For some reason the spam filter on the lists caught this one so I'm
forwarding it. Reply to is set to Darlene :)
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>
> Date: 26 June 2007 16:39:52 GMT-04:00
> To: <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Subject: {Spam?} RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Members
>
> Hi Jacqueline,
>
> First of all, THANK YOU so much for taking the time to write the
> stuff below. I really appreciate the clarification on some points
> that were a little hazy to me. I know how busy you've been at this
> event so I am doubly appreciative of you taking the time to type
> this all out.
>
> Secondly, though, I would like to differ from you on some points.
> Its not like Alan, out of the kindness of his hear, offered to form
> that wording. It was how he fealt and an opinion he has been
> putting forward for at least since he voted "no" to Telecommunities
> Canada. He has made his opinion on this clear.
>
> Also, if he and, frankly, all five of you, are supposed to be
> representing global interests, then what accountability measures
> are used? How do you know that your opinion is global in scope?
> There were several regions that his measures went critically
> against their best interests (Asia/Pacific, EU & NA). How is that
> thinking on "a global context"?
>
> Finally, if this document has been being circulated for a long
> time, why IS this the first that we've seen on it? Do we get no
> say whatsoever on this matter except by chance and at the very end?
>
> Jacqueline, I've fired off these question to "you" but in no way
> mean them for just you (or as any kind of attack). I am meaning
> them as general questions for critical thinking of this process. I
> think that you are doing a great job over-all and truly appreciate
> all of the time and hard work that you have been volunteering to
> this process.
>
> Darlene
>
> From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com]
> Sent: Tue 6/26/2007 4:13 PM
> To: Thompson, Darlene; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Members
>
> Hi Darlene
>
> The way the structure was set up is that there are 10 regional
> representatives on the ALAC. 2 are voted for from each region. The
> other 5 are global committee members, appointed by the Nominating
> Committee from people in each of the 5 regions. Their job isn’t to
> represent the members of the region, but to look after the global
> interests. So those current NomCom members are:
>
> Alan, Alice, Siavash, Annette and myself. LAC, Asia Pacific and
> Africa will be ending their terms at the AGM in LA. NomCom will
> announce the new 3 names before that.
>
>
> As a NomCom appointee, I would say that we are answerable to the
> global internet community in general who are not covered by the
> RALOs – we are from the region, but looking at issues in a more
> global context. At least that’s the idea I was given when I was
> picked, and that’s how I operate on the committee.
>
>
> To be fair, the wording that Alan had put into the document came
> out of a long ongoing discussion - Alan volunteered to draft this
> one of the positions, as you can see it was a big topic for Annette
> and some others. Other positions have been also put forward in
> discussion from LAC and Africa who have a lot of govt-private
> partnerships and MSH partnerships, especially during and after
> WSIS. What we try to do is get a position that works for ALL the
> regions, as we have to have a global perspective. This document was
> also circulated over the past 5 months without any comment, and
> most recently by Alan himself prior to San Juan, in an attempt to
> force some more discussion on the concepts.
>
>
> You guys came in almost at the end of the discussion without having
> heard the various things said by loads of other people over a long
> time in a lot of meetings, so a lot of background was missing for
> you, I think.
>
>
> Also – I think you misunderstood - ICANN is not revisiting the
> entire structure – the bylaws mandate review by an external agency
> of all ICANN structures on a rotating basis. It may seem strange
> that the review happens just as the Interim ALAC is ending, but as
> Paul Towmey said – the review can focus on the forward looking
> parts, and the NEXT ALAC review can focus on the functioning of the
> RALOs after they have been in operation for a while. (This was also
> discussed with the Board and with the President in Lisbon – but I
> realize that it is difficult to wade through all the minutes and
> recordings of previous meetings in order to get up to speed if you
> are new - I went through it myself 2 years ago)
>
> So it is unlikely that ICANN will revisit the structure before the
> next review in 3 + years. The task of the Interim ALAC was to set
> up the RALOS. The bylaws mandate tasks for the ALAC as well, once
> the RALOs are formed. So we have finished one job, and have to
> start the other.
