- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

ICANN Policy Department clarification of ALAC/NCUC
by Jacob Malthouse April 19, 2007

April 19, 2007

NCUC's purview is just gTLD space, while ALAC/At-Large has a mandate to advise on *anything* that potentially impacts individual users (can be issues addressed by Board, GNSO, ccNSO, ASO). For those who are interested in delving into ICANN see: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm When I started working for ICANN I did take the time to read the Bylaws in detail. It only takes about an hour to read in detail and key sections can be skimmed in less. While bylaw meaning discussions are about as exciting for me as staring at a blank wall, it's good to know the rules of the game. However I'm sure most of you, like myself, much prefer playing soccer to discussing its rules. Broader than ICANN, I'm interested in emergent global governance models and their evolution and expansion as a result of changing communications and trade networks. Set in that context, the rules of this soccer game, and hopefully soon the soccer itself, are very important and also very dynamic. It's been great to follow it. My colleagues in the trade and environment arenas are also watching this space closely. cheers, Jacob.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
by Thompson, Darlene April 18, 2007

April 18, 2007

Hi John, 1. I really think that keeping the derogatory language out of these e-mails is a necessity or else you will find that people are not going to be willing to post here for fear that they will come under the "snide fire" that I am seeing continuously. True or not, I don't want to hear it. If you have a legitimate gripe that you wish to have discussed, then post it properly. Frankly I'm tired of the childish behaviour. 2. You are right in saying that I was taking the quote from the interpretation section, not the actual by-laws. My mistake, there, and thank you for pointing it out. 3. The by-laws do not state that an ALS has to be an organization of people. It states "Be constituted so that participation by individual(s)... will predominate in the ALS' operation". What is participation? If an organization is an org-of-orgs but it is set up so that its member orgs are controlled by individuals - what is the difference? Why would we purposefully exclude these ones - ESPECIALLY if ICANN says we don't have to? 4. I really think that we need to get a discussion going here on this issue. Do we want to stick with "no orgs-of-orgs" or should we use ICANN's guidelines on this? Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: John L [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:17 PM To: Thompson, Darlene Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Action Items > What is the benefit of saying "If JJ has gone to all that effort to > explain that the bylaws don't mean what they say"? Because it is true, and all too typical. > The by-laws clearly state that orgs-of-orgs are allowed in plain English > (see my last e-mail). No, what you were referring to is JJ's attempt to reinterpret the bylaws. The actual bylaws language is quoted on page two of his letter and says that ALS are supposed to be organizations of people. R's, John

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation schedule
by Wendy Seltzer April 17, 2007

April 17, 2007

> -----Original Message----- > From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] > Gads, this is the very > last RALO to be formed. It seems that things NEED > to be moved forward. Pardon my asking, what are the needs you think will be advanced by formation of a RALO? Perhaps if we explore those, we'll find grounds for consensus or identify the points of disagreement better. Thanks, --Wendy

1 0

TIME SENSITIVE re NARALO telcon
by susie sandford smith April 17, 2007

April 17, 2007

FAO NA ALSes and candidate ALSes, Please note that there will NOT be a telcon today. We do realise some of you may have been under the impression that there was a telcon later today but there was very little indication of availability for a call today and as such we have decided not to proceed. We would be happy to arrange a call however if you do all want to discuss NARALO organising. If you would like to take part in a call please respond directly to me, by return, as opposed to the list and let me know which of the times below you are able to make. If there is enough interest/availability I will get back to you with the call information. __ yes __ no - Thurs -- 7:00 am PDT __ yes __ no - Mon -- 7:00 am PDT __ yes __ no - Mon -- 10:00 pm PDT Regards Susie ICANN At-Large Staff

3 3

Invitation to NARALO face to face meeting
by Jacqueline A. Morris April 17, 2007

April 17, 2007

Dear North American ALSes and candidate ALSes Please find attached an invitation to a face to face meeting to discuss the potential for NARALO formation. Invitation in French to follow. Sincerely Jacqueline A. Morris -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM

