Quick note – given the current state of the criteria, I personally found Telecommunities Canada on the borderline and I nearly voted against, but decided to, like cricket umpires, give the batsman the benefit of the doubt on a close call. This is why it’s necessary to get the criteria done. Alan made his views very clear in an email to the community – even though there is no requirement to explain one’s vote. But wrt the governmental and commercial issue – this is VERY important to some places (it’s even life and death serious), and we have to include it in some way. The European concern was very much against allowing commercial interests to have a foothold. The ICANN At Large Is global, and we can’t just leave all the criteria to the RALOs to work in isolation, cause we have to have some sort of consistency for the ICANN At Large as a whole, while still taking local concerns into account. So we all have to compromise and work to find a formulation that addresses the concerns of ALL the regions. I hope that the NA region will begin to look beyond local issues and consider the issues in their global context. As we know, the Internet is (and its issues are) borderless. We get information from all the regions, including countries in which ALSes do not yet formally exist, and those also have to be taken into account. This structure isn’t just for the 100 ALSes that currently exist, but also for the ones to come. And from the debate, it’s obvious why there is a need for nomcom members who are not directed by individual ALS interests. (BTW - For full disclosure, I’m a member of 2 ALSes, but I don’t function as an ALS rep – again obviously) I will look for all the links for the archives for the various emails in which the criteria document was posted and let you know, but not now as I am still not feeling well and have a long and busy day tomorrow. However if you look at the Lisbon wiki pages, the criteria document is posted there, and it was discussed at the public meeting in Lisbon, printed out in multiple languages for the people present, (dial in access was available and Danny at least from what I remember, used the facility at that meeting) as well as on the san juan pages (for quite a while now). It’s also been linked on at least 2 of the ALAC meeting pages (teleconferences at which it was discussed) for quite a while in advance of the teleconferences. Jacqueline From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:40 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Members Hi Jacqueline, First of all, THANK YOU so much for taking the time to write the stuff below. I really appreciate the clarification on some points that were a little hazy to me. I know how busy you've been at this event so I am doubly appreciative of you taking the time to type this all out. Secondly, though, I would like to differ from you on some points. Its not like Alan, out of the kindness of his hear, offered to form that wording. It was how he fealt and an opinion he has been putting forward for at least since he voted "no" to Telecommunities Canada. He has made his opinion on this clear. Also, if he and, frankly, all five of you, are supposed to be representing global interests, then what accountability measures are used? How do you know that your opinion is global in scope? There were several regions that his measures went critically against their best interests (Asia/Pacific, EU & NA). How is that thinking on "a global context"? Finally, if this document has been being circulated for a long time, why IS this the first that we've seen on it? Do we get no say whatsoever on this matter except by chance and at the very end? Jacqueline, I've fired off these question to "you" but in no way mean them for just you (or as any kind of attack). I am meaning them as general questions for critical thinking of this process. I think that you are doing a great job over-all and truly appreciate all of the time and hard work that you have been volunteering to this process. Darlene _____ From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: Tue 6/26/2007 4:13 PM To: Thompson, Darlene; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Members Hi Darlene The way the structure was set up is that there are 10 regional representatives on the ALAC. 2 are voted for from each region. The other 5 are global committee members, appointed by the Nominating Committee from people in each of the 5 regions. Their job isn’t to represent the members of the region, but to look after the global interests. So those current NomCom members are: Alan, Alice, Siavash, Annette and myself. LAC, Asia Pacific and Africa will be ending their terms at the AGM in LA. NomCom will announce the new 3 names before that. As a NomCom appointee, I would say that we are answerable to the global internet community in general who are not covered by the RALOs – we are from the region, but looking at issues in a more global context. At least that’s the idea I was given when I was picked, and that’s how I operate on the committee. To be fair, the wording that Alan had put into the document came out of a long ongoing discussion - Alan volunteered to draft this one of the positions, as you can see it was a big topic for Annette and some others. Other positions have been also put forward in discussion from LAC and Africa who have a lot of govt-private partnerships and MSH partnerships, especially during and after WSIS. What we try to do is get a position that works for ALL the regions, as we have to have a global perspective. This document was also circulated over the past 5 months without any comment, and most recently by Alan himself prior to San Juan, in an attempt to force some more discussion on the concepts. You guys came in almost at the end of the discussion without having heard the various things said by loads of other people over a long time in a lot of meetings, so a lot of background was missing for you, I think. Also – I think you misunderstood - ICANN is not revisiting the entire structure – the bylaws mandate review by an external agency of all ICANN structures on a rotating basis. It may seem strange that the review happens just as the Interim