Hi With the rapid changes of the agenda here in San Juan, and the concept of unfairness to the RALOs that are not physically present in San Juan – they need to have similar access. So we will set up a teleconference that we will advertise in good time, we will have time for questions, etc. Sorry for the back and forth, but schedules are such a mess here today with all the conflicting meetings. Thanks Jacqueline No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.10/875 - Release Date: 6/27/2007 9:08 PM
Jacqueline A. Morris ha scritto:
Hi
With the rapid changes of the agenda here in San Juan, and the concept of unfairness to the RALOs that are not physically present in San Juan – they need to have similar access.
So we will set up a teleconference that we will advertise in good time, we will have time for questions, etc.
May I put on the record that I find this wrong, and also unfair? I have been waiting for the entire week to have a chance for a frank discussion with the Committee about my nomination and the others. I have refrained from going around and doing a lot of campaigning, first of all because I think that the entire way we are thinking of this process is wrong and we should make it a productive discussion about who of us is best suited, rather than a beauty contest in which members of the Committee are pushed to please this or that other person at their request. And then, also because, as the current liaison, I am required to be in several additional meetings and have scarce opportunities to socialize or exchange views outside of our planned meetings. There are several members of the Committee, including some who joined just recently, with whom, differently from the other candidates, I have had no chance to exchange any opinion or explain what I think, and I do not think that a teleconference is a valid substitute for face to face discussion. Also, I am extremely concerned by the prospect of this going on for more time, possibly weeks. I am afraid that this would bring just more behind-the-scenes discussions and pressures for people to keep or change their opinion. I am already displeased by what happened in the LACRALO and I am afraid that this could bring more heated discussions in other RALOs, and in the end put the cohesion of our group and our entire constituency at risk, for a single appointment that is important, but less important than all the hot policy issues we have on the agenda. A lot of important policy decisions will be made this summer, and we should be working on them, not on appointments. I think that it would be a serious problem for me to be a "sub judice" liaison for several weeks. If most people think that there is the need for a change, let's just do it. By dragging this forward (and by the way, this would violate a good number of the rules of procedure that have taken us six months to agree, exactly because we did not want to have procedural discussions again), it would look like we cannot conduct our normal business in a serious manner, and this would damage the entire Committee. Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
In this I strongly agree with Vittorio. Let's get this election done here, as planned. I think all the candidates have welcomed questions in person and remotely from individuals, ALSs, and RALOs. Thanks, --Wendy Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Jacqueline A. Morris ha scritto:
Hi
With the rapid changes of the agenda here in San Juan, and the concept of unfairness to the RALOs that are not physically present in San Juan – they need to have similar access.
So we will set up a teleconference that we will advertise in good time, we will have time for questions, etc.
May I put on the record that I find this wrong, and also unfair?
I have been waiting for the entire week to have a chance for a frank discussion with the Committee about my nomination and the others. I have refrained from going around and doing a lot of campaigning, first of all because I think that the entire way we are thinking of this process is wrong and we should make it a productive discussion about who of us is best suited, rather than a beauty contest in which members of the Committee are pushed to please this or that other person at their request. And then, also because, as the current liaison, I am required to be in several additional meetings and have scarce opportunities to socialize or exchange views outside of our planned meetings.
There are several members of the Committee, including some who joined just recently, with whom, differently from the other candidates, I have had no chance to exchange any opinion or explain what I think, and I do not think that a teleconference is a valid substitute for face to face discussion.
Also, I am extremely concerned by the prospect of this going on for more time, possibly weeks. I am afraid that this would bring just more behind-the-scenes discussions and pressures for people to keep or change their opinion. I am already displeased by what happened in the LACRALO and I am afraid that this could bring more heated discussions in other RALOs, and in the end put the cohesion of our group and our entire constituency at risk, for a single appointment that is important, but less important than all the hot policy issues we have on the agenda. A lot of important policy decisions will be made this summer, and we should be working on them, not on appointments.
