- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Question about the process of selecting ALAC members
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 15, 2007

Feb. 15, 2007

Dear all: Since a query was raised about the possibility of the Nominating Committee having a potential role in the appointment of NA ALAC Reps, I wanted you to see the reply by Dan Halloran in respect of this point. The quotation is my question; his outdented text below is the reply. Please note that the query below that is in reference to when ALAC members must be elected post-RALO formation; I've included this here, as it may be of use: -------- > If a region wishes to adopt a procedure to require consensus in > choosing its two regional ALAC members whereby, if consensus cannot > be reached, the decision is referred to an entity external to At- > Large, can they do this? The NA region is discussing referring > deadlocks to the Nominating Committee, instead of simply voting > based upon a vote. I think the Bylaws are clear that it is the responsibility of the RALO to select the two ALAC members. The RALO could maybe refer to an external source for guidance or suggestions, but the ultimate responsibility for making the selection rests with the RALO. I do not think it would be appropriate to allow the ICANN Nominating Committee to take over the responsibility for selecting ALAC members from the RALO. The Bylaws specify that the NomCom picks 5 out of 15 ALAC members, and it would not be appropriate to grant the NomCom more selections by ceding them from the RALOs. Also the ALAC is responsible for picking 5 out of 17 members for the NomCom, and we need to avoid any drift towards "circularity" in all these committees. (Perhaps something could be worked out with the NomCom where they would share information about willing and qualified but not-selected candidates? But that's a far stretch from directly allowing the NomCom to appoint the RALO's ALAC members ...) > Some regions are wondering if they should delay electing their > ALAC representatives until the ICANN AGM each year. Of course LAC > didn't choose to do this, and I have advised them that they are > under no obligation to wait; they can elect new ALAC members (or re- > elect the same people) to replace the Board appointees upon > signature of the MoU. RALOs don't have to wait until the AGM to elect their ALAC members. The terms of the two members coincide with the end of alternating AGMs, but the RALOs can (and probably should) hold their elections for those postions in advance of the actual AGM. On your further question on point 3, the Bylaws do explicitly provide that new RALO-selected ALAC members will immediately displace the Board-appointed Interim members: "Upon the entry of each RALO into such a Memorandum of Understanding, that entity shall be entitled to select two persons who are citizens and residents of that Region to be members of the At-Large Advisory Committee established by Article XI, Section 2(4) of the New Bylaws. Upon the entity's written notification to the ICANN Secretary of such selections, those persons shall immediately assume the seats held until that notification by the Interim At-Large Advisory Committee members previously selected by the Board from the RALO's region." <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#XX-7.5 > -- -- 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 2

Newest Accredited At-Large Structures
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 15, 2007

Feb. 15, 2007

Good afternoon all! Since Annette Muehlberg, Chair of the At-Large Advisory Committee is ill, I have been asked to pass along the following: The Interim ALAC conducted a vote on pending ALS applications during the period of 16th January 2007 at 12 noon and through 6th February 2007 at 12 noon ((GMT)). The respective ALSes are being informed about the result by ICANN staff. According to the by-laws, a minimum of 9 members must vote, and the results are based on a 2/3 majority of the members voting. In this election, 14 members voted. Majority required: 9 votes (see below). We hope you will join us in welcoming them to their respective regions. Applicant Yes No Abstain (76) Barbados Information and Communications Technology Professionals Association 12 0 1 (78) ISOC France 13 0 (77) ISOC Puerto Rico 12 0 1 (75) ISOC Tunisia 13 0 (80) USUARIA 12 0 1 Voters Annette Yes to all Carlos Yes to all Hong Yes to all Siavash Yes to 3 Abstain to 2 Abstain - BIIPA, ISOC Puerto Rico Vittorio Yes to all Pierre Yes to 4 Abstain to 1 Abstain - USUARIA Wendy Yes to all John Yes to all Jacqueline Yes to all Alice Yes to all Alan Yes to all on Telcon 6th Feb Izumi Yes to all on Telcon 6th Feb José Yes to all -- 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

ALAC Working Wiki now accessible by the public
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 13, 2007

