Vittorio, Please see my comments in line below. Others on the Summit WG may also wish to contribute to this. Darlene ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Fri 2/15/2008 6:03 AM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: summit-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Resolution of the Board of Directors related to the proposed Summit Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:

Dear All:

I wanted to ensure you saw this as soon as it became available. This is the text of the resolution related to the proposed Summit adopted unanimously at the public ICANN Board Meeting today in New Delhi

I need some clarifications...

At-Large Structures Summit

Whereas, the At-Large Advisory Committee is now supported by five Regional At-Large Organizations comprised of more than one hundred At- Large Structures. Whereas, members of the ALAC, RALOs, and At-Large Structures believe that a face-to-face meeting of at least one person from each of these structures in conjunction with an ICANN meeting would facilitate their coordination and work on ICANN policy matters relating to the interests of individual Internet users.

I am not sure whether I understand the wording. If this means "*all* members believe that...", I don't think that there was sufficient consultation with the RALOs and the ALSes - actually in several cases there was none yet - so I don't know how one can say that. If this means that "*not all* members..."(i.e., "members of" implies that it is not the ALAC as a whole that believes that), does that imply that a formal request to set up the Summit has not been presented yet by the ALAC? In other words, I am not sure whether the ALAC already submitted a formal request as a group, or whether this is a preliminary solicitation by the Board for a formal request. In this case, the ALAC should promptly oblige. D: There most definitely was sufficient consultation with the RALOs and ALSs. After the meeting in San Juan, the Secretariats of each region were charged with the duty of taking this proposal to their ALSs and seeing if there was support for it. All Secretariats reported back that there was overwhelming support. If you do not think that this is true in some region, you may wish to contact that Secretariat directly to discuss your concerns. Also, yes, a formal request has been put to the Board.

Whereas, the ALAC and constituents have been planning for such a Summit since ICANN's San Juan meeting.

Whereas, this would be a special event associated with the completion of the establishment of the At-Large Advisory Committee.

This seems to imply that it is being perceived as a "once in a lifetime" event, not as the first of a series (or at least, for the moment, there is the desire to state clearly that the possible funding of this one will not constitute a commitment to fund other similar events in the future). D: Perhaps the Board does perceive it that way. Its up to us to prove the value of such a Summit to the Board to get further funding support for future Summits. You are right in saying that they are certainly not committing at this time to fund other similar events - or even this one.

Whereas, many of the ALAC At-Large structures are unable to cover the costs of sending a representative to an ICANN meeting for this purpose.

Resolved (2008.02.15.12), the Board directs Staff to work with the ALAC to finalise a proposal that will fund one person from each At- Large Structure to attend the proposed Summit, for consideration as part of the 2008-2009 operating plan and budget process.

The way I interpret this is: - the Board asks the staff to transform all these talks into a final proposal; - the Board commits the organization to examine the proposal, on the same level and with the same procedures as any other proposal submitted by any party for something to be funded by ICANN; - there is no commitment yet by the Board, or auspices that the proposal is approved, which is obvious since there is no proposal yet; D: Odd assumption to make, Vittorio, since there is a formal proposal in their hands. - in any case, since this project is referred to the 2008-2009 planning process, and since the 2008-2009 FY starts on July 1st, the Summit will definitely not happen in Paris. Or does the 2008-2009 process include activities in the first half of 2008? D: Correct. It definitely will not happen in Paris. Even outside of the "funding" issue is also the fact that there is just not enough time to organize an effective Summit in that short a period of time. We want to WOW them and come across with specific deliverables. Do I get it well? D: Not too badly! Also, to respond to the "group hug" theory in another e-mail my response is: #1 - We have sharpened our pencils to reduce the costs of such a venture to around $230K. #2 - This figure is a "worst case scenario" and assumes 100% ALS participation. This is NOT going to happen (although it would be awesome if it did) because: 1) there will always be scheduling conflicts; and 2) we are developing specific criteria that all ALSs will have to follow in order to be approved for the Summit. This means that each ALS will have to do their homework on issues relevant to their areas and be prepared to discuss them. No prep = no travel. This is not a free ride. We are projecting that we will get somewhere between 50-75% ALS commitment/attendance; thereby reducing the costs even further. Thanks, D: Thank you for your interest! -- 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 <http://www.alac.icann.org/> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org <http://www.icannalac.org/>

