Part of the problem leading up to the Vancouver (non)meeting was confusion over the procedure. This led to delay. This led to it being pretty much too later to be carried off well. I am sure that influenced some of the decision making. -MM On 4/10/07, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hello Evan The Vancouver meeting funding was approved by ICANN staff but was apparently vetoed by the NA ALAC members at that time (from what I have been told and read). When it was brought up again just after Lisbon that people still wanted to have a meeting, ICANN staff said - let's see how we can facilitate - Wendy voted no, Alan didn't say no, but didn't say yes, John is no longer on the ALAC, ICANN said yes and I said yes. A different procedure seems to exist now for approval of projects like this compared to February when Vancouver funding was apparently vetoed by your regional representatives. There's no uncertainties regarding travel subsidy anymore.
The reasons for the meeting and the timing are clear - it needs to be at a reasonable time before June if the MoU is to be ready then. We are in April. The policy issues need to be discussed at the same time for the same reason. We want to finalise some feedback and positions, translate documents etc in time for San Juan, so consultation has to happen in that timing as well.
Between now and June is May. So May is self-evident. East Coast was suggested from not wanting to have everyone travel too far. Suggestions were made, and offers were made, and one was picked as the most reasonable suggestion. As you should have seen from Robert's email, it can be Montreal, it can be anywhere..
Meeting space availability was not the overriding reason - I really don't see how that understanding could come about. There's meeting space available in every city in the world...
-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:55 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
Also - I'm not an US native, so my understanding of the nuances of the language may be different. There was no "willful intent to impose control"
Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: -
at least how I think you mean that phrase. Of course I may have a different understanding...
Hello Jaqueline,
What I meant by "imposing control" is simple (and I'm not a US native either ;-) );
The ALSs expressed a preference to have a meeting in Vancouver, and that meeting did not happen. I certainly heard no indication that ICANN would support travel expenses for that meeting, so I know that we could not attend.
Now, ICANN staff proposes a meeting in New York, and the ONLY reason (that I can determine) offered for this particular choice of date and location was that someone was making meeting space available at that tine. This is, to me, one of the silliest, least important reasons to have a meeting at a particular time or place.
The availability and readiness of participants is infinitely more important than the availability of meeting space (which can be rented). The setting of a specific time/place, before consulting any of the people intended to be there, is what I consider to be a form of crontrol. The suggestion that travel subsidy is available for New York, when it appeared to have been unavailable for Vancouver, enforces a belief that ICANN is pushing its own agenda and timing over that which is preferred by the participants themselves.
If there is truly no intent to control, then ICANN must fully support the meeting plans determined by the ALSs themselves, which includes travel expense support where requested. I have seen admirable prudence in the activities here so far, nobody is rushing to spend ICANN's travel budget needlessly. So when we (the ALSs) say a meeting is needed, it is incumbent on ICANN to support such plans if there is truly an intent to support our activities and not control them. This means eliminating -- definitely -- the budget uncertainties regarding travel subsidy.
- Evan
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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