I think that it would be a serious problem for me to be a "sub judice" liaison for several weeks. If most people think that there is the need for a change, let's just do it. By dragging this forward (and by the way, this would violate a good number of the rules of procedure that have taken us six months to agree, exactly because we did not want to have procedural discussions again), it would look like we cannot conduct our normal business in a serious manner, and this would damage the entire Committee.
Thanks,
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
In this I strongly agree with Vittorio. Let's get this election done here, as planned. I think all the candidates have welcomed questions in person and remotely from individuals, ALSs, and RALOs.
Well, as I said, I think we should still have an opportunity to discuss this collectively as a group, and then hold the vote (which anyway has to be held online to accommodate the members that are not here). For the discussion, maybe we can find some time tomorrow. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
In this I strongly agree with Vittorio. Let's get this election done here, as planned. I think all the candidates have welcomed questions in person and remotely from individuals, ALSs, and RALOs.
Well, as I said, I think we should still have an opportunity to discuss this collectively as a group, and then hold the vote (which anyway has to be held online to accommodate the members that are not here). For the discussion, maybe we can find some time tomorrow.
Unfortunately I'm on a 1 pm flight, so tomorrow won't work for me. I hope we can have that discussion today. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
I hope the ALAC can arrive at suitable decision asap, the three candidates are all worthy from my view, and our ability to work well together going forward (without losing momentum) is paramount. On 6/28/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Jacqueline A. Morris ha scritto:
Hi
With the rapid changes of the agenda here in San Juan, and the concept of unfairness to the RALOs that are not physically present in San Juan – they need to have similar access.
So we will set up a teleconference that we will advertise in good time, we will have time for questions, etc.
May I put on the record that I find this wrong, and also unfair?
I have been waiting for the entire week to have a chance for a frank discussion with the Committee about my nomination and the others. I have refrained from going around and doing a lot of campaigning, first of all because I think that the entire way we are thinking of this process is wrong and we should make it a productive discussion about who of us is best suited, rather than a beauty contest in which members of the Committee are pushed to please this or that other person at their request. And then, also because, as the current liaison, I am required to be in several additional meetings and have scarce opportunities to socialize or exchange views outside of our planned meetings.
There are several members of the Committee, including some who joined just recently, with whom, differently from the other candidates, I have had no chance to exchange any opinion or explain what I think, and I do not think that a teleconference is a valid substitute for face to face discussion.
Also, I am extremely concerned by the prospect of this going on for more time, possibly weeks. I am afraid that this would bring just more behind-the-scenes discussions and pressures for people to keep or change their opinion. I am already displeased by what happened in the LACRALO and I am afraid that this could bring more heated discussions in other RALOs, and in the end put the cohesion of our group and our entire constituency at risk, for a single appointment that is important, but less important than all the hot policy issues we have on the agenda. A lot of important policy decisions will be made this summer, and we should be working on them, not on appointments.
I think that it would be a serious problem for me to be a "sub judice" liaison for several weeks. If most people think that there is the need for a change, let's just do it. By dragging this forward (and by the way, this would violate a good number of the rules of procedure that have taken us six months to agree, exactly because we did not want to have procedural discussions again), it would look like we cannot conduct our normal business in a serious manner, and this would damage the entire Committee.
Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
What happened with LAC RALO was an internal matter that was innecesarily made public and I don`t think it should be discussed any further José Ovidio Salgueiro A. jsalgueiro@cantv.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Vittorio Bertola To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Board liaison - more changes Jacqueline A. Morris ha scritto:
Hi
With the rapid changes of the agenda here in San Juan, and the concept of unfairness to the RALOs that are not physically present in San Juan – they need to have similar access.
So we will set up a teleconference that we will advertise in good time, we will have time for questions, etc.
