As speaking as one of the "newcomers", I know that I would definitely
appreciate a short history. I'm terrified to post anything here as I
don't feel that I understand the context/history enough to make a useful
contribution.
Thank you,
Darlene
Darlene A. Thompson
Community Access Program Administrator
Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP
P.O. Box 429
Pond Inlet, NU X0A 0S0
Phone: (867) 899-7363
Fax: (867) 899-7334
dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert
Guerra
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:07 PM
To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO documents
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Evan:
Wendy and others have long been involved in ICANN and have concerns
that should not be readily dismissed by newcomers. Might I suggest
Wendy and others spend the time to explain the context and history a
bit better...
In the meantime, my comments on a possible MoU are as follows:
The ALS in the NA region should develop a MoU that is far more
precise and detailed vis-a-vis the document which the latin american
region agreed to. Roles, responsibilities , expectations and
mechanisms ensure transparency of both ICANN and ALS's, i believe
must be precisely stated.
After all, with finances (ie. budget allocations) involved - the
document should be as tight as possible.
regards
Robert
On 31-Jan-07, at 10:52 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>> On the other hand, if the MoU is not a contract, it doesn't
>> provide the signing ALSs or RALO any remedies if ICANN breaches
>> the terms of its agreement such as by failing to support the
>> secretariat, failing to make documents available, or continued
>> lack of transparency. Perhaps the ALSs want stronger remedies --
>> i.e., maybe we want to push for a real contract with a real
>> possibility of money damages.
>>
>
> "We" (at least speaking for my personal participation in this "we")
> will
> NOT push for a "real contract" or monetary penalties, especially
> from a
> non-profit. In fact, "we" (from my POV) will actively oppose it. My
> ALS
> joined this process in order to assist ICANN, not aquire a collective
> opportunity to sue it.
>
> I for one am happy to go along with the process Nick described that
> LAC
> had done, in electing the reps upon completion of the MOU. As for
> contracts versus MOUs, if I am in the minority and people here really
> want the abilility to sue ICANN, then at least set the jurisdiction in
> Canada or somewhere else which has real social and/or legal
> disincentives to frivolous litigation.
>
> - Evan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-
> lists.icann.org
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003)
Charset: US-ASCII
wj8DBQFFwPbzy4WW7wlGmwMRAvRkAKCincjxfHFnhiHg6VTEbD/zGiTkhACg1kUP
k4IrUIy8r00klLi1xe7/NRw=
=nDE9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists
.icann.org
