Frankly, Wendy, I didn't like the way the rest of the ALSs were shut out of the decision making process for the Vancouver meeting. It was vetoed by very few people when the rest seemed to want it. At least this time around it is going by group concensus rather than the GROUP being shut out of the process. Much better in my mind and much more transparency.
From what I can see, ICANN has been working very hard to get things happening despite certain ones trying there best to hold others back. ICANN even sent their Ohmbudsman to the Vancouver meeting. It was interesting at the Vancouver meeting that not one of the "old guard" ALSs, with the exception of Michael Miranda, even bothered to take part by distance. Frankly I think that this shows a dismal lack of regard to the new and emerging ALSs that a face to face meeting could change.
Thank you, ICANN, for your continuing financial support for these efforts. 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) 975-5605 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 3:04 AM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting At 06:02 PM 4/10/2007, Jacqueline A. Morris 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.
Yup. ICANN doesn't like the result of one decisionmaking process, so it just changes the rules and process. When ALAC members weren't compliant enough with ICANN staff's interests, we got shut out of the process. Typical of the way ICANN treats all its critics.
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.
There's absolutely no imperative, except ICANN's desire for feel-good publicity, for a signing in San Juan. If the North Americans aren't ready by then, it might be an indication that the structure is flawed, not that they haven't had an opportunity to meet. --Wendy
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-list s.icann.org --- 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/ _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@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