- EURO-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Voting procedure for ALAC seats
by Roberto Gaetano May 20, 2007

May 20, 2007

I take note that you still avoid answering the question. Thanks for confirming what I thought. RG > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org] > Sent: 20 May 2007 02:12 > To: Roberto Gaetano > Cc: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe'; 'Nick Ashton-Hart' > Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Voting procedure for ALAC seats > > On 2007-05-20 01:27:38 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > > > Incidentally, can we have a list of who can speak, as we > have for the > > time being already excluded Nick, as staff, and yours > truly, as Board > > member, but you still have said nothing to comment the > proclaim I have > > referenced in my previous email (attached again, in case it was > > forgotten), that you have carefully avoided to comment? Is this > > behaviour by a former ALAC Chair acceptable? > > Is *this* behavior by an ICANN Board Member -- mostly, > consisting of putting words into others' mouths (which they > haven't said) -- acceptable? > > I don't think so. > -- > Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org>

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Voting procedure for ALAC seats
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 19, 2007

May 19, 2007

That wasn't the point Thomas. You all will have to sort things out between yourselves. The point was that it isn't usual or good practice to explain votes, state support for candidates, or anything related to an election during an election, except to raise a point of clarification if there is a lack of understanding. My statement was a statement of fact, a reminder of good practice in the conduct of elections. On 18/05/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> wrote: > On 2007-05-18 21:45:39 +0100, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > May I suggest to everyone that it is usual, during voting, not to > > either explain votes, state support for candidatures or choices, > > or the opposite. > > May I suggest that this is a question that the parties affected can > very well sort out without staff supervision? > > -- > Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

3 2

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Voting procedure for ALAC seats
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 19, 2007

May 19, 2007

True it is a view - one that is informed by 20 years of experience working in international decision-making processes, so it is a rather well-informed view. Nobody can force anyone in the community to conform to operating in a procedural framework that is viewed as good or best practice in international relations. However, choosing to ignore what is legitimating and pursuing something which has the opposite effect does not, again in my experience, lead to a positive end. Nor, to be frank, does it lead to a discussion which results in productive work being done. It does tend to lead to quite the opposite situation. As to what staff should or should not be doing - it is definitely the role of staff in a secretariat to act as observers of processes and to provide input on what options for good governance and decision-making frameworks are available. It is the job of the community to implement, or not, the advice. Like all advice, you are free to use it or not as you wish. I'm sure the German members of the EURALO will recall the excellent maxim of Bismarck: "Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. I learn from the mistakes of others." Something I've tried to keep firmly in mind throughout my life (not always terribly successfully it must be said). My experience in this area is pretty long - there are some others, like Roberto, who have long experience as well. Hearing the benefit of my experience in these areas will not hurt you, or anyone else here - whether you avail yourself of it or not is up to you. On 19/05/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> wrote: > On 2007-05-19 22:42:43 +0100, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > My statement was a statement of fact, a reminder of good practice > > in the conduct of elections. > > Your statement was one particular view as to how elections are to be > conducted. Others might disagree. > > Very frankly, I don't think you should be pushing this particular > kind of discussion from the staffer's seat. > > -- > Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Keep the documentation
by Roberto Gaetano May 19, 2007

May 19, 2007

I hope that all the discussions going on now will remain as a record for the time in which the ALAC Review will take place. It will be interesting to know, for the reviewers, how much time is spent on substantial discussions, and how much time on procedural matters. In particular, how much time is spent in revisiting former consensus decisions taken only few months earlier. >From the attitude point of view, what is appalling, looking from the outside, is how a couple of people have inherited the Jeff William syndrome, i.e. the belief that when they speak, that means that this is the consensus position, and just because the majority does not have neither time nor envy to reply to each and every message, that becomes the consensus, overriding previous decisions. Last but not least, I do not take sides on what form of vote will be more democratic, I just only note that there is one fundamentally undemocratic approach, which is to change the rules of an election on the day before the elections, when nominations are already closed (based on the previous rules). Whether this is on the voting mechanism for ALAC reps, or on the number of seats for the Board. The only good thing is that, as I hoped, all ALSes have signed, making the whole fandango raised on the MoU a complete loss of time. Incidentally, I will write to a trusted third party my forecast on the result, and that can be compared at the end with what really happened. It is a bit funny, because I have the impression that there's a lot of noise for an election that, for the ALAC seats, has the result already known, if you just sit down and think. Cheers, Roberto