Feb. 13, 2007

Good morning all! I'm happy to inform you that the ALAC's recent decision to open up their working SocialText Wiki has been implemented. It can be reached two ways: 1) Directly at http://alac.icann.org, selecting 'ALAC Working Wiki' from the left-hand-side navigation panel; 2) by directly visiting https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee There are a number of resources currently housed here - meeting agendas in preparation, open items to be discussed by the committee, draft and finalised minutes, and recordings of ALAC teleconferences. Shortly I will be working out a way to allow inbound emailing of comments to pages, so that the community can make suggestions and comments which will appear automatically on the pages of the Wiki. It is also possible to subscribe to an RSS feed of specific pages, so you can follow updates that way. -- 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

Planning for Lisbon / February Events
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 12, 2007

Feb. 12, 2007

Hello everyone! February and March are going to be busy months in the At-Large world, so I thought I'd give you a quick update on the happenings :) NORTH AMERICA Friday, Feb 23rd, Vancouver, Canada - 10:30 – 11:30 am Pacific Standard Time Telecommunities Canada is hosting an open “ICANN Outreach” session at the Pacific Community Networks Association 2007 Summit: Strategic use of ICTs for Communities, Vancouver, February 23-25, 2007. < http://www.2007summit.ca/> Access to the meeting via videoconference over the Internet will be available for those interested. ASIA PACIFIC Wednesday, 28th February - Bali, Indonesia - 0900-1800 Local Time The Asia-Pacific At-Large Community will be meeting in conjunction with APRICOT 2007 (http://www.2007.apricot.net/) to finalise their draft Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN to form the APRALO. Access to the meeting for AP ALSes unable to attend the meeting, which is receiving travel support assistance from ICANN, will be available via videoconference over the Internet. LISBON ICANN INTERNATIONAL MEETING The African ALS community, and the European ALS Community, will both be meeting at the ICANN Lisbon international meeting March 26-30 2007, with their sessions tentatively scheduled to start on Saturday 24th March just prior to the start of the official ICANN meeting schedule. The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) will also as per usual be meeting in formal sessions during the Lisbon Meeting. For further information, see http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon and for the At-Large Community Calendar for Lisbon visit http:// www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=vvq3rhenvo6dp41d4av1ocbacc% 40group.calendar.google.com. African and European ALS representatives will very shortly receive full details on how to apply for travel support for the Lisbon meetings! Stay tuned! -- 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

down the rathole, he says
by Michael Maranda Feb. 9, 2007

Feb. 9, 2007

On 2/8/07, John L <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > I hope you saw the message that Danny Younger sent out earlier this > morning, in which he reports on his experience that people tend to focus > on the meta-discussions of organizing and never get to the actual issues. > This is the exact rathole that you are diving down. Please, accept the > possibility that the experience of everyone who has done this before is > relevant here, and that there are valid reasons that I and other people > with ICANN experience are opposed to repeating courses of action that have > only lead to failure. > > Like I've been saying, if you want to do stuff, do it. You don't need a > RALO. In fact, given all the baggage that ICANN brings with it, if you > are interested in Internet issues other than what domains go in the root, > you're much better off doing your organizing without ICANN's distractions. > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com I'm glad you have a sense of humor here. Simple rebuttal: When in the course of human events we find it necessary to deal with a range of issues very connected with ICANN but not exclusive to ICANN, we may find it necessary to follow some of the guidelines of the ALAC process and form this structure, making use of this RALO structure to accomplish our ends, so as to avoid the criticism that, as an outside structure we have not followed their ICANN-ALAC process.. You have not stated with any clarity why the RALO should not be undertaken in this way, and it is clear to me that this is the only why or way of organizing the RALO. Again, if you don't think this is worth it, what do you fear from it's formation? Do you really wish to save us from ourselves? Do you wish to spare us some fiction? Please.... if you don't believe in it, don't obstruct. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org

6 15

Re: [NA-Discuss] Let's get Face to Face in reasonable time frame
by Thompson, Darlene Feb. 8, 2007

Feb. 8, 2007

John, Quick question, because I really don't know: Will ICANN be paying for a rep from each ALS to be in San Juan? 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 John L Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:18 PM To: Michael Maranda Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Let's get Face to Face in reasonable time frame > This is all very clear to me, so i propose we begin planning for a future > face to face meeting, and simultaneously advance the documents. Gee, we all agree. Mark the last week in June on your calendars, in San Juan. That's when ICANN meets, so you can get to know not only sourpusses like me, but the people who actually make ICANN run. It's too hot and damp, but that's life. > I would like to propose a process whereby we can explore the development of > the documents in online mode... is anyone familiar with "BeyondYes"? > http://beyondyes.org We already have draft documents on the well managed ICANN Wiki, which uses the same Mediawiki software. http://www.icannwiki.org/Naralo I'd encourage us to keep it there. Brandon Sanders, who oversees the ICANN Wiki, did a fantastic job working with the ALAC to bring other documents to closure, and if needed I'm sure he'd be happy to help us, too. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

