Yes, that's why I suggest RALO-formation meetings be concurrent with ICANN meetings. Nice to have our powerlessness spelled out a bit further, though. --Wendy -----Original Message----- From: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:37 pm Size: 3K To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> cc: "'Luc Faubert'" <LFaubert@conceptum.ca>, na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Hello Wendy I ran this again past the ICANN VP in charge of the AtLArge budget. In theory and in practicality, ICANN has indicated that funds have been allocated specifically to RALO formation work. This isn't a NA budget, or an EU, LAC, AF or AP budget. A possible scenario is that if the NA region doesn't want to have this meeting, or form a RALO, the funds budgeted for this year for RALO formation may be used for attendees to the LAC GA in San Juan, or more AP ALS reps to the November ICANN meeting for the AP official MoU signing, and not necessarily on other ALAC items we might want that are not RALO-connected. Remember that ALAC has no discretionary funds - it's ICANN's At Large Director and VP that have control of the AtLarge budget. We can and do suggest activities that we would like funded, but ICANN Staff determines exactly how those funds are expended. We are more than halfway though the current fiscal year already. So funding is NOT a valid reason for objection, according to the people who hold the purse strings. Jacqueline Quoting Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>:
While that may be true in thepry, the practical reality is that ICANN allocates finite funds to at-large activities. The more we spend in one place, the less we have available for other things the group might find more valuable.
--Wendy -----Original Message-----
From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:29 am Size: 3K To: "'Wendy Seltzer'" <wendy@seltzer.com>, "'Luc Faubert'" <LFaubert@conceptum.ca>, <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Hi Wendy The meeting in NY will not affect funding for San Juan. Funding has been allocated to bring ALSes from the region to the ICANN meeting in the region. Funding was also allocated for at least one f2f in advance of the ICANN meeting at which the RALO was to be signed, for each region. Funding for these meetings is not only from the AtLarge budget at ICANN, but other ICANN budget line items as well.
So - to be clear, funding is NOT a valid reason to say no to the meeting.
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:35 AM To: Luc Faubert; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
Neither the full ALAC nor its North American members have approved this meeting. It was sprung on us all by staff.
I am arguing against this one for the same reasons I argued against Vancouver: the group will ultimately have to work online and should use its limited budget to attend as many full-ICANN meetings as possible. We can draft documents as we have been, on the wiki and lists, but we can't talk to Board and other Constituency members over drinks and in hallways online.
--Wendy
-----Original Message-----
From: "Luc Faubert" <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:29 am Size: 3K To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@seltzer.com>, <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
If we are to stick to our initial plan of signing the NARALO-ICANN MOU in San Juan in June, it is imperative that we agree on our MOU and Operating principles before then. In this light, I think that -- as I argued when we were discussing the possibility of meeting in Vancouver last February -- a face to face meeting could be helpful to advance our discussions and I am
--- message truncated ---