10 18

Fwd: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs
by At-Large Staff April 17, 2007

April 17, 2007

Dear North American ALS colleagues: Please find below the clarification promised on the status of MoUs with ICANN, and the view of the GC on the proposal by Wendy Seltzer on enforceability of the MoUs. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org> Date: 12-Apr-2007 23:28 Subject: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> Cc: Sue Jonklaas <sue.jonklaas(a)icann.org> Nick, You asked about the legal status of the MOUs that ICANN enters with its regional at-large organizations. Pursuant to ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2.4g <http://www.icann.org/general/ bylaws.htm#XI-2.4g>, ICANN's RALO MOUs are intended to address the "the respective roles and responsibilities of ICANN and the RALO regarding the process for selecting ALAC members and requirements of openness, participatory opportunities, transparency, accountability, and diversity in the RALO's structure and procedures, as well as criteria and standards for the RALO's constituent At-Large Structures." The RALO MOUs were not intended to be "enforced" in courts of law -- they do not include jurisdiction or dispute resolution language. They are intended only to document the structure and processes of these advice formulation and coordination organizations. It would probably not be prudent for either ICANN or the RALOs to structure these relationships in a way that would expose ICANN or the RALOs to potential liability and increased risk of litigation from non-parties to these agreements. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Best regards, Dan Halloran -- -- 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

6 6

Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
by Wendy Seltzer April 16, 2007

April 16, 2007

I understand based on our ALAC teleconference this morning that this "invitation" should be seen as a proposal to hold a meeting, not an assertion that a meeting will take place. If you agree that it would be more effective to save the North America funds for travel to whole-ICANN meetings, please respond with that message. Thanks, --Wendy -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> Subj: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:33 am Size: 3K To: <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Although an invitation has been sent, the choice whether to hold the meeting still rests with those in the region. We can opt to hold the funding for travel to ICANN's thrice-yearly meetings instead. Bret's recollection matches mine, that since ICANN ALAC funds are finite, we had consensus that we'd all be better served saving those for travel to ICANN meetings and organizing pre-RALO activities around those face-to-face meetings where we can also meet face-to-face with others in the ICANN circle. The next ICANN meeting is at the end of June in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and we could far more usefully meet in person there. Invite reattached here for those not reading the duplicative NA-ALS list. --Wendy At 03:23 AM 4/10/2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01C7_01C77B1F.A39C7190" >Content-Language: en-us > >Hello Michael > >I was checking the archives to get up to date on >the discussions in the NA region and saw this >email, among a whole flurry of emails about the >activities report I wrote for the ALAC >teleconference tomorrow. I was a little taken >aback to see that this could be considered >disturbing news, so decided to reply to >attempt to allay your concerns. The group that >is convening this meeting is ICANN. > >Yes the report is accurate, but not timely. >The invitation was delayed owing to the Easter >holiday, and was due to be sent out today, >Tuesday. I did the report early owing to the >holiday, and the invitation was later for the >same reason. It wasnt any sort of conspiracy. > >Anyway, about the invitation - The English >version was sent a little while ago, and the >French translation will be sent a bit later, >when the North American West Coast based staff >are up and about (sorry, I dont speak French). >As well, sorry for the short notice, but the >holiday really did mess up the timing. > >There was loads of discussion on the NA list >(see archives) about wanting a f2f meeting, and >some direct requests, and given the opportunity >offered, ICANNs At Large staff suggested last >week that we try for this meeting to finally >thrash out whether NA really wants a RALO, and >under what terms, as well as have some input and >discussion on some important and timely policy >issues. (See invitation for details). > >Also, the partial sponsorship of the meeting >offered does not imply any quid pro quo, and has >never done. Weve had sponsorship from all >sorts of groups and it hasnt affected anything. > >I hope that youll be able to attend, either in person or virtually. > > >Sincerely >Jacqueline A. Morris > >That is disturbing news. I have supported in principle, a face to face >meeting among the NA ALS and ALS applicants, at the proposed meeting in >Vancouver at the end of February. That meeting was never approved and did >not get support. We went ahead with an informational meeting, and with the >exception of staff and Canadian participation, no one else from the US >stepped forward to participate. > >I'd like to know which groups are convening this meetingand why there has >been no discussion on the NA discussion list. > --- message truncated ---

