I am of the view that the ALAC needs to write a very strong letter to the Board expressing their disgust with (1) the manner in which the ICANN Public Forum session was conducted that allowed for a very limited amount of time within which to interact with the Board and (2) the almost total lack of remote participation opportunities that were available to at-large members. As someone that attempted to participate remotely, I can't point to a single ALAC session that allowed for meaningful remote participation, nor were audio feeds available for many workshops. This has to be the worst case of both in-person and remote participation management that I have ever seen at an ICANN session.
This time I agree 100% with Danny
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:33:36 -0800> From: dannyyounger@yahoo.com> To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> CC: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] Letter to the Board> > I am of the view that the ALAC needs to write a very strong letter to the Board expressing their disgust with (1) the manner in which the ICANN Public Forum session was conducted that allowed for a very limited amount of time within which to interact with the Board and (2) the almost total lack of remote participation opportunities that were available to at-large members.> > As someone that attempted to participate remotely, I can't point to a single ALAC session that allowed for meaningful remote participation, nor were audio feeds available for many workshops. > > This has to be the worst case of both in-person and remote participation management that I have ever seen at an ICANN session.> > > > > > > _______________________________________________> At-Large mailing list> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/
Danny Younger ha scritto:
I am of the view that the ALAC needs to write a very strong letter to the Board expressing their disgust with (1) the manner in which the ICANN Public Forum session was conducted that allowed for a very limited amount of time within which to interact with the Board and (2) the almost total lack of remote participation opportunities that were available to at-large members.
As someone that attempted to participate remotely, I can't point to a single ALAC session that allowed for meaningful remote participation, nor were audio feeds available for many workshops.
He can speak for himself (not sure whether he is subscribed to this list) but Karl Auerbach, who could not make it to Cairo, tried to participate remotely both in the sessions of the WG he is part of and in other sessions, and was utterly frustrated as well. Also, I found it entirely unacceptable how the gentleman who was introduced by Beau in the gTLD workshop, and that started to expose ICANN's lack of compliance activities and its consequences on favouring phishing and spamming, was first somewhat harassed by the moderator of the session, who all of a sudden realized that he was running short of time and so asked the speaker to be brief, and then by one of the speakers on the podium. I am really astonished that there was no reaction by the ALAC to that. I already made my comments to the Board, as you saw, and several Board members told me that they share my views on the Public Forum. Unfortunately, not everyone does so; public comment is perceived by some as dangerous, as it may expose ICANN's shortcomings and put it under a bad light. There is a clear push "not to derail the train" coming from some of the people and parties who enjoy better treatment by ICANN, and it is hard to imagine that the bad scheduling and management of the Public Forum in Cairo were completely unintentional. This is why I agree with Danny that the ALAC needs to be very vocal. Actually, if I may, I suggest that, in case this kind of problem happens again, either the ALAC Chair from the floor or the ALAC Board Liaison from the podium should promptly make a statement, even if personal, to complain. But, at least, please write a kind but firm letter to the Board. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
I also very much agree and echo the opinion expressed about the very little time and attention and weight given to the public forum. Many have spent their money/time to come to Cairo, or, like me, ICANN has spent some money for that, and limiting that into just on hour does not make much sense at all. It is also inappropriate to mix the dignity speeches with the very serious business of dialogue. The lack of consultation for the preparation process of the meeting is, also, source of problem, too. Agenda is decided almost one-sided, the participants have no clue untli coming there, then found surprises, no time to react, make statement of protest later - that is not a well strucuture - after 10 years and 33 times of the meetings. izumi 2008/11/8 Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu>:
Danny Younger ha scritto:
I am of the view that the ALAC needs to write a very strong letter to the Board expressing their disgust with (1) the manner in which the ICANN Public Forum session was conducted that allowed for a very limited amount of time within which to interact with the Board and (2) the almost total lack of remote participation opportunities that were available to at-large members.
As someone that attempted to participate remotely, I can't point to a single ALAC session that allowed for meaningful remote participation, nor were audio feeds available for many workshops.
He can speak for himself (not sure whether he is subscribed to this list) but Karl Auerbach, who could not make it to Cairo, tried to participate remotely both in the sessions of the WG he is part of and in other sessions, and was utterly frustrated as well.