May I put on the record that I find this wrong, and also unfair? I have been waiting for the entire week to have a chance for a frank discussion with the Committee about my nomination and the others. I have refrained from going around and doing a lot of campaigning, first of all because I think that the entire way we are thinking of this process is wrong and we should make it a productive discussion about who of us is best suited, rather than a beauty contest in which members of the Committee are pushed to please this or that other person at their request. And then, also because, as the current liaison, I am required to be in several additional meetings and have scarce opportunities to socialize or exchange views outside of our planned meetings. There are several members of the Committee, including some who joined just recently, with whom, differently from the other candidates, I have had no chance to exchange any opinion or explain what I think, and I do not think that a teleconference is a valid substitute for face to face discussion. Also, I am extremely concerned by the prospect of this going on for more time, possibly weeks. I am afraid that this would bring just more behind-the-scenes discussions and pressures for people to keep or change their opinion. I am already displeased by what happened in the LACRALO and I am afraid that this could bring more heated discussions in other RALOs, and in the end put the cohesion of our group and our entire constituency at risk, for a single appointment that is important, but less important than all the hot policy issues we have on the agenda. A lot of important policy decisions will be made this summer, and we should be working on them, not on appointments. I think that it would be a serious problem for me to be a "sub judice" liaison for several weeks. If most people think that there is the need for a change, let's just do it. By dragging this forward (and by the way, this would violate a good number of the rules of procedure that have taken us six months to agree, exactly because we did not want to have procedural discussions again), it would look like we cannot conduct our normal business in a serious manner, and this would damage the entire Committee. Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
As a person who has been working on this WS for more than one month, I apologize for the conflicting schedule for this IDN WS. First, I did not know that there would be a session with Ombudsman until 1:59 today. Later, I was told that the WS would not start until 2:30pm. When I returned to the conference room at 2:15, I found that all three speakers misunderstood the schedule change and wrongly believed that they were asked to leave this conference room by 2:30pm. As a result, they had scheduled other meetings after 2:30pm. To remedy this very unfortunate situation, the IDN discussions had to be split into 2 parts. First one was from 2:15pm to 3:00pm, and the Second one, hopefully, could be from 4:00-4:15pm. I apologize to the People who took precious time to join our policy discussion but were disappointed due to this schedule conflicts. Sincerely Hong On 6/28/07, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hi
With the rapid changes of the agenda here in San Juan, and the concept of unfairness to the RALOs that are not physically present in San Juan – they need to have similar access.
So we will set up a teleconference that we will advertise in good time, we will have time for questions, etc.
Sorry for the back and forth, but schedules are such a mess here today with all the conflicting meetings.
Thanks
Jacqueline
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.10/875 - Release Date: 6/27/2007 9:08 PM
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
I was totally outside the preparation of the today's meeting agenda, but I ran twice outside the room, first to find Jaqcueline taking lunch after 2 pm to start with the meeting with the Ombudsman which no ALAC members in the room were notified prior to that. then when I was coming back to the room, I met Ombudsman and General council coming out of the room, saying the meeting can be differed or something. That means Hong must come back and start the IDN workshop as already there were quite a few people outside ALS/ALAC waiting for the IDN meeting - so I ran out again and found Hong and explained her to come back. I think someone should really be managing the process in a more effective way. Chair, Staff, any other officer - or if that is enough, appoint someone from ALAC/RALO. This may relate to other functions of ALAC, now that 5 RALO in operation we have much more work to do. izumi 2007/6/29, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com>:
As a person who has been working on this WS for more than one month, I apologize for the conflicting schedule for this IDN WS. First, I did not know that there would be a session with Ombudsman until 1:59 today. Later, I was told that the WS would not start until 2:30pm. When I returned to the conference room at 2:15, I found that all three speakers misunderstood the schedule change and wrongly believed that they were asked to leave this conference room by 2:30pm. As a result, they had scheduled other meetings after 2:30pm. To remedy this very unfortunate situation, the IDN discussions had to be split into 2 parts. First one was from 2:15pm to 3:00pm, and the Second one, hopefully, could be from 4:00-4:15pm.