13 47

At Large Constituency
by Michael Maranda April 16, 2007

April 16, 2007

Robert, (changed subject line) Yes, clearly RALOs and ALSs exist. I am trying to move beyond the questioning of their relevance, impotence, etc... by suggesting that regardless of particular views on that question, the effort that is most needed by the At Large Community is developing capacity and constituency to address the public interest (which is not monolithic, and is grounded in and constituted by informed discourse). This can be undertaken now by the At Large Community, and if possible the ALSs/RALOs should pioneer that (and coordinate with each other). And if such formal entities will not, those who are most committed to the vision of At Large could still move forward with such organizing such resources. As we form the NA RALO the question foremost in our mind should be how we establish a vehicle for energy go towards expanding the constituency and being effective at upholding the public interest. Sorry if that was not clear. -Michael On 4/15/07, Mr. Robert Guerra <lists(a)privaterra.info> wrote: > > Michael: > > The questions you ask are good, but ALS and RALO already exist. > Perhaps it might be worthwhile to get the opinion of those who have > already gone through the process - and have committed to be involved > in the structures that currently exist. > > As well, I encourage you (and others on the worldwide At-large > list) to comment on the proposed Terms of Reference that will guide > the independent review of ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee. The > public comment period will last from 30 March 2007 to 29 April 2007. > Details @ > > http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-30mar07.htm > > > regards, > > Robert > --- > Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.org> > Managing Director, Privaterra > Tel +1 416 893 0377 > > > > On 15-Apr-07, at 7:57 PM, Michael Maranda wrote: > > > Coming into the whole question of "why have ALS and RALOs to begin > > with", and the uncertainty of what could be put in an MOU that > > would be agreed to, and then meaningful, let along enforceable is a > > major challenge, and sets things on a strange footing. > > > > The large points are whether the public interest holds much weight > > in ICANN decisions and in terms of regulation of their own > > processes (and enforcement of policy) - and whether individuals and > > other small entities who make use of and increasingly depend upon > > the Internet. > > > > It would be good to map out the gaps in accountability that are > > currently present... (quite an undertaking, I am sure) and while > > it may sound a naive proposal, I think such a framing makes things > > very clear to a wider audience. > > > > Who can we depend upon to generate such a map? What point of entry > > can we make for the newcomer to these questions? How can we use > > information/communications technologies to facilitate that and to > > increase the strength of an at-large community? > > > > What expertise do we have in regard to these questions, and what > > advice has been sought? > > > > That's where our focus should be directed: building our capacity > > to really represent the at large community - to inform them and to > > show that we have the weight of the world behind us. (Not on top > > of us) > > > > I see the various tools established for At Large and RALO use. > > Who controls them? Will it remain that way? Do they serve our > > interest? What would better serve to be a place to aggregate the > > issues and voices of the public at large? > > > > > > -MM > > > > > > > > > > On 4/15/07, RJGlass | America@Large <jipshida(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > There should be some accountability in the process. > > > > Randy Glass > > A@L > > > > > > On 4/14/07, At-Large Staff <staff(a)alac.icann.org > wrote:Dear North > > American ALS colleagues: > > > > Please find below the clarification promised on the status of MoUs > > with ICANN, and the view of the GC on the proposal by Wendy Seltzer on > > enforceability of the MoUs. > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Daniel Halloran < daniel.halloran(a)icann.org> > > Date: 12-Apr-2007 23:28 > > Subject: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs > > To: Nick Ashton-Hart < nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > > Cc: Sue Jonklaas < sue.jonklaas(a)icann.org> > > > > > > Nick, > > > > You asked about the legal status of the MOUs that ICANN enters with > > its regional at-large organizations. Pursuant to ICANN Bylaws > > Article XI, Section 2.4g <http://www.icann.org/general/ > > bylaws.htm#XI-2.4g>, ICANN's RALO MOUs are intended to address the > > "the respective roles and responsibilities of ICANN and the RALO > > regarding the process for selecting ALAC members and requirements of > > openness, participatory opportunities, transparency, accountability, > > and diversity in the RALO's structure and procedures, as well as > > criteria and standards for the RALO's constituent At-Large > > Structures." > > > > The RALO MOUs were not intended to be "enforced" in courts of law -- > > they do not include jurisdiction or dispute resolution language. > > They are intended only to document the structure and processes of > > these advice formulation and coordination organizations. It would > > probably not be prudent for either ICANN or the RALOs to structure > > these relationships in a way that would expose ICANN or the RALOs to > > potential liability and increased risk of litigation from non-parties > > to these agreements. > > > > I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can be > > of any further assistance. > > > > Best regards, > > Dan Halloran > > > > > > -- > > -- > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------- > > AmericaAtLarge.org > > RJPacific.com > > DDMF.org > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Action Items
by RJGlass | America＠Large April 15, 2007