>
>
> We have had 3 morning coordination meetings to plan for the main
> AtLarge Committee Public meeting on Thursday, as we have found that
> if we don’t prepare, the public meeting where we take decisions and
> do consultation goes on for ever. These meetings are not an attempt
> to push through decisions without consultation, but to do the
> background work to have items on the agenda in the public meeting
> and to have worked though most of the main problems that may
> prevent proper discussion and decision – if Legal needs to give an
> opinion, we have it, if something needs explanation from Finance,
> we have that staff person on hand to explain, etc., etc.
>
>
> In some of the past meetings the coordination meetings were after
> 6, and we went until after 10 pm at times. So the ALAC agreed that
> early morning was the most efficient time to do this, before the
> other stuff we had to do. We have generally been really good on
> time, but today was a really bad exception, probably because the
> purpose of the meeting was not understood by all the people in the
> room. Today the job was to get information from the Secretariats
> for Nick to develop options on the flowsheet for presentation in
> the public meeting – not to make any decision on the flowsheet.
>
>
> Similarly with the criteria – the meeting was to finish a potential
> document for presentation to and discussion at the public meeting
> on Thursday. All the ALSes will be there then. Robert asked for a
> few of you to be able to attend as you could give assistance on the
> wording of some bits that we were having problems with yesterday.
> If it were to be a full discussion meeting, I would have made sure
> that ALL the ALSes were in the room, especially the LACRALO ALSes
> as well as NA – they weren’t, because that wasn’t the purpose of
> the meeting. They have the documents, and they will raise their
> points on Thursday, and we will also have feedback from the other
> regions present.
>
>
> One of the main problems with the ICANN meetings is lack of time.
> We try to do a lot online before, and to be as efficient as
> possible in our meetings with the number of other meetings and
> panels that we need to do, so we are sometimes not as patient with
> revisiting things for new people as we could be.
>
>
> I would suggest that the best way to prepare to participate
> effectively would be to go over the agendas in advance (all on the
> wiki), comment (on the wiki) and get the background of the items
> that are on the agenda before the meeting starts. If anyone needs
> stuff I can explain and locate documents etc, or any other ALAC
> members or ALS members who have been around before – LACRALO is
> here and Erick has been around a LOOOONG time and some members of
> the other regions are also here and can help you get up to speed on
> some of the issues that we will be discussing.
>
>
> Jacqueline
>
>
>
>
> From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@gov.nu.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:13 PM
> To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Members
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> I must say, I'm learning a ton of stuff here in San Juan. One of
> which, is that I had always thought that we had 3 ALAC members
> representing our region and that is not, in fact, the case. We
> have two, who we have just elected being Robert and Beau. Alan
> "has no obligation" (his words) to forward any of our causes.
>
>
> I found this interesting because, some time ago, we had a huge
> discussion on this list (which I do not mean to re-open) on whether
> orgs-of-orgs (ICANN calls them "Umbrella Organizations") and their
> member orgs can apply to become ALSs. We had concensus on this
> topic, in fact the vast majority gave their consent. At yet, Alan
> Greenburg actually put in contrary wording to this in the ALAC
> Proposed Guide to ALS Application Evaluation which would have
> prevented this, namely (and I quote):
>
>
> "Where an Umbrella Organisation applies and is accepted for
> membership, its constituent member organizations may not be
> accredited as ALSes. If members of an Umbrella Organisation are
> already accredited as ALSes, and they wish to retain their
> accreditation, the Umbrella Organisation’s application would not be
> approved."
>
>
> We were extremely fortunate to have Robert there as he circulated
> this document amongst several of us here that would have been
> negatively impacted by this and arranged to have us speak to the
> ALAC to have this wording removed.
>
>
> It is also interesting that, up until this time, it was a fairly
> major responsibility of ALAC to assist in the formation of the five
> regions. Now it seems that ICANN is revisiting the entire
> structure. We may wish to discuss how we would like to see this
> structure work. I am wondering why we only get to select 2 of the
> 3 regional ALAC reps. If the third one is not actually forwarding
> OUR causes, then what is the point? Why does ICANN reserve the
> right to select these people if, really, they are not answerable to
> any group?
>
>
> I must say, we are very fortunate to have both Robert and Beau on
> the committee. They have been working unbelievably hard already
> (meetings at 7:30 AM most days, having to stand up and speak
> although totally new, running like crazy and organizing things).
>
>
> Thank you, Robert and Beau,
>
>
> Darlene
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date:
> 6/24/2007 8:33 AM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date:
> 6/24/2007 8:33 AM
>
>