I apologize to the People who took precious time to join our policy discussion but were disappointed due to this schedule conflicts.
Sincerely
Hong
On 6/28/07, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hi
With the rapid changes of the agenda here in San Juan, and the concept of
unfairness to the RALOs that are not physically present in San Juan – they need to have similar access.
So we will set up a teleconference that we will advertise in good time, we
will have time for questions, etc.
Sorry for the back and forth, but schedules are such a mess here today
with all the conflicting meetings.
Thanks
Jacqueline
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.10/875 - Release Date: 6/27/2007
9:08 PM
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
Izumi Given that the workshop was to be moderated by someone not myself, and that I had almost constantly been in presentations since 8:30 am, I apologise profusely for believing that 2- 2:15 might be a reasonable time to take a bio-needs break and possibly hydration before going again virtually non-stop until 18:00. I am human and I do have biological needs, alas. At that time, the IDN workshops was under control as I knew that Hong was set and ready to go at 14:00. In my experience, the moderator starts and runs a workshop. There is no requirement for the chair of the sponsoring organisation to be there at the beginning of the workshop if not on the agenda. The geoTLDs workshop on Tuesday started without me as I was finishing up another meeting - why not this one? The ALAC also has a vice-Chair, who I believe was present. There was no Ombudsman meeting on the agenda, no meeting was requested to be at 14:00 from the ALAC, etc etc. So I cannot comprehend how the Ombudsman suddenly arriving and wanting to have a meeting with NO notice can possibly be predicted by anyone, and failure to predict the unpredictable... Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza@anr.org] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 4:24 PM To: Hong Xue Cc: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; ALAC internal list; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Board liaison - more changes I was totally outside the preparation of the today's meeting agenda, but I ran twice outside the room, first to find Jaqcueline taking lunch after 2 pm to start with the meeting with the Ombudsman which no ALAC members in the room were notified prior to that. then when I was coming back to the room, I met Ombudsman and General council coming out of the room, saying the meeting can be differed or something. That means Hong must come back and start the IDN workshop as already there were quite a few people outside ALS/ALAC waiting for the IDN meeting - so I ran out again and found Hong and explained her to come back. I think someone should really be managing the process in a more effective way. Chair, Staff, any other officer - or if that is enough, appoint someone from ALAC/RALO. This may relate to other functions of ALAC, now that 5 RALO in operation we have much more work to do. izumi 2007/6/29, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com>:
As a person who has been working on this WS for more than one month, I apologize for the conflicting schedule for this IDN WS. First, I did not know that there would be a session with Ombudsman until 1:59 today. Later,
I
was told that the WS would not start until 2:30pm. When I returned to the conference room at 2:15, I found that all three speakers misunderstood the schedule change and wrongly believed that they were asked to leave this conference room by 2:30pm. As a result, they had scheduled other meetings after 2:30pm. To remedy this very unfortunate situation, the IDN discussions had to be split into 2 parts. First one was from 2:15pm to 3:00pm, and the Second one, hopefully, could be from 4:00-4:15pm.
I apologize to the People who took precious time to join our policy discussion but were disappointed due to this schedule conflicts.
Sincerely
Hong
On 6/28/07, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hi
With the rapid changes of the agenda here in San Juan, and the concept
of unfairness to the RALOs that are not physically present in San Juan – they need to have similar access.
So we will set up a teleconference that we will advertise in good time,
we will have time for questions, etc.
Sorry for the back and forth, but schedules are such a mess here today
with all the conflicting meetings.