5 7

May ALS Applications Vote Results
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 19, 2007

May 19, 2007

Dear At-Large Community: On behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee, I'm please to report the the results of the ALS Application vote for the month of May. Note that all ALS applications in this round were approved, with the exception of: Slovenian Consumers Association (ZPS) National Consumers League These applications were not rejected, however; they will need to be the subject of another vote. The reason is that as the Bylaws of ICANN provide, at least 9 votes must be cast for an application to be accredited or not accredited. Since the total votes cast is calculated as the sum of 'Yes' and 'No' votes), and in the case of these two applications the number of abstentions was so great that only 7 actual votes were cast for Slovenian Consumers Association, and only 3 for National Consumers League, an insufficient number of votes requires a revote to be held. Those who have abstained will of course identify the information that they require in order to reach a voting position and at that point the vote will be retaken. Each candidate organisation has been separately notified of the results of the voting and provided with information relevant to their situation as per usual today. Please extend a hearty welcome to the newest members of the At-Large world! Detailed Report: May 2007 ALS Application Vote Results Report date: Fri 18 May 2007 09:18 BST No Vote Received: Annette Muehlberg Should Alberta Community Network Association (ACNA) be accredited? As at: Mon 14 May 2007 13:00 BST Number of voters: 12 Number of Votes: 11 Answer Count % of Vote Voters Yes 11 100.00 Alice Wanjira-Munyua, Izumi Aizu, Siavash Shahshahani, Vittorio Bertola, Carlos Aguirre, Jacqueline Morris, Jose Ovidio Salgueiro, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-orr, Hawa Diakite, Mohamed El Bashir No 0 0.00 Abstain 1 Wendy Seltzer Should Association for Community Networking (AFCN) be accredited? As at: Mon 14 May 2007 13:00 BST Number of voters: 12 Number of Votes: 11 Answer Count % of Vote Voters Yes 11 100.00 Alice Wanjira-Munyua, Izumi Aizu, Siavash Shahshahani, Vittorio Bertola, Carlos Aguirre, Jacqueline Morris, Jose Ovidio Salgueiro, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-orr, Hawa Diakite, Mohamed El Bashir No 0 0.00 Abstain 1 Wendy Seltzer Should Slovenian Consumers Association (ZPS) be accredited? As at: Mon 14 May 2007 13:00 BST Number of voters: 12 Number of Votes: 7 Vote Count % of Vote Voters Yes 7 100.00 Alice Wanjira-Munyua, Izumi Aizu, Vittorio Bertola, Jacqueline Morris, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-orr, Mohamed El Bashir No 0 0.00 Abstain 5 Siavash Shahshahani, Carlos Aguirre, Jose Ovidio Salgueiro, Wendy Seltzer, Hawa Diakite Should Telecommunities Canada be accredited? As at: Mon 14 May 2007 13:00 BST Number of voters: 12 Number of Votes: 9 Vote Count % of Vote Voters Yes 7 77.77 Alice Wanjira-Munyua, Izumi Aizu, Vittorio Bertola, Jacqueline Morris, Jose Ovidio Salgueiro, Hawa Diakite, Mohamed El Bashir No 2 22.23 Carlos Aguirre, Alan Greenberg Abstain 3 Siavash Shahshahani, Wendy Seltzer, Cheryl Langdon-orr Should Consumers Protection Centre (KEPKA) be accredited? As at: Mon 14 May 2007 13:00 BST Number of voters: 12 Number of Votes: 9 Vote Count % of Vote Voters Yes 9 100.00 Alice Wanjira-Munyua, Izumi Aizu, Siavash Shahshahani, Vittorio Bertola, Carlos Aguirre, Jacqueline Morris, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-orr, Hawa Diakite No 0 0.00 Abstain 3 Jose Ovidio Salgueiro, Wendy Seltzer, Mohamed El Bashir Should EFN be accredited? As at: Mon 14 May 2007 13:00 BST Number of voters: 12 Number of Votes: 11 Answer Votes % Voters Yes 11 100.00 Alice Wanjira-Munyua, Izumi Aizu, Siavash Shahshahani, Vittorio Bertola, Carlos Aguirre, Jacqueline Morris, Jose Ovidio Salgueiro, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-orr, Hawa Diakite, Mohamed El Bashir No 0 0.00 Abstain 1 Wendy Seltzer Should National Consumers' League be accredited? As at: Mon 14 May 2007 13:00 BST Number of voters: 12 Number of Votes: 3 Answer Votes % Voters Yes 3 100.00 Siavash Shahshahani, Vittorio Bertola, Jacqueline Morris No 0 0.00 Abstain 9 Alice Wanjira-Munyua, Izumi Aizu, Carlos Aguirre, Jose Ovidio Salgueiro, Alan Greenberg, Wendy Seltzer, Cheryl Langdon-orr, Hawa Diakite, Mohamed El Bashir Should Consumer Reports Webwatch be accredited? As at: Mon 14 May 2007 13:00 BST Number of voters: 12 Number of Votes: 9 Answer Votes % Voters Yes 9 100.00 Alice Wanjira-Munyua, Izumi Aizu, Siavash Shahshahani, Vittorio Bertola, Jacqueline Morris, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-orr, Hawa Diakite, Mohamed El Bashir No 0 0.00 Abstain 3 Carlos Aguirre, Jose Ovidio Salgueiro, Wendy Seltzer Should Internauta Brasil be accredited? As at: Mon 14 May 2007 13:00 BST Number of voters: 12 Number of Votes: 11 Answer Votes % Voters Yes 11 100.00 Alice Wanjira-Munyua, Izumi Aizu, Siavash Shahshahani, Vittorio Bertola, Carlos Aguirre, Jacqueline Morris, Jose Ovidio Salgueiro, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-orr, Hawa Diakite, Mohamed El Bashir No 0 0.00 Abstain 1 Wendy Seltzer Should ISOC Burundi be accredited? As at: Mon 14 May 2007 13:00 BST Number of voters: 12 Number of Votes: 11 Answer Votes % Voters Yes 11 100.00 Alice Wanjira-Munyua, Izumi Aizu, Siavash Shahshahani, Vittorio Bertola, Carlos Aguirre, Jacqueline Morris, Jose Ovidio Salgueiro, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-orr, Hawa Diakite, Mohamed El Bashir No 0 0.00 Abstain 1 Wendy Seltzer _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge- lists.icann.org ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac ALAC Official: http://alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org