3 2

Let's get Face to Face in reasonable time frame
by Michael Maranda Feb. 8, 2007

Feb. 8, 2007

A number of us here: 1) value the formation of a RALO 2) value face-to-face meeting as part of that process The Vancouver meeting was shot down, some being reasonable but individual objections, others being irrelevant and obstructionist I favor more active involvement among US partners, however, whether there are enough US ALSs now is not the point. When the RALO is formed, the RALO cannot preclude forrmation of additional ALSs anywhere, and would work with them as they form. If the RALO takes form and doesnt bind itself in ways that it doesnt need to, and it forms in a way that becomes of value to its constituents, then others will see tha value of its effort and judge accordingly whether to involve themselves and even whether to attain ALS status if they dont have it. This is all very clear to me, so i propose we begin planning for a future face to face meeting, and simultaneously advance the documents. I would like to propose a process whereby we can explore the development of the documents in online mode... is anyone familiar with "BeyondYes"? http://beyondyes.org I'm net married to it, I am just offering this as an online process grounded in principles of consensus, or perhaps more aptly termed, "Dynamic Alignment" Be assured, as an ALS applicant, and as someone involved in Community Networking and Internet and Media Policy - I am committed to a useful RALO, and I am committed to partnership among ALSs. I am also committed to friendship with colleagues across the border. I dont think we need to rehash old battles - and it sounds to me that some are burned by past processes that have disenfranchised. Together we have to build our collective power to counter that. It is precisely for this reason we must take action now, and that we must not unneccessarily constrain our scope of action or that of the RALO. We're having a family crisis - the health of my father-in-law - so please forgive me if I am delayed in reply. My best to all, Michael Maranda, President Association For Community Networking

2 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 8, 2007

Feb. 8, 2007

At 08/02/2007 10:19 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote: >Question: > >Alan, you stated that I think that for a NARALO >to have a chance of succeeding, there needs to >be more US-based ALSs in existence and >participating in the RALO creation >process. Why, specifically, US-based ALSs for a chance of succeeding? The US is 90% of the population. In my opinion, we need a significant number of US ALSs to be considered representative of North America and I do not think that having a RALO primarily populated by Canadian groups will help the US ALS cause. Perhaps unfortunate, but that is my opinion unless someone can convince me otherwise. > >Also, I definitely agree with Michael Marandas >opinions. We are not trying to create some >complicated structure as I understand has been >done in the past just attempting to form up >under the processes that are in place at this >time.. Personally, I thought that it would be >important for the Canadian ALSs and US ALSs to >get together since some of our US counterparts >have more experience in this group than some of >the newer ones coming in from Canada. There >would be valuable information to share and, >perhaps, give us better focus in order to be >more effective. Also, I never really saw the >Vancouver meeting as being the definitive >meeting to create the NA RALO but more of a >preliminary one to bring everybody up to speed. There are two points here, whether face-to-face meetings will help the cause, and whether the proposed Vancouver was a good idea. Taking the second point first, I agree that this meeting would NOT have been the "definitive" NARALO meeting. Unfortunately, precedent with other regions indicates that ICANN has been willing to fund just one such organizational meeting. And no one from ICANN has indicated otherwise for North America. Which is why I said that I supported ICANN funding this meeting *IF* it was not considered the definitive NARALO organizational meeting. Regarding the value of face-to-face meetings, I disagree with John. I find value in such meetings and I think that people work differently (and perhaps better) with each other after having met in person. Perhaps it is a generation thing - I have only been using e-mail for half of my life (starting in 1976 - 30 years ago). If I had started earlier in life, perhaps it would be the medium of choice. Optimally, I would recommend a meeting early in the NARALO organizational process, and a second one towards the end. But "early" still means when there is already a critical mass of US-based ALSs. > >I guess those south of the border dont see this >as being important, though. Its rather a shame. Perhaps. Perhaps the message has not been properly communicated. Or perhaps the ALS concept simply has little meaning for a country which boasts 65 web sites for every 100 people (Canada is about 12, and Mexico (not part of ICANN's NA) is 3). Perhaps since Queen Elizabeth is the official Chief of State of Canada, we should really be in the EURALO, then the US could form its own RALO. Or not... Alan PS Please note that the part about the Queen and EURALO is a JOKE!! > >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 > >---------- >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:43 PM >To: Luc Faubert; Nick Ashton-Hart; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver > >I was offline most of last week, and am just starting to catch up. > >My position was not quite as you stated. I felt >that a NARALO formation meeting was not >appropriate at this time. I was quite happy to >have the meeting take place with funding from >ICANN, but as a meeting primarily aimed at Canadian ALSs. > >I think that for a NARALO to have a chance of >succeeding, there needs to be more US-based ALSs >in existence and participating in the RALO >creation process. I agree with John that their >should be significant progress made >electronically, although I believe that a >face-to-face meeting prior to the formal signing >would be a good thing. However, having the >definitive NARALO formation meeting with so few >US ALSs and only one in attendance is both premature and a recipe of failure. > >For the record, I could not attend the meeting due to other commitments. > >Alan > >At 02/02/2007 03:14 PM, Luc Faubert wrote: > > >Nick, > >If I understand well, you're telling us that >Wendy Seltzer, John Levine and Alan Greenberg, >the North American ALAC reps have decided that a >NARALO formation meeting is not a good idea? > >Given that their mandate includes -- at least >for Wendy and John who have the NA interim seats >-- "assist[ing] in the formation and >qualification of At-Large Structures and >Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs)" (see >"Responsibilities of the Interim ALAC" at ><http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/>http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/ >), I guess I'm missing something here. > >I would appreciate explanations from our 3 ALAC >reps, as I don't recall them stating their views >on this list. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken, >_______________________________________________ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >--- >Draft MoU with ICANN: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > >Draft Operating Principles: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] Not Really Pointless Meeting in Vancouver
by Michael Maranda Feb. 8, 2007