Also, I found it entirely unacceptable how the gentleman who was introduced by Beau in the gTLD workshop, and that started to expose ICANN's lack of compliance activities and its consequences on favouring phishing and spamming, was first somewhat harassed by the moderator of the session, who all of a sudden realized that he was running short of time and so asked the speaker to be brief, and then by one of the speakers on the podium. I am really astonished that there was no reaction by the ALAC to that.
I already made my comments to the Board, as you saw, and several Board members told me that they share my views on the Public Forum. Unfortunately, not everyone does so; public comment is perceived by some as dangerous, as it may expose ICANN's shortcomings and put it under a bad light. There is a clear push "not to derail the train" coming from some of the people and parties who enjoy better treatment by ICANN, and it is hard to imagine that the bad scheduling and management of the Public Forum in Cairo were completely unintentional. This is why I agree with Danny that the ALAC needs to be very vocal.
Actually, if I may, I suggest that, in case this kind of problem happens again, either the ALAC Chair from the floor or the ALAC Board Liaison from the podium should promptly make a statement, even if personal, to complain.
But, at least, please write a kind but firm letter to the Board.
Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
I disagree that it is not well structured. It is structured extremely well for an organization that wants to limit public participation and do as they please. They do not do all of that by accident. Chris McElroy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Izumi AIZU" <iza@anr.org> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 8:01 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Letter to the Board
I also very much agree and echo the opinion expressed about the very little time and attention and weight given to the public forum. Many have spent their money/time to come to Cairo, or, like me, ICANN has spent some money for that, and limiting that into just on hour does not make much sense at all.
It is also inappropriate to mix the dignity speeches with the very serious business of dialogue.
The lack of consultation for the preparation process of the meeting is, also, source of problem, too. Agenda is decided almost one-sided, the participants have no clue untli coming there, then found surprises, no time to react, make statement of protest later - that is not a well strucuture - after 10 years and 33 times of the meetings.
izumi
2008/11/8 Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu>:
Danny Younger ha scritto:
I am of the view that the ALAC needs to write a very strong letter to the Board expressing their disgust with (1) the manner in which the ICANN Public Forum session was conducted that allowed for a very limited amount of time within which to interact with the Board and (2) the almost total lack of remote participation opportunities that were available to at-large members.
As someone that attempted to participate remotely, I can't point to a single ALAC session that allowed for meaningful remote participation, nor were audio feeds available for many workshops.
He can speak for himself (not sure whether he is subscribed to this list) but Karl Auerbach, who could not make it to Cairo, tried to participate remotely both in the sessions of the WG he is part of and in other sessions, and was utterly frustrated as well.
Also, I found it entirely unacceptable how the gentleman who was introduced by Beau in the gTLD workshop, and that started to expose ICANN's lack of compliance activities and its consequences on favouring phishing and spamming, was first somewhat harassed by the moderator of the session, who all of a sudden realized that he was running short of time and so asked the speaker to be brief, and then by one of the speakers on the podium. I am really astonished that there was no reaction by the ALAC to that.
I already made my comments to the Board, as you saw, and several Board members told me that they share my views on the Public Forum. Unfortunately, not everyone does so; public comment is perceived by some as dangerous, as it may expose ICANN's shortcomings and put it under a bad light. There is a clear push "not to derail the train" coming from some of the people and parties who enjoy better treatment by ICANN, and it is hard to imagine that the bad scheduling and management of the Public Forum in Cairo were completely unintentional. This is why I agree with Danny that the ALAC needs to be very vocal.
Actually, if I may, I suggest that, in case this kind of problem happens again, either the ALAC Chair from the floor or the ALAC Board Liaison from the podium should promptly make a statement, even if personal, to complain.
But, at least, please write a kind but firm letter to the Board.
Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Cher tous, Il y a huit ans aujourd'hui, la création de france@large était publiée au Journal Officiel. http://www.franceatlarge.org/wiki/Status. Ceci fait de nous la plus ancienne structure at-large (ALS). Peut-être que dans les temps futurs le Personnel nous adressera la réponse officielle en Français à notre demande d'accréditation qu'ils nous ont promis (mais celui qui l'a promis est aussi parti : ils sont probablement débordés). Pour l'instant, je comprends qu'ils ont à notre sujet les problèmes suivants : - notre association n'existe pas - cette liste de diffusion elle-même n'existe pas - et pourtant nous sommes engagés dans des activités @large non-ICANN douteuses Nous avons fait et appris pas mal de choses durant ces huit ans, il va nous falloir plus que jamais les concrétiser face aux grands changements à venir. Bon anniversaire à nous-mêmes ! jfc --- Dear all, today, eight years ago, france@large's creation was published by the French Republic Official Journal. http://www.franceatlarge.org/wiki/Status. This makes us the eldest ALS. May be in some future time Staff will send us the official French response to our application they promised (but the one who has promised has also left : they probably are overloaded). So far, I understand they have problems with us because: - our organisation does not exist - this very mailing list does not exist - we are however engaged in suspicious non-ICANN only @large activities. We did and learned many things during these eigth years; more than never we have to build on them and face the big changes ahead. Happy birth-day to us! jfc
On 7 Nov 2008, at 14:33, Danny Younger wrote:
I am of the view that the ALAC needs to write a very strong letter to the Board expressing their disgust with (1) the manner in which the ICANN Public Forum session was conducted that allowed for a very limited amount of time within which to interact with the Board and (2) the almost total lack of remote participation opportunities that were available to at-large members.
As someone that attempted to participate remotely, I can't point to a single ALAC session that allowed for meaningful remote participation, nor were audio feeds available for many workshops.
This has to be the worst case of both in-person and remote participation management that I have ever seen at an ICANN session.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Were there issues with the Cairo meeting? Normally I'd have expected to see at least one press release per day etc., etc., I was also interested in following some of the "action" but couldn't see how Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Evan, The issue of local user participation ended up being less then optimal due to a couple of reasons. First, repeated requests for a room to host users was blocked - ewith the excuse given that rooms were not free. Of course that was not the case as the at large room was pretty well free when we were nothere. Icann and some alac members expressed the vire informally that a local user event was not in "in the remit of at-large" any sensitive ssues might require that "a formal appology" be given to thee egyptian govt offcials. When aked directly if the video could be shown at the enf of at alac meeting cheryl stated to me that it was possible, only if it was screen by her. I was not awarethat the chair has ever had vetting righs on content Local users did want to come, but with no possible ok from the chair or nick, an adhoc session had to be organized. With little adcance notice - of course few people came. Whilei was very disappointed with the turnout - it was good to see who did attend. It was mainly just the north americans. The rest , well did not seem interested. That alac and at large present did seem interested does not mean that local users did not want to meet us. Comments and blog posting in key MENA sites clearly show that the locals did want to meet us. On the larger issue of engagement, namely virtual participation - I was shocked by the lack of effort undertaken. No dial-in, no open skype (voice) chat, no virtual questions. While in the past (san juan, la, etc) dial-ups did take place - nothing was done in cairo. Voip, is easy to do - and there is no excuse not to allow for virtual participation. In an age where we are more connected then ever, to do nothing - well, if not to care in the least. Indeed, a formal complaint should b e lodged and actions taken to make sure virtual participation - at alac meetings and other icann sessions is not just considered, but actually done in a way that is effective and participatory. Icann can do better on this, it must .. As for the public forum - indeed it seems that the "public participation director" seems to have had little effect in enhancing public participation at meetings. Can one not learn from the US election and use youtube to seek questions and comments and play them back at thr meeting. Sigh. In summary, I think there is a bottom up interest for participation and dialogue - but these are resisted by management who prefer to control the agenda and keep desenting views to a min. What can be done - well, comment and participate using other channels . Perhaps interested actors would be well advised to submit a letter not to the board, but instead to the incoming adminstration . Robert On 11/12/08, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele@blacknight.ie> wrote:
On 7 Nov 2008, at 14:33, Danny Younger wrote:
I am of the view that the ALAC needs to write a very strong letter to the Board expressing their disgust with (1) the manner in which the ICANN Public Forum session was conducted that allowed for a very limited amount of time within which to interact with the Board and (2) the almost total lack of remote participation opportunities that were available to at-large members.
As someone that attempted to participate remotely, I can't point to a single ALAC session that allowed for meaningful remote participation, nor were audio feeds available for many workshops.
