselves were clearly uncomfortable with the way that timing played out, and I seem to recall one of them indicating privately that they would have preferred to consult during Paris and release the draft docs afterwards. I am especially and thoroughly disgusted with the manipulation of the public forum, which was stage-managed to the point of being considerably even more useless than usual. And ICANN's translation strategy, while having made some improvements is still far behind what it needs to be for ICANN to go beyond the anglophone world. Of course At-Large is not without blame as well. The thing Westlake recommended with which I most agree was for the need of a strategic plan -- a prioritized list of issues and policies that require our focused attention and resources, set out enough in advance to give us the ability to be constructive participants. There are far too few ALAC members doing work that should be spread around to 15 people. On issues such as the RAA, my instinct says we should preparing ourselves for work on this yet I don't even know where to start. And if the involved people here don't know the basics upon which to discuss policy, I know it will be even harder getting ALSs aware (let alone involved). I have this sneaking suspicion that, sometime in the future, we will be in a panic situation rush-releasing a response on this too. Is this just me? Or does At-Large really need to seriously take stock of its strategies, priorities, and the allocation of our eager-to-help staff resources? In advance of the Summit I'd really like to see us with our collective act together better than it is now. Just PLEASE don't tell me that the response requires a return to obsession with process. And finally, getting back to the stuff still on the table. 1) It is now up to At-Large to propose _constructive_ reaction to the ALAC review, that builds upon whatever slivers of it that are agreeable and offers something of substance to the governance committee. 2) Given that the gTLD thing is a done deal and Twomey is busy contracting teams of mercenary Solomons ... what can we do to keep the objection procedure narrow enough to serve its obvious intended purposes (keep off TLDs that are of widespread revulsion) without using it to stifle communities that are large and benign but objected to by some cultures (ie, .gay)? 3) Are we ever going to have an internal debate on the travel policy? Is there a way to craft input that doesn't sound totally self-serving? Please keep some of this in mind when planning for the ALAC call next week. - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Dear All: It may be useful for you to know that actually I have heard quite a lot of positive comments about At-Large's work in Paris. There seems to be a widespread view that the community is working harder than in the past and that it is more engaged and constructive with each passing meeting. For what it is worth, I can say that with respect to the review, I have seen no evidence that there is anything deliberate about the timing of the release of the report from the perspective that you are wondering about below, Evan. What I can say is that there is a larger question, which a number of you discussed in Paris, about the number of simultaneous public consultations that start (and sometimes end) in close proximity to ICANN meetings, making it difficult for anyone to respond in the time allowed. Some steps have been taken to deal with this in respect of some consultations - you will see that at least one of them doesn't end until August. With respect to the travel policy, you will no doubt recall the statement on the first draft put forward by ALAC with community input. I can tell you that Doug absolutely did read this carefully and he spoke highly to me of the contents and the thoughtfulness it held. I do not know what Board members thought of it - perhaps Wendy will know more. On the point of reacting very late on the GTLD issue: We discussed this in Paris and everyone acknowledges that more needs to be done earlier to help ensure that all At-Large - and other stakeholder groups - are briefed earlier on issues and that the briefings take formats that are most useful for different groups. We have started to make some progress here I think - the two June briefings for example - and the policy briefs which have started to come out. I know of at least two additional briefings from Dave Piscitello of SSAC which he has said he'd like to arrange and you'll hear more soon. In summary I guess I would say that to me this seemed like the most effective meeting for the community that I've been a part of. You touched a nerve with your comments on morality and public order and it seemed to me that more than a few people agreed with you and that your statement did change the debate on the subject. I know that there will be many more opportunities for comment on the new GTLD issue as the implementation plans move forward and we will do all we can to ensure that you have the information that you need to decide what you want to say. On 03/07/2008 18:44, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote: Hello everyone, On behalf of ALSs who didn't go to Paris, and indeed at least some of those who did, I would like to find out from the various At-Large attendees how you perceived At-Large's strategies and accomplishments. We were involved in a number of issues; the Summit, GNSO review, gTLD creation policy, and of course the ALAC Review. There were first (and in most cases very productive) meetings with GAC, NCUC, SSAC, GNSO and the registrar constituency. There was effectively no time to play tourist, though I do recall driving past the Louvre once or twice. Smokers will remember Paris as their dream venue, where you could light up without dirty looks, at least some of the