4 3

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Vote for EURALO board size
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 19, 2007

May 19, 2007

It is an interesting approach, however, I would suggest that changing the way that votes are to be counted in the middle of the vote - as a procedure - would be at best very highly irregular. Since a number of votes have already been cast, on the natural and published assumption that the votes would be counted in the normal way, I would have to say that insisting on counting in a different way such as has been proposed would invalidate the current votes, and require a re-vote. I hope very much to be frank that we can avoid doing that - and reiterate my previous suggestion that the EURALO needs urgently to turn to discussing and agreeing Rules of Procedure for its work so that the way in which decisions are made can be less contentious, and not inadvertently contain procedural innovations which I think any outside party who has worked in international relations would see as, at best, very questionable. On 18/05/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > Interesting approach. I personally like it (but I am not a voting member). > > I assume that we are all aware of the fact that in this case the option that > has the relative majority might not be the winner. > For instance, having 17 votes, we might have: > > 5 - 3 votes > 7 - 3 votes > 9 - 3 votes > all - 8 votes > > and the winner will be 9 (not all). > Similarly, if we have: > > > 5 - 8 votes > 7 - 3 votes > 9 - 3 votes > all - 3 votes > > the winner will be 7 (not 5). > This has the advantage of favouring the central area of the spectrum, > minimizing the global unhappiness instead of maximizing the local happiness. > > It is worthed noting that if you start from the other end, i.e. from 5, and > go up, stopping when you have the majority of the valid votes, you will end > at the same point (if my maths are correct). > > Cheers, > Roberto > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: euro-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Dr. Christoph Bruch > Sent: 18 May 2007 21:00 > To: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe' > Subject: [EURO-Discuss] Vote for EURALO board size > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > I was asked by several people how we would count the votes for the size of > the EURALO board. > > > > According to my understanding we start with the "include all" option. > > If this option does not reach the majority, these votes will be added to the > "membership of 9" votes. > > If this option does not reach the majority, these votes will be added to the > "membership of 7" votes. ... > > > > Christoph > > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Voting procedure for ALAC seats
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 18, 2007