Thanks
Jacqueline
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.10/875 - Release Date:
6/27/2007 9:08 PM
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.10/875 - Release Date: 6/27/2007 9:08 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.10/875 - Release Date: 6/27/2007 9:08 PM
If it can be useful for cooling down the spirits, may I note that even the Board was heavily affected by rescheduling of events in the last couple of days. I have no explanation to offer on how and why it happened, but it happened on a wide scale, not affecting only ALAC. And you have seen another example already on Monday, when the rescheduling and moving rooms on short, if any, notice affected the GNSO workshop on the new gTLD and the BGC WG on the GNSO review. And I don't want even think to mention how annoyed I am that the voleyball tournament happened when the Board is in session. Regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline A. Morris Sent: 28 June 2007 18:41 To: 'Izumi AIZU'; 'Hong Xue' Cc: 'ALAC internal list'; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Board liaison - more changes
Izumi
Given that the workshop was to be moderated by someone not myself, and that I had almost constantly been in presentations since 8:30 am, I apologise profusely for believing that 2- 2:15 might be a reasonable time to take a bio-needs break and possibly hydration before going again virtually non-stop until 18:00. I am human and I do have biological needs, alas.
At that time, the IDN workshops was under control as I knew that Hong was set and ready to go at 14:00. In my experience, the moderator starts and runs a workshop. There is no requirement for the chair of the sponsoring organisation to be there at the beginning of the workshop if not on the agenda. The geoTLDs workshop on Tuesday started without me as I was finishing up another meeting - why not this one? The ALAC also has a vice-Chair, who I believe was present.
There was no Ombudsman meeting on the agenda, no meeting was requested to be at 14:00 from the ALAC, etc etc. So I cannot comprehend how the Ombudsman suddenly arriving and wanting to have a meeting with NO notice can possibly be predicted by anyone, and failure to predict the unpredictable...
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza@anr.org] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 4:24 PM To: Hong Xue Cc: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; ALAC internal list; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Board liaison - more changes
I was totally outside the preparation of the today's meeting agenda, but I ran twice outside the room, first to find Jaqcueline taking lunch after 2 pm to start with the meeting with the Ombudsman which no ALAC members in the room were notified prior to that. then when I was coming back to the room, I met Ombudsman and General council coming out of the room, saying the meeting can be differed or something.
That means Hong must come back and start the IDN workshop as already there were quite a few people outside ALS/ALAC waiting for the IDN meeting - so I ran out again and found Hong and explained her to come back.
I think someone should really be managing the process in a more effective way. Chair, Staff, any other officer - or if that is enough, appoint someone from ALAC/RALO.
This may relate to other functions of ALAC, now that 5 RALO in operation we have much more work to do.
izumi
2007/6/29, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com>:
As a person who has been working on this WS for more than
one month, I
apologize for the conflicting schedule for this IDN WS. First, I did not know that there would be a session with Ombudsman until 1:59 today. Later, I was told that the WS would not start until 2:30pm. When I returned to the conference room at 2:15, I found that all three speakers misunderstood the schedule change and wrongly believed that they were asked to leave this conference room by 2:30pm. As a result, they had scheduled other meetings after 2:30pm. To remedy this very unfortunate situation, the IDN discussions had to be split into 2 parts. First one was from 2:15pm to 3:00pm, and the Second one, hopefully, could be from 4:00-4:15pm.
I apologize to the People who took precious time to join our policy discussion but were disappointed due to this schedule conflicts.
Sincerely
Hong
On 6/28/07, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hi
With the rapid changes of the agenda here in San Juan, and the concept
of unfairness to the RALOs that are not physically present in San Juan - they need to have similar access.
So we will set up a teleconference that we will advertise in good time,
we will have time for questions, etc.
Sorry for the back and forth, but schedules are such a mess here today
with all the conflicting meetings.
Thanks
Jacqueline
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.10/875 - Release Date:
6/27/2007 9:08 PM
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC
Independent:
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.10/875 - Release Date: 6/27/2007 9:08 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.10/875 - Release Date: 6/27/2007 9:08 PM
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
participants (8)
-
Hong Xue -
Izumi AIZU -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Jose Ovidio Salgueiro A. -
Michael Maranda -
Roberto Gaetano -
Vittorio Bertola -
Wendy Seltzer