FYI - Copy of message I have just posted to the - public - at-large list. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Begin forwarded message:
From: lists@privaterra.info Date: September 20, 2007 2:24:56 PM EDT To: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Schedule Posted for ICANN's 30th International Public Meeting
First, i'm a bit frustrated with alot going on in at-large and ALAC at the moment. So this message is likely to be a bit of rant. I apologize in advance , but certain things need to be said - in an open list...
Nick:
I think there are numerous issues where we agree - for example, i concur that meetings should be planned well in advance as it allows people to better plan their schedule and important meetings to be scheduled. Translation is also important, and know oh too well - that such things need to be done well in advance.
In my opinion, ALAC, should have at least proposed a draft meeting agenda ahead of the last conference call. Recognizing that developing an agenda is important a sub-committee was created in name only, as no substantial work nor discussion is taking place at all.
Yes, I'm a member of the subcommittee - however i've not been given a mandate to unilaterally make recommendations both for the committee nor ALAC as a whole. Should the sub-committee chair and/or the ALAC as a whole mandate me to unilaterally create an agenda/schdule and collaborate with you to book times, meetings, etc - then fine.
Let me then submit a proposal - Does the ALAC chair and LA planning sub-committee which to mandate a specific person to volunteer to collaborate with ICANN staff (Nick and others) to plan and develop an agenda for the LA meeting.
YES - OK TO DELEGATE PLANNING AND AGENDA SETTING AUTHORITY to a specific person NO - CHAIR & SUBCOMMITTEE, THOUGH INACTIVE PREFER TO WAIT.
We will be unable to accommodate requests for new meetings which are made any less than two weeks before the start of the meeting on Monday 29th October.
Completely understand..
To remind the public list as I have reminded the private list: there are members of the committee who really need interpretation to participate fully, so I would hope that you would try to do any real work at sessions where that can be provided...
let me also make the point that if sub-committees are created, then people should put in time, energy and effort to get things done. If not, then - please don't create a committee in the first place.
Smaller constituencies with far less resources then at-large are able to develop a schedule and work strategically. At-large should meet the challenge, try to change, or admit that it can't do the task and free up the funding to others who could likely do things far better.
So what can be done - please, pitch in and help. Comment both on the agenda and the proposal Veronica has for a strategic planning session for the meeting.
The failure of substantive discussion & contributions - specifically by ALAC members - will indeed prove that the critics of the at-large structure are correct..
I hate to be so blunt, i'm just frustrated.
Please colleagues, prove my comments are wrong and that all this time, energy, and multi-million dollar investment in At-large is indeed constructive.
regards
Robert