Hi Bill, I'd like you, EURALO and the ALAC to be very aware of a single point of concern to me in the Blog reply /thread you made in the link provided below... specifically the following... PLease note that Robyn as Chair of NCUC wrote to me in email appointing you as the NCUC liaison (i.e. advising me of you offer) I replied to her message with copy to staff, copy to ExCom list (PUBLIC) within minutes of the receipt of this advice and announced at the following ExCom and then full ALAC Meeting(s) that a Liaison from NCUC was most welcome and that you in my opinion with your involvement with EURALO a perfect fit for the Job, and expected in fact that you would be well aware of this reply as well as would have attended (if available) or reviewed our meetings since then (you are already on the relevant lists get notices links to agenda's etc.,) where the ALAC has discussed that we will need to appoint a Liaison to the NCSG (with the existing NCUC being a constituent part of that under the current model were working with) or review later complaints to us from both our previous NCUC Liaisons did not motivate us to appoint a replacement to Beau for a month or so before this change would need to occur any way in our view... Also the ALAC discussed that as we will attend the User House meeting and (with the exception of the single purpose IRT issue and our Joint Response / work activity that enveloped our time (and was conducted in the scheduled meeting time for NCUC and ALAC in Sydney) meetings since Mexico ( well Cairo actually) have been a duplication of effort and topic and that as we had a very full set of demands in our Seoul agenda, and as ALAC and RALO leaders had complained about the workload and requested more time to address policy development matters; unless Robyn proposed a topic that required a specific F2F between the NCUC as a GNSO constituency and our AC then we would only schedule the User House meeting and use the time for other priority meetings... In my reply to Robyn et.al and welcoming you as an NCUC Liaison to the ALAC I also covered off (in shorter form) all of that as well... Why you have not been made aware of all this immediate and welcoming response to your offer from the ALAC however I can not say. "For my part, I offered almost a month ago to serve as a liaison but never got a reply from ALAC, and am now told that they've decided they don't need to liaise with NCUC. And to my knowledge there's no NCUC-ALAC meeting planned for Seoul. Hard to see how this is going to go anywhere but downhill from here, but whatever, I guess. " CLO 2009/9/23 William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Hello,
I see on the agenda item 3, "ALAC response to recent activities of the NCUC."
Given the general lack of NCUC-ALAC dialogue and information sharing, I'm guessing that not everybody will be equally aware of the background. To that end, the following links might be worth perusing prior to the discussion.
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/22/4329523.html
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ncuc-to-beckstrom-18aug09-en.pdf
Thanks,
Bill
PS: I will probably have to leave the call after an hour
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)