May 18, 2007

Christophe: Whilst I appreciate the spirit of compromise behind this proposal, may I remind everyone that this would be changing the decision reached in Lisbon on how to proceed - and at the last minute before the vote called for as agreed at that meeting. Again, this proposal would be a reconsideration of the decision of Lisbon. I would suggest, like on another proposal earlier to reconsider Lisbon outcomes, that the community should only entertain reconsidering something if there is the obvious support for doing so. That would, if we use the international standard for reconsideration of decisions, mean that two-thirds of the ALSes would have to agree to reconsider. If we continue down the path we are on, may I stress that you are simply deferring any discussion on real policy far into the future, you are endangering the ability of the ALAC members you (eventually) choose being able to attend and represent you in Lisbon, etc. I cannot imagine that any of you really wish to spend months more discussing procedure, having just spent years doing so? May I also further point out that holding a vote on the candidates is clearly the most democratically-recognised method of choosing your representatives. Let the voters decide! On 11/05/07, Dr. Christoph Bruch <bruch(a)humanistische-union.de> wrote: > Dear all, > > we are about to take decisions which will have a strong influence not only > on the way internet user from Europe are represented within ALAC but also in > what atmosphere we will continue our cooperation. > > I got the impression we are dealing with a constituency more or less split > in half on whom to elect for the 2 ALAC seats: one group favouring > Patrick/Sebastian the other group favouring Veronica > > Therefore I suggest that we agree on sending Veronica and either Patrick or > Sebastian. > > That would leave us with two decisions: > - Patrick or Sebastian > - Who Veronica or Patrick/Sebastian should get the 2-year term. > > If we can reach the agreement and decide the two remaining questions, we > would either skip the vote or vote in a way to reach the desired result. > > This way the rules would not be bent. > > Maybe Patrick and Sebastian could negotiate amongst themselves who would > withdraw his candidacy if we reach the agreement described above. > > Christoph > > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

3 2

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Voting procedure for ALAC seats
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 18, 2007

May 18, 2007

May I suggest to everyone that it is usual, during voting, not to either explain votes, state support for candidatures or choices, or the opposite. After the voting ends is the usual point at which explanations of a vote, if there are any, are to be expected. Nick On 18/05/07, Christoph Bruch <bruch(a)zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > Hi Nick, > Just for the record: I did not propose to bend or change the agreed voting > procedure. > I suggested to find a compromise and to then vote accordingly. > Christoph > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: euro-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Nick > Ashton-Hart > Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Mai 2007 14:32 > An: Dr. Christoph Bruch > Cc: Discussion for At-Large Europe > Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Voting procedure for ALAC seats > > Christophe: > > Whilst I appreciate the spirit of compromise behind this proposal, may > I remind everyone that this would be changing the decision reached in > Lisbon on how to proceed - and at the last minute before the vote > called for as agreed at that meeting. > > Again, this proposal would be a reconsideration of the decision of > Lisbon. I would suggest, like on another proposal earlier to > reconsider Lisbon outcomes, that the community should only entertain > reconsidering something if there is the obvious support for doing so. > That would, if we use the international standard for reconsideration > of decisions, mean that two-thirds of the ALSes would have to agree to > reconsider. > > If we continue down the path we are on, may I stress that you are > simply deferring any discussion on real policy far into the future, > you are endangering the ability of the ALAC members you (eventually) > choose being able to attend and represent you in Lisbon, etc. I cannot > imagine that any of you really wish to spend months more discussing > procedure, having just spent years doing so? > > May I also further point out that holding a vote on the candidates is > clearly the most democratically-recognised method of choosing your > representatives. Let the voters decide! > > On 11/05/07, Dr. Christoph Bruch <bruch(a)humanistische-union.de> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > we are about to take decisions which will have a strong influence not only > > on the way internet user from Europe are represented within ALAC but also > in > > what atmosphere we will continue our cooperation. > > > > I got the impression we are dealing with a constituency more or less split > > in half on whom to elect for the 2 ALAC seats: one group favouring > > Patrick/Sebastian the other group favouring Veronica > > > > Therefore I suggest that we agree on sending Veronica and either Patrick > or > > Sebastian. > > > > That would leave us with two decisions: > > - Patrick or Sebastian > > - Who Veronica or Patrick/Sebastian should get the 2-year term. > > > > If we can reach the agreement and decide the two remaining questions, we > > would either skip the vote or vote in a way to reach the desired result. > > > > This way the rules would not be bent. > > > > Maybe Patrick and Sebastian could negotiate amongst themselves who would > > withdraw his candidacy if we reach the agreement described above. > > > > Christoph > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > EURO-Discuss mailing list > > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i > cann.org > > > > > -- > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > PO Box 32160 > London N4 2XY > United Kingdom > UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 > Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / > Skype: nashtonhart > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i > cann.org > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 1