ALAC is ending, but as Paul Towmey said – the review can focus on the forward looking parts, and the NEXT ALAC review can focus on the functioning of the RALOs after they have been in operation for a while. (This was also discussed with the Board and with the President in Lisbon – but I realize that it is difficult to wade through all the minutes and recordings of previous meetings in order to get up to speed if you are new - I went through it myself 2 years ago) So it is unlikely that ICANN will revisit the structure before the next review in 3 + years. The task of the Interim ALAC was to set up the RALOS. The bylaws mandate tasks for the ALAC as well, once the RALOs are formed. So we have finished one job, and have to start the other. We have had 3 morning coordination meetings to plan for the main AtLarge Committee Public meeting on Thursday, as we have found that if we don’t prepare, the public meeting where we take decisions and do consultation goes on for ever. These meetings are not an attempt to push through decisions without consultation, but to do the background work to have items on the agenda in the public meeting and to have worked though most of the main problems that may prevent proper discussion and decision – if Legal needs to give an opinion, we have it, if something needs explanation from Finance, we have that staff person on hand to explain, etc., etc. In some of the past meetings the coordination meetings were after 6, and we went until after 10 pm at times. So the ALAC agreed that early morning was the most efficient time to do this, before the other stuff we had to do. We have generally been really good on time, but today was a really bad exception, probably because the purpose of the meeting was not understood by all the people in the room. Today the job was to get information from the Secretariats for Nick to develop options on the flowsheet for presentation in the public meeting – not to make any decision on the flowsheet. Similarly with the criteria – the meeting was to finish a potential document for presentation to and discussion at the public meeting on Thursday. All the ALSes will be there then. Robert asked for a few of you to be able to attend as you could give assistance on the wording of some bits that we were having problems with yesterday. If it were to be a full discussion meeting, I would have made sure that ALL the ALSes were in the room, especially the LACRALO ALSes as well as NA – they weren’t, because that wasn’t the purpose of the meeting. They have the documents, and they will raise their points on Thursday, and we will also have feedback from the other regions present. One of the main problems with the ICANN meetings is lack of time. We try to do a lot online before, and to be as efficient as possible in our meetings with the number of other meetings and panels that we need to do, so we are sometimes not as patient with revisiting things for new people as we could be. I would suggest that the best way to prepare to participate effectively would be to go over the agendas in advance (all on the wiki), comment (on the wiki) and get the background of the items that are on the agenda before the meeting starts. If anyone needs stuff I can explain and locate documents etc, or any other ALAC members or ALS members who have been around before – LACRALO is here and Erick has been around a LOOOONG time and some members of the other regions are also here and can help you get up to speed on some of the issues that we will be discussing. Jacqueline From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@gov.nu.ca] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:13 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Members Hi all, I must say, I'm learning a ton of stuff here in San Juan. One of which, is that I had always thought that we had 3 ALAC members representing our region and that is not, in fact, the case. We have two, who we have just elected being Robert and Beau. Alan "has no obligation" (his words) to forward any of our causes. I found this interesting because, some time ago, we had a huge discussion on this list (which I do not mean to re-open) on whether orgs-of-orgs (ICANN calls them "Umbrella Organizations") and their member orgs can apply to become ALSs. We had concensus on this topic, in fact the vast majority gave their consent. At yet, Alan Greenburg actually put in contrary wording to this in the ALAC Proposed Guide to ALS Application Evaluation which would have prevented this, namely (and I quote): "Where an Umbrella Organisation applies and is accepted for membership, its constituent member organizations may not be accredited as ALSes. If members of an Umbrella Organisation are already accredited as ALSes, and they wish to retain their accreditation, the Umbrella Organisation’s application would not be approved." We were extremely fortunate to have Robert there as he circulated this document amongst several of us here that would have been negatively impacted by this and arranged to have us speak to the ALAC to have this wording removed. It is also interesting that, up until this time, it was a fairly major responsibility of ALAC to assist in the formation of the five regions. Now it seems that ICANN is revisiting the entire structure. We may wish to discuss how we would like to see this structure work. I am wondering why we only get to select 2 of the 3 regional ALAC reps. If the third one is not actually forwarding OUR causes, then what is the point? Why does ICANN reserve the right to select these people if, really, they are not answerable to any group? I must say, we are very fortunate to have both Robert and Beau on the committee. They have been working unbelievably hard already (meetings at 7:30 AM most days, having to stand up and speak although totally new, running like crazy and organizing things). Thank you, Robert and Beau, Darlene No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 6/24/2007 8:33 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 6/24/2007 8:33 AM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 6/24/2007 8:33 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 6/24/2007 8:33 AM