April 15, 2007

Thanks for that suggestion, it's the easiest place to get to from where I live. On 4/15/07, Jean Armour Polly <mom(a)netmom.com> wrote: > > Before my ALAC term ended last December I was floating the idea of > meeting in Las Vegas. Generally there are reasonably-priced flights to there > and same with the lower cost hotels there. It did seem like a spot sort of > in the middle of the accredited NA ALS's at the time. > > At 11:05 AM -0800 4/15/07, RJGlass | America@Large recently said: > > I agree with the process to proceed. I wonder if there is a way to come > to a consensus rather than relying on the group emails? > > So far as the face to face meetings, I would very much like to be in > attendance, however please realize that 2 of the NA ALSs are in Honolulu. > Travel to Yonkers is about a 6,000 mile trip. I am planning to meet in San > Juan, but maybe more central locations would be better. > > -Randy Glass > A@L > > On 4/11/07, *bfausett(a)internet.law.pro* <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> > wrote: > > Following up on Luc's summary from Tuesday, copied below, here's what I > see as the order for things to proceed... > > (1) The first thing on which we need agreement is the terms of the Draft > MOU with ICANN and the Draft Operating Principles. > > Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > If we can reach agreement on these online or by teleconference, we really > shouldn't need an in-person meeting. As I understand the formation process > from the other regions, the governing documents were the central focus for > their face-to-face meeting. Here in North America, while we have a handful > of languages spoken, most everyone has mastery of English, so we should > have some added comfort in discussing the points and reaching agreement. > > (2) AFTER we've signed off on our chartering documents, and assuming that > the adopted chartering documents look somewhat like they do now in draft, > each individual ALS will need to name its representatives to the General > Assembly. > > (3) The General Assembly will elect its Chair. > > (4) The Chair of the General Assembly will oversee the election of the 2 > ALAC Representatives. Election and seating of ALAC representatives. > > (5) The Chair of the General Assembly will work with the ALAC, ICANN Staff > and the General Assembly to select a permanent Secretariat to support the > work of the NARALO. > > Why don't we spend some time working through Item (1) on the list so we > can see what still remains. If we have substantial disagreements about how > things should work, we'll be able to spot those now and put them on the > agenda for teleconferences and, if necessary, a face-to-face meeting in > May. > > -- Bret > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Luc Faubert [mailto:LFaubert@conceptum.ca] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 11:24 AM > > To: Bret Fausett; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Status report on NA-RALO documents? > > > > The links to our documents are: > > > > Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > What remains to do, as far as I can tell, is: > > > > - for everybody to agree on the 2 documents, > > - for each ALS to name its 2 representatives to the General Assembly, > > - for individual users to name their 2 reps to the GA, > > - name the Chair of the General Assembly, > > - name our Secreteriat, > > - choose our 2 ALAC reps. > > > > > > > > _________________________________________ > > Luc Faubert > > Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT > > governance and change management consulting > > +1 514 236 5129 > > www.LucFaubert.com > > www.isoc.qc.ca > > > www.ccig.ca > > www.maillons.qc.ca > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On > > Behalf Of Bret > > > Fausett > > > Sent: 10 avril 2007 13:59 > > > To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Status report on NA-RALO documents? > > > > > > My recollection from our previous discussions was that we had money > > > set aside for two meetings: one for RALO formation and one for the > > > signing meeting. We had discussed doing the RALO formation > > online and > > > by teleconference -- and, frankly, aren't we almost > > complete with the > > > draft MOU? -- and using the travel money for San Juan and the ICANN > > > annual meeting in November (Bombay?). > > > > > > What I believe is now on the table is an option for a RALO > > meeting in > > > Yonkers, NY in early May for RALO formation. As with the proposed > > > meeting in Vancouver, I personally would recommend against > > the Yonkers > > > meeting and, instead, recommend using the funds for Bombay > > travel in > > > November. > > > > > > Before we call this to a vote, or a consensus hum as it may be, > > > perhaps we should review where we are on the documents. > > > If there's really not much left to resolve, then this may > > be an easy > > > call. As much as I like grabbing beers and meeting new people, as > > > Jacob suggested we do, I'd rather do that around a meeting with a > > > substantive agenda. > > > > > > Nick, can you send us pointers to the documents and give us a short > > > summary of where we are and what remains to decide? > > > > > > Many thanks, > > > > > > Bret > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl > > arge-lists.icann.org > > > --- > > > Draft MoU with ICANN: > > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > > > > > Draft Operating Principles: > > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.i > cann.org > > www.alac.icann.org > www.icannalac.org > > > > > -- > ------------------------- > AmericaAtLarge.org > RJPacific.com > DDMF.org > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ic > ann.org > > www.alac.icann.org > www.icannalac.org > > > -- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org