Again, see inline comments below. Its gettin' messy (visually, not politically) but I can't think of another way to do it! ________________________________ From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu] Sent: Fri 2/15/2008 9:21 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; summit-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Resolution of the Board of Directors related to the proposed Summit Thompson, Darlene ha scritto:

The way I interpret this is: - the Board asks the staff to transform all these talks into a final proposal; - the Board commits the organization to examine the proposal, on the same level and with the same procedures as any other proposal submitted by any party for something to be funded by ICANN; - there is no commitment yet by the Board, or auspices that the proposal is approved, which is obvious since there is no proposal yet;

D: Odd assumption to make, Vittorio, since there is a formal proposal in their hands.

That's why I don't understand. If they already have a proposal, then why are they asking staff to finalize a proposal for consideration? Is the proposal that was submitted incomplete, or do they want changes, or what else? It is also true that anything submitted to the Board takes time for preparation before it can be decided upon. I don't know when the proposal was submitted, but perhaps there was just no time to examine the proposal in Delhi and this is why this sort of "interim" resolution was passed. D: Fairly accurate. It was submitted to them about a month ago (or less, memory hazy on this one) but there is still a TON of work to be done for an undertaking of this size (funding criteria for travel, agenda, materials, etc.). We were unable to give them a point-by-point document on all of the deliverables or how exactly we will achieve them. So, we were looking for this type of "interim" resolution before we wasted hundreds of man hours giving them explicit details. I mean, if they were going to blow the idea off before we even got started, then why waste the time, right?

- in any case, since this project is referred to the 2008-2009 planning process, and since the 2008-2009 FY starts on July 1st, the Summit will definitely not happen in Paris. Or does the 2008-2009 process include activities in the first half of 2008?

D: Correct. It definitely will not happen in Paris. Even outside of the "funding" issue is also the fact that there is just not enough time to organize an effective Summit in that short a period of time. We want to WOW them and come across with specific deliverables.

So are you aiming for the African meeting? D: Yes

#2 - This figure is a "worst case scenario" and assumes 100% ALS participation. This is NOT going to happen (although it would be awesome if it did) because: 1) there will always be scheduling conflicts; and 2) we are developing specific criteria that all ALSs will have to follow in order to be approved for the Summit. This means that each ALS will have to do their homework on issues relevant to their areas and be prepared to discuss them. No prep = no travel. This is not a free ride.

This seems a very good idea and I encourage you to make it very clear in the submission - according to my perception, there is a growing concern that ICANN is not making good use of the money it puts on travel support expenses, since in some cases there are people who would have something to say and would need funding but don't fall into the present rules and so don't get funded, and in others there are people who are being funded but never make significant contributions. Connecting funding with actual policy work is going to make a difference in how the proposal will be evaluated. D: Yes, that is VERY clearly stated in the proposal. Further, we also stated that if they don't show up to at least 50% of the meetings then they wouldn't be funded for future travel. We want this process to be very transparent and results oriented for the very reasons that you state. (I still think that 50% is a rather low mark and we may want to adjust that upwards - barring illness, travel glitches or other unforeseen occurences). Ciao, D: Cheers! -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

Wendy and all my friends, I agree that this summit WG and for that matter the ALAC in general should be self funding/supporting. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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 Wendy Seltzer wrote:

Thanks for the conversation regarding the summit. Let me try to clarify, since I think the resolution is a clear step forward.

The ALAC and its summit working group thought that the summit proposal was at a stage where a) it should be shown to the board, and b) it would be helped by board interest. I worked with the summit working group to prepare a brief presentation that outlined our proposed outcomes and goals, as well as the requested support. The board discussed the matter, and the resolution you see <http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15feb08.htm#_Toc64643094> comes from that discussion.

As the Board said in approving the resolution unanimously, the Board supports the principle of an ALS Summit and wants to ensure that ALAC has the right support to complete all the necessary steps to get there.

We were not asking the Board for specific commitment of funds, because we shouldn't and don't need to. Staff can help us to put the specific request into the budget.