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Vote for EURALO board size
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 18, 2007

May 18, 2007

Currently the ballot has options for voters to choose 5, 7, 9, or all candidates. Each of those options therefore has equal treatment with respect to potential votes, and an equal chance to receive the largest number of votes. Voting is currently underway as you know. On 18/05/07, Dr. Christoph Bruch <bruch(a)humanistische-union.de> wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > I was asked by several people how we would count the votes for the size of > the EURALO board. > > > > According to my understanding we start with the "include all" option. > > If this option does not reach the majority, these votes will be added to the > "membership of 9" votes. > > If this option does not reach the majority, these votes will be added to the > "membership of 7" votes. ... > > > > Christoph > > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

October 2007 Meeting Location Announced
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 18, 2007

May 18, 2007

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17may07.htm Location of Third ICANN Meeting for 2007 17 May 2007 ICANN advises that the public meeting scheduled to be held from 29 October through 2 November 2007 will take place in Los Angeles, California, USA. ICANN holds three public meetings each year. The location of these meetings are rotated through the five ICANN regions and selected on the basis of proposals received from various local groups interested in hosting the meeting. The announced region for the location of the October 2007 meeting was Asia Pacific. A review of proposals from two potential hosts determined that it was not possible to proceed at this time due to various logistical issues. ICANN examined a number of non-hosted locations in the Asia Pacific in attempt to adhere to the Asia Pacific rotation. Again, for reasons of logistics, cost and seasonal demand, it proved extremely difficult to find a location. Given this situation it has been decided to locate this meeting in Los Angeles. Without a host this maximizes the capacity of staff to resource the event in an efficient and economical way. The location is also a major travel hub and the quantity of hotel accommodation means that this should prove to be a less expensive meeting than some other options. ICANN recognizes that, following the upcoming meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, this means two meetings in a row held in the United States. As a result, ICANN today is posting a request for proposal to host ICANN meetings in 2008, as well as the dates and rotations for meetings to be held in 2009 and 2010. As part of this posting, ICANN has modified the rotation to designate the region for the first meeting in 2008 as Asia Pacific. The next scheduled North American meeting has been removed from the rotation. Due to the increased participation at the ICANN meetings, significant changes have been made to the requirements to host an ICANN meeting, with ICANN assuming more responsibility for planning and finances. Proposals to host the three 2008 meetings will be accepted through 15 June 2007. The 2008 – 2010 meeting rotation schedule can be found at http:// www.icann.org/meetings/ and the request for proposal to host ICANN meetings in 2008 can be found at http://www.icann.org/meetings/rfp/ rfp-2007.htm. Questions regarding hosting a meeting should be addressed to the ICANN meeting staff at meeting(a)icann.org. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0