1 0

NARALO Formation Meeting
by Jacqueline A. Morris April 15, 2007

April 15, 2007

Hello Michael I was checking the archives to get up to date on the discussions in the NA region and saw this email, among a whole flurry of emails about the activities report I wrote for the ALAC teleconference tomorrow. I was a little taken aback to see that this could be considered “disturbing news”, so decided to reply to attempt to allay your concerns. The group that is convening this meeting is ICANN. Yes – the report is accurate, but not timely. The invitation was delayed owing to the Easter holiday, and was due to be sent out today, Tuesday. I did the report early owing to the holiday, and the invitation was later for the same reason. It wasn’t any sort of conspiracy. Anyway, about the invitation - The English version was sent a little while ago, and the French translation will be sent a bit later, when the North American West Coast based staff are up and about (sorry, I don’t speak French). As well, sorry for the short notice, but the holiday really did mess up the timing. There was loads of discussion on the NA list (see archives) about wanting a f2f meeting, and some direct requests, and given the opportunity offered, ICANN’s At Large staff suggested last week that we try for this meeting to finally thrash out whether NA really wants a RALO, and under what terms, as well as have some input and discussion on some important and timely policy issues. (See invitation for details). Also, the partial sponsorship of the meeting offered does not imply any quid pro quo, and has never done. We’ve had “sponsorship” from all sorts of groups and it hasn’t affected anything. I hope that you’ll be able to attend, either in person or virtually. Sincerely Jacqueline A. Morris That is disturbing news. I have supported in principle, a face to face meeting among the NA ALS and ALS applicants, at the proposed meeting in Vancouver at the end of February. That meeting was never approved and did not get support. We went ahead with an informational meeting, and with the exception of staff and Canadian participation, no one else from the US stepped forward to participate. I'd like to know which groups are convening this meetingand why there has been no discussion on the NA discussion list. Is this report accurate? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM

7 9