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 willing to attend the NY meeting to represent ISOC Québec. I suppose the ALAC has approved this planned meeting in NY. One question that comes to my mind is why approve this meeting after having refused to hold a similar meeting in Vancouver in February. This is not a matter of arguing for a meeting in Canada vs the US; I would just like to understand the decision. Regarding funding for a face to face meeting prior to San Juan and our discussions on the issue, my recollection is that opinions diverged. Some ALSes thought a face to face meeting was not necessary, others wanted one. As for our ALAC reps, they thought a meeting was not necessary and consequently refused to fund the Vancouver meeting. As for the availability of travels funds, my understanding is that holding the preparatory meeting in NY does not preclude ICANN funding our presence in San Juan, _________________________________________ 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 10 avril 2007 05:28 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
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 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 _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_at large-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/