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.
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 _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/