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 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
--- message truncated ---