Thanks for this work Evan, in reference to: <<staff has said (though not on the record) that he was disruptive to the meetings.>> What is "disruptive" anyway? This is sooooo subjective. I think the Registrars were disruptive in a number of our working groups and presentations. Disruptive could just mean he asked questions they didn't want to answer.

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NA-Discuss] Followup -- secret meetings, ombudsman, etc. From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Date: Fri, September 11, 2009 1:46 am To: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Hello all. Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, I've been both busy and a little ill. The issue of the secret meetings -- touched off by my anger over the non-announcement of regional ICANN meetings for contracted parties -- was raised and significantly debated at the ALAC executive committee earlier this week. (There are as yet no minutes or transcripts on the meeting page at https://st.icann.org/alac-excomm/index.cgi?08_september_2009) In the discussion, a number points were raised that I found useful: * There is significant anger over this in ALAC as previous secret meetings have also been noted and the subject of complaint * Going to the Ombudsman is seen to be a last-ditch effort which angers everyone in the process yet will likely change little in itself * Stories vary dramatically regarding Richard Sexton's behaviour and subsequent removal from the Toronto meeting. He says he did nothing wrong; staff has said (though not on the record) that he was disruptive to the meetings. * A new CEO and new respect for At-Large may affect the way we are heard on such matters now * All meeting issues are now under the watch of CFO Kevin Wilson, who has been receptive to our issues so far The ExComm suggested that we draft a letter for transmission to Kevin and and Rod describing the unacceptable nature of these secret meetings. Such a letter would have full support of ALAC (and probably other regions should we want their endorsements). We would then meet with them in Seoul to obtain an assurance that all ICANN-funded meetings will be public. We are also owed a detailed explanation regarding the ejection of Richard Sexton. If Richard's account is correct, ICANN must be held accountable. And if Richard's account is wrong, it requires an on-the-record rebuttal. (A related issue -- whether such regional meetings should be expanded to cover At-Large face-to-face meetings -- is still to be dealt with, but is part of ICANN;'s strategic plan and should not be mixed into the immediate issue of secrecy and transparency.) Alan has volunteered to word-craft the letter with my assistance. The is the situation as I understand it. - Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------