This has to be the worst case of both in-person and remote participation management that I have ever seen at an ICANN session.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Were there issues with the Cairo meeting? Normally I'd have expected to see at least one press release per day etc., etc., I was also interested in following some of the "action" but couldn't see how
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Sent from my mobile device
Dear Robert & Members: As I see that Cheryl has responded to various elements of the below, I will confine my remarks to providing a further clarification with respect to the remote participation issues that have been raised. Many of you will know that I had stated clearly some time in advance of the Cairo meeting that I would not ask for two-way telephonic remote participation at Cairo. This is not because it isn¹t important or because I wished to discourage participation, but because I have requested telephonic participation in every meeting since Sao Paulo, and every time the technical provisions have been entirely unsatisfactory. I have a good deal of personal expertise with the technology involved and I agree that it should work, that it does work for many other communities outside of ICANN, and that periodically it has sort-of worked for ICANN communities. However, it didn¹t seem reasonable to me to tell you all, once again, that we would setup remote participation only to have it be unfit for purpose. I don¹t enjoy letting people down and it seemed to me the better part of valour to see if the new vendor arrangements the Meetings staff are working with had a positive effect on the reliability of technical services for our meetings before trying again. I am informed by other colleagues that there were improvements to the remote participation telephonically in Cairo and the AV facilities in general thanks to new providers and other changes in the way meetings have been conducted. Unfortunately, it was my experience that many of the technical problems that have afflicted At-Large meetings in the past were still afflicting us in Cairo. I would be overjoyed to have reliable remote participation at our meetings via telephone and chat. I will say again what I have said many times, which is that I completely understand that this is not viewed as optional, but as absolutely necessary. I will commit once again to doing all that I can to improving remote participation facilities, but you must understand I am not in control of any aspect of the meetings beyond asking for facilities and room configurations. On 17/11/2008 05:12, "Robert Guerra" <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
Evan,
The issue of local user participation ended up being less then optimal due to a couple of reasons. First, repeated requests for a room to host users was blocked - ewith the excuse given that rooms were not free. Of course that was not the case as the at large room was pretty well free when we were nothere. Icann and some alac members expressed the vire informally that a local user event was not in "in the remit of at-large" any sensitive ssues might require that "a formal appology" be given to thee egyptian govt offcials.
When aked directly if the video could be shown at the enf of at alac meeting cheryl stated to me that it was possible, only if it was screen by her. I was not awarethat the chair has ever had vetting righs on content
Local users did want to come, but with no possible ok from the chair or nick, an adhoc session had to be organized. With little adcance notice - of course few people came. Whilei was very disappointed with the turnout - it was good to see who did attend. It was mainly just the north americans. The rest , well did not seem interested.
That alac and at large present did seem interested does not mean that local users did not want to meet us. Comments and blog posting in key MENA sites clearly show that the locals did want to meet us.
On the larger issue of engagement, namely virtual participation - I was shocked by the lack of effort undertaken. No dial-in, no open skype (voice) chat, no virtual questions. While in the past (san juan, la, etc) dial-ups did take place - nothing was done in cairo. Voip, is easy to do - and there is no excuse not to allow for virtual participation. In an age where we are more connected then ever, to do nothing - well, if not to care in the least. Indeed, a formal complaint should b e lodged and actions taken to make sure virtual participation - at alac meetings and other icann sessions is not just considered, but actually done in a way that is effective and participatory. Icann can do better on this, it must ..
As for the public forum - indeed it seems that the "public participation director" seems to have had little effect in enhancing public participation at meetings. Can one not learn from the US election and use youtube to seek questions and comments and play them back at thr meeting. Sigh.
In summary, I think there is a bottom up interest for participation and dialogue - but these are resisted by management who prefer to control the agenda and keep desenting views to a min. What can be done - well, comment and participate using other channels . Perhaps interested actors would be well advised to submit a letter not to the board, but instead to the incoming adminstration .
Robert
On 11/12/08, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele@blacknight.ie> wrote:
On 7 Nov 2008, at 14:33, Danny Younger wrote:
I am of the view that the ALAC needs to write a very strong letter to the Board expressing their disgust with (1) the manner in which the ICANN Public Forum session was conducted that allowed for a very limited amount of time within which to interact with the Board and (2) the almost total lack of remote participation opportunities that were available to at-large members.
As someone that attempted to participate remotely, I can't point to a single ALAC session that allowed for meaningful remote participation, nor were audio feeds available for many workshops.