Feb. 8, 2007

I appreciate your array of credentials John. Very nice. I've done my share of volunteering on related issues (though not isomorphic), and much of my travel to conferences and the modest amount of testimony I have offered to various branches of government has mostly been on my dime, too. I'm also an organizer. I dont see that experience in the bio you offered, but maybe you left that out, for brevity. I consider some degree of organizing deeply relevant to an ALS, to a RALO, and to this process. One aspect of effective organizing is patience. You need not suffer fools gladly, but you might want to figure out whether they are in fact fools/naive etc before dismissing everything based on the weight of your experience. You have asked "why not work within this particular structure" to accomplish what we want. You miss the point of organizing, and education and outreach are closely tied to organizing. This requires a certain social sensibility. As to past failures you have mentioned - and I wonder whether, in fact whether they were total failures or if there was value in the attempt. Imagine an election or a referendum. An idea or candidate need not carry the day to be relevant to the process. And their absence might lend to catastrophe. Organizing is about seeing the possibilities in certain social situations. You position the limited view of the possibility as a truly good thing, when it reads as much less fortunate. Now, again, why not use the existing structure. Here I find a basic error of logic .... you fail to acknowledge that I/we are in fact availing ourselves of the existing process and structure. We are working within a form and opportunity presented to us by the very structure you mention. If it's not a meaningful option, then perhaps it is just a distraction. Is that your view? Why was it ever conceived and presented as an option? If you dont believe in this, why dont you step aside and leave it to others? Are you trying to save us from ourselves? Another sociological dimension you may not have considered: as we are not eschewing existing structures in discussion and possible formation of the RALO, but to some extent embracing an opportunity the structure presents us, there is another layer ... namely the utility of intermediary structures. Mistaken impressions of the utility of any structure notwithstanding (which I take it to be your main point, in your private note) there does remain a great range of opportunity and utility in 1) process of creation of those structures and 2) potential use of those structures... if, and only if, we approach it in an appropriate spirit. Nothing you have said indicates any appreciation of these facts. We need the space in which to create the tools we need, and organizations are tools. We are trying to operate under the framework given, and to be creative within that framework. Creating a sense of identity in the RALO as well as in an ALS are very important aspects of this I hear no recogntion of that, and more, your total opposition is a signal that despite technical expertise there are some roles that are not for everyone. We need technical expertise certainly, as well as a deep awareness of the limited role that ICANN has, but we're not talking about ICANN as much as we are talking about a community of users concerned with the policy issues at stake. Either you are here to help us create that community (with or without the formal dimension) or you are not. If you are not, what is your purpose? It is not your right to block the formation of the RALO. Now, as you might also consider, the utility of the RALO is not limited to interaction with ICANN alone. We are not here in a game with ICANN being the only player. ICANN is subject to other forces/institutions. ICANN is amidst a wider discourse. If we are to be intelligent about this, and about the role of aggregated user communities meaningfully organized, we will see that our voice is relevant in that wider discourse. If we are wrong in this, we are wrong in the entire At Large enterprise. Is that what you suggest? I believe the RALO and network of ALSs is relevant and offers potential for something useful, or I wouldnt waste my time. There is much you have not answered in previous posts, and that is very telling. As my perspective is deeply informed by organizing, of which community networking and community weaving are sets of related activities, I have