people rolling their own cigarettes in the street were actually using tobacco. And Sebastien was as perfect a host as anyone could ask for, right up until the final evening at "Jimmy the Frog's" (or whatever the French name for it is...). Yet I cannot come away from the Paris without having felt At-Large to be the object of some kind of manipulation. I can't tell by how, or quite how, but it was definitely there. We had zero response on a travel policy that will certainly negatively affect At-Large's ability to accomplish its role over the coming years. And while I stand behind the positions taken on the issues, from a distance I can see how we came across as shrill and obstructionist. I am frankly tired of lurching from one panic-based ALAC reaction to another. It is distressing to see so few members of ALAC shouldering all the group's policy work. And I would really like, for once, enough opportunity to understand issues early enough to be able to take positions that are part of the solution rather than just trying to fix problems. Some of this is of ICANN staff's doing, through a pile of trivial little things that while not technically incorrect _seemed_ designed to keep us off balance. The timing of the release of the Westlake report seemed almost deliberately timed to force hasty response during Paris. The consultants themselves were clearly uncomfortable with the way that timing played out, and I seem to recall one of them indicating privately that they would have preferred to consult during Paris and release the draft docs afterwards. I am especially and thoroughly disgusted with the manipulation of the public forum, which was stage-managed to the point of being considerably even more useless than usual. And ICANN's translation strategy, while having made some improvements is still far behind what it needs to be for ICANN to go beyond the anglophone world. Of course At-Large is not without blame as well. The thing Westlake recommended with which I most agree was for the need of a strategic plan -- a prioritized list of issues and policies that require our focused attention and resources, set out enough in advance to give us the ability to be constructive participants. There are far too few ALAC members doing work that should be spread around to 15 people. On issues such as the RAA, my instinct says we should preparing ourselves for work on this yet I don't even know where to start. And if the involved people here don't know the basics upon which to discuss policy, I know it will be even harder getting ALSs aware (let alone involved). I have this sneaking suspicion that, sometime in the future, we will be in a panic situation rush-releasing a response on this too. Is this just me? Or does At-Large really need to seriously take stock of its strategies, priorities, and the allocation of our eager-to-help staff resources? In advance of the Summit I'd really like to see us with our collective act together better than it is now. Just PLEASE don't tell me that the response requires a return to obsession with process. And finally, getting back to the stuff still on the table. 1) It is now up to At-Large to propose _constructive_ reaction to the ALAC review, that builds upon whatever slivers of it that are agreeable and offers something of substance to the governance committee. 2) Given that the gTLD thing is a done deal and Twomey is busy contracting teams of mercenary Solomons ... what can we do to keep the objection procedure narrow enough to serve its obvious intended purposes (keep off TLDs that are of widespread revulsion) without using it to stifle communities that are large and benign but objected to by some cultures (ie, .gay)? 3) Are we ever going to have an internal debate on the travel policy? Is there a way to craft input that doesn't sound totally self-serving? Please keep some of this in mind when planning for the ALAC call next week. - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Nick and all, Nice Cheerleading. Quite frankly though the ALAC punted on Domain Name Tasting, passed the buck on WHOIS accuracy, made little progress in determining a consensus position regarding GNSO review and restructure, and has yet to do much on new gTLD's. Some good progress seemed to be made on Fast-Flux and Front-Running. However there is not a determined or stated consensus on either of those two issues. Further, there is little progress made on the privacy front, DNSSEC, and DNS configuration which are key issues. Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear All:
It may be useful for you to know that actually I have heard quite a lot of positive comments about At-Large's work in Paris. There seems to be a widespread view that the community is working harder than in the past and that it is more engaged and constructive with each passing meeting.
For what it is worth, I can say that with respect to the review, I have seen no evidence that there is anything deliberate about the timing of the release of the report from the perspective that you are wondering about below, Evan. What I can say is that there is a larger question, which a number of you discussed in Paris, about the number of simultaneous public consultations that start (and sometimes end) in close proximity to ICANN meetings, making it difficult for anyone to respond in the time allowed. Some steps have been taken to deal with this in respect of some consultations - you will see that at least one of them doesn't end until August.
With respect to the travel policy, you will no doubt recall the statement on the first draft put forward by ALAC with community input. I can tell you that Doug absolutely did read this carefully and he spoke highly to me of the contents and the thoughtfulness it held. I do not know what Board members thought of it - perhaps Wendy will know more.