This has to be the worst case of both in-person and remote participation management that I have ever seen at an ICANN session.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann>>> .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Were there issues with the Cairo meeting? Normally I'd have expected to see at least one press release per day etc., etc., I was also interested in following some of the "action" but couldn't see how
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.>> org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Sent from my mobile device
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... .org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.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
Robert, I'm just getting caught up on my e-mails but have the following comments in line with yours below. D ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Robert Guerra Sent: Sun 11/16/2008 11:12 PM To: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board Evan, The issue of local user participation ended up being less then optimal due to a couple of reasons. First, repeated requests for a room to host users was blocked - ewith the excuse given that rooms were not free. Of course that was not the case as the at large room was pretty well free when we were nothere. Icann and some alac members expressed the vire informally that a local user event was not in "in the remit of at-large" any sensitive ssues might require that "a formal appology" be given to thee egyptian govt offcials.
A local user event could have been in the remit of at-large but the video that you were wanting to present was on how Egyptian bloggers were getting crapped on by the Egyptian police and government. This issue is NOT in the remit of at-large and would have VERY likely required a formal apology to the Egyptian Government. We cannot be bringing whatever issues we want to an ICANN meeting that are not in ICANN's remit. YES, the treatment that these people are receiving needs to be brought to light but ICANN is not the venue for it. Also, I was shocked to see that you missed ICANN meetings in order to work on that video yourself. As our ALAC rep, you need to have a more narrow focus (on ICANN-related issues) while representing our region abroad. <
When aked directly if the video could be shown at the enf of at alac meeting cheryl stated to me that it was possible, only if it was screen by her. I was not awarethat the chair has ever had vetting righs on content
I don't blame her AT ALL, considering the content of the video. Also, if you had asked to show a "Save the Rainforests" video at an ICANN event, do you think that this should have been allowed? No, wrong content. <
Local users did want to come, but with no possible ok from the chair or nick, an adhoc session had to be organized. With little adcance notice - of course few people came. Whilei was very disappointed with the turnout - it was good to see who did attend. It was mainly just the north americans. The rest , well did not seem interested. That alac and at large present did seem interested does not mean that local users did not want to meet us. Comments and blog posting in key MENA sites clearly show that the locals did want to meet us.
They had multiple times to meet us in the evening and such and only one showed up. Not ONE of them showed up to any other ICANN sessions. Obviously, they weren't too interested in ICANN or its related issues. <
I agree with the rest of what you said below <
On the larger issue of engagement, namely virtual participation - I was shocked by the lack of effort undertaken. No dial-in, no open skype (voice) chat, no virtual questions. While in the past (san juan, la, etc) dial-ups did take place - nothing was done in cairo. Voip, is easy to do - and there is no excuse not to allow for virtual participation. In an age where we are more connected then ever, to do nothing - well, if not to care in the least. Indeed, a formal complaint should b e lodged and actions taken to make sure virtual participation - at alac meetings and other icann sessions is not just considered, but actually done in a way that is effective and participatory. Icann can do better on this, it must .. As for the public forum - indeed it seems that the "public participation director" seems to have had little effect in enhancing public participation at meetings. Can one not learn from the US election and use youtube to seek questions and comments and play them back at thr meeting. Sigh. In summary, I think there is a bottom up interest for participation and dialogue - but these are resisted by management who prefer to control the agenda and keep desenting views to a min. What can be done - well, comment and participate using other channels . Perhaps interested actors would be well advised to submit a letter not to the board, but instead to the incoming adminstration . Robert On 11/12/08, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele@blacknight.ie> wrote:
On 7 Nov 2008, at 14:33, Danny Younger wrote:
I am of the view that the ALAC needs to write a very strong letter to the Board expressing their disgust with (1) the manner in which the ICANN Public Forum session was conducted that allowed for a very limited amount of time within which to interact with the Board and (2) the almost total lack of remote participation opportunities that were available to at-large members.
As someone that attempted to participate remotely, I can't point to a single ALAC session that allowed for meaningful remote participation, nor were audio feeds available for many workshops.
This has to be the worst case of both in-person and remote participation management that I have ever seen at an ICANN session.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
Were there issues with the Cairo meeting? Normally I'd have expected to see at least one press release per day etc., etc., I was also interested in following some of the "action" but couldn't see how
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
-- Sent from my mobile device ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org <http://www.naralo.org/> ------
participants (10)
-
Andres Piazza -
Danny Younger -
Izumi AIZU -
JFC Morfin -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight -
NameCritic -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Robert Guerra -
Thompson, Darlene -
Vittorio Bertola