a sense of where you are coming from, but also that this work is important and cannot be derailed by a narrow perspective. The work of organizing is what is at stake, over and against technical exigency. This is what community is about. As to your comments on not having participated in Open Space processes, whether or not that was intended as dismissive, I will offer that there is a very important concept in that practice, namely: holding space. That's a talent or skill of the highest form of organizing. I hope that this dialog has had some value to others on the list. Regards to all, Michael Maranda AFCN On 2/7/07, John L <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > > If you dont see that the realm that ICANN covers is intricately related > > to a host of other matters that are best dealt with in the same > > conceptual space, even if different entities may have jurisdiction or > > authority over them and will require our addressing different bodies in > > a coordinated way then perhaps you cant see the big picture. > > I fear my problem is that my imagination is sadly limited by actual > experience working on Internet issues. I will admit that I have never > spent two intense days at a conference envisioning open space > collaboration. > > On the other hand, I've written a book that millions of people have used > to get onto the 'Net, I've been in several PBS shows that teach people > about the Internet, I've been a board member of and published the online > newsletter for the largest grass roots anti-spam organization in the > world, I've testifed in front of the US Senate about spyware legislation > and in front of the FTC on spam legislation, participated in the > broad-based international Anti-Spyware Coalition, I've been a member of > Industry Canada's multi stakeholder anti-spam taskforce, and I've spent > over a year on the ALAC observing ICANN's processes and lack thereof up > close. (In case you were wondering, this is all paid for out of my own > pocket, other than sometimes getting travel reimbursed, and Industry > Canada paying me a little bit to write and edit part of a report.) > > None of this needed a RALO. Indeed, a RALO wouldn't have made a bit of > difference to any of it. > > I also know enough of the history of ICANN and the people involved in that > history to know about the dreams of expansive user organizations, all of > which went nowhere for the reasons I've been telling you about. None of > this is a secret; anyone interested in ICANN and Internet governance > should be familiar with it to avoid going down the same unproductive paths > that lead to predictable failure. > > Take a look at http://www.icannatlarge.com, which has been gathering dust > for the past five years. If you believe that a comprehensive Internet > user organization is a good idea, here it is, already in existence, ready > to go, with a membership including a thousand people who care deeply about > ICANN and the Internet, and a modest amount of money in the bank, lacking > only leadership with unlimited time and energy to devote to it. What > would your big picture NARALO be that icannatlarge isn't? Why don't you > work with icannatlarge now? > > R's, > John > -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver
by Thompson, Darlene Feb. 8, 2007

Feb. 8, 2007

Hmmmmm... Well, I have no problem at all with more US-based ALSs in order to be truly representative but I do have a HUGE issue with "to have a chance of succeeding". Two rather different points, I'm afraid. Thank you for the reply! D 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: John L [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:49 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver > Alan, you stated that "I think that for a NARALO to have a chance of > succeeding, there needs to be more US-based ALSs in existence and > participating in the RALO creation process." Why, specifically, > US-based ALSs for a chance of succeeding? The obvious reason, I'm afraid. Canada is a wonderful place, and if I can ever talk my wife into it I will move north, but 90% of the people in North America do not live in Canada. A RALO is supposed to represent the interests of all of the Internet users in a region. I see a lot of enthusiasm for some sort of Canadian Internet governance group. It would make plenty of sense to set one up, but don't confuse that with a RALO. R's, John

1 0