Regarding the choice of venue, I know the working group had been planning for the Paris meeting and many members believed this centrally located venue would lower costs and contribute to the Summit's success. I conveyed those aims to the Board, but as you may know, the meetings this fiscal year (ICANN's FY runs from June) have already been considerably more expensive than anticipated. For many, therefore, it was simply not reasonable to add another meeting-related expense to this fiscal year.

So, the resolution demonstrates support, from the directors of ICANN, for ALAC and the At-Large community to plan a summit of ALSs -- inviting a representative from /every/ ALS to meet in person at an ICANN meeting. We should take that as encouragement to finalize the outline and proposal, and also to proceed with briefing and preparatory materials, agendas, and the related materials that will make the Summit a stirring success at engaging at-large in support of ongoing ICANN policy work.

Thanks for all the help in getting the Board to see the importance of At-Large engagement. Now let's make it happen!

--Wendy

Thompson, Darlene wrote:

...

Again, see inline comments below. Its gettin' messy (visually, not politically) but I can't think of another way to do it!

________________________________

From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu] Sent: Fri 2/15/2008 9:21 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; summit-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Resolution of the Board of Directors related to the proposed Summit

Thompson, Darlene ha scritto:

...

The way I interpret this is: - the Board asks the staff to transform all these talks into a final proposal; - the Board commits the organization to examine the proposal, on the same level and with the same procedures as any other proposal submitted by any party for something to be funded by ICANN; - there is no commitment yet by the Board, or auspices that the proposal is approved, which is obvious since there is no proposal yet;

D: Odd assumption to make, Vittorio, since there is a formal proposal in their hands.

That's why I don't understand. If they already have a proposal, then why are they asking staff to finalize a proposal for consideration? Is the proposal that was submitted incomplete, or do they want changes, or what else? It is also true that anything submitted to the Board takes time for preparation before it can be decided upon. I don't know when the proposal was submitted, but perhaps there was just no time to examine the proposal in Delhi and this is why this sort of "interim" resolution was passed.

D: Fairly accurate. It was submitted to them about a month ago (or less, memory hazy on this one) but there is still a TON of work to be done for an undertaking of this size (funding criteria for travel, agenda, materials, etc.). We were unable to give them a point-by-point document on all of the deliverables or how exactly we will achieve them. So, we were looking for this type of "interim" resolution before we wasted hundreds of man hours giving them explicit details. I mean, if they were going to blow the idea off before we even got started, then why waste the time, right?

...

- in any case, since this project is referred to the 2008-2009 planning process, and since the 2008-2009 FY starts on July 1st, the Summit will definitely not happen in Paris. Or does the 2008-2009 process include activities in the first half of 2008?

D: Correct. It definitely will not happen in Paris. Even outside of the "funding" issue is also the fact that there is just not enough time to organize an effective Summit in that short a period of time. We want to WOW them and come across with specific deliverables.

So are you aiming for the African meeting?

D: Yes

...

#2 - This figure is a "worst case scenario" and assumes 100% ALS participation. This is NOT going to happen (although it would be awesome if it did) because: 1) there will always be scheduling conflicts; and 2) we are developing specific criteria that all ALSs will have to follow in order to be approved for the Summit. This means that each ALS will have to do their homework on issues relevant to their areas and be prepared to discuss them. No prep = no travel. This is not a free ride.

This seems a very good idea and I encourage you to make it very clear in the submission - according to my perception, there is a growing concern that ICANN is not making good use of the money it puts on travel support expenses, since in some cases there are people who would have something to say and would need funding but don't fall into the present rules and so don't get funded, and in others there are people who are being funded but never make significant contributions. Connecting funding with actual policy work is going to make a difference in how the proposal will be evaluated.

D: Yes, that is VERY clearly stated in the proposal. Further, we also stated that if they don't show up to at least 50% of the meetings then they wouldn't be funded for future travel. We want this process to be very transparent and results oriented for the very reasons that you state. (I still think that 50% is a rather low mark and we may want to adjust that upwards - barring illness, travel glitches or other unforeseen occurences).

Ciao,

D: Cheers! -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.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