On the point of reacting very late on the GTLD issue: We discussed this in Paris and everyone acknowledges that more needs to be done earlier to help ensure that all At-Large - and other stakeholder groups - are briefed earlier on issues and that the briefings take formats that are most useful for different groups. We have started to make some progress here I think - the two June briefings for example - and the policy briefs which have started to come out. I know of at least two additional briefings from Dave Piscitello of SSAC which he has said he'd like to arrange and you'll hear more soon.
In summary I guess I would say that to me this seemed like the most effective meeting for the community that I've been a part of. You touched a nerve with your comments on morality and public order and it seemed to me that more than a few people agreed with you and that your statement did change the debate on the subject. I know that there will be many more opportunities for comment on the new GTLD issue as the implementation plans move forward and we will do all we can to ensure that you have the information that you need to decide what you want to say.
On 03/07/2008 18:44, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
On behalf of ALSs who didn't go to Paris, and indeed at least some of those who did, I would like to find out from the various At-Large attendees how you perceived At-Large's strategies and accomplishments.
We were involved in a number of issues; the Summit, GNSO review, gTLD creation policy, and of course the ALAC Review. There were first (and in most cases very productive) meetings with GAC, NCUC, SSAC, GNSO and the registrar constituency. There was effectively no time to play tourist, though I do recall driving past the Louvre once or twice.
Smokers will remember Paris as their dream venue, where you could light up without dirty looks, at least some of the people rolling their own cigarettes in the street were actually using tobacco. And Sebastien was as perfect a host as anyone could ask for, right up until the final evening at "Jimmy the Frog's" (or whatever the French name for it is...).
Yet I cannot come away from the Paris without having felt At-Large to be the object of some kind of manipulation. I can't tell by how, or quite how, but it was definitely there. We had zero response on a travel policy that will certainly negatively affect At-Large's ability to accomplish its role over the coming years. And while I stand behind the positions taken on the issues, from a distance I can see how we came across as shrill and obstructionist.
I am frankly tired of lurching from one panic-based ALAC reaction to another. It is distressing to see so few members of ALAC shouldering all the group's policy work. And I would really like, for once, enough opportunity to understand issues early enough to be able to take positions that are part of the solution rather than just trying to fix problems.
Some of this is of ICANN staff's doing, through a pile of trivial little things that while not technically incorrect _seemed_ designed to keep us off balance. The timing of the release of the Westlake report seemed almost deliberately timed to force hasty response during Paris. The consultants themselves were clearly uncomfortable with the way that timing played out, and I seem to recall one of them indicating privately that they would have preferred to consult during Paris and release the draft docs afterwards. I am especially and thoroughly disgusted with the manipulation of the public forum, which was stage-managed to the point of being considerably even more useless than usual. And ICANN's translation strategy, while having made some improvements is still far behind what it needs to be for ICANN to go beyond the anglophone world.
Of course At-Large is not without blame as well. The thing Westlake recommended with which I most agree was for the need of a strategic plan -- a prioritized list of issues and policies that require our focused attention and resources, set out enough in advance to give us the ability to be constructive participants. There are far too few ALAC members doing work that should be spread around to 15 people. On issues such as the RAA, my instinct says we should preparing ourselves for work on this yet I don't even know where to start. And if the involved people here don't know the basics upon which to discuss policy, I know it will be even harder getting ALSs aware (let alone involved). I have this sneaking suspicion that, sometime in the future, we will be in a panic situation rush-releasing a response on this too.
Is this just me? Or does At-Large really need to seriously take stock of its strategies, priorities, and the allocation of our eager-to-help staff resources? In advance of the Summit I'd really like to see us with our collective act together better than it is now. Just PLEASE don't tell me that the response requires a return to obsession with process.
And finally, getting back to the stuff still on the table.
1) It is now up to At-Large to propose _constructive_ reaction to the ALAC review, that builds upon whatever slivers of it that are agreeable and offers something of substance to the governance committee.
2) Given that the gTLD thing is a done deal and Twomey is busy contracting teams of mercenary Solomons ... what can we do to keep the objection procedure narrow enough to serve its obvious intended purposes (keep off TLDs that are of widespread revulsion) without using it to stifle communities that are large and benign but objected to by some cultures (ie, .gay)?
3) Are we ever going to have an internal debate on the travel policy? Is there a way to craft input that doesn't sound totally self-serving?
Please keep some of this in mind when planning for the ALAC call next week.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
participants (4)
-
Evan Leibovitch -
Jeffrey A. Williams -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Thompson, Darlene