At 08/02/2007 10:19 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:

Question:

Alan, you stated that “I think that for a NARALO to have a chance of succeeding, there needs to be more US-based ALSs in existence and participating in the RALO creation process.” Why, specifically, US-based ALSs for a chance of succeeding?

The US is 90% of the population. In my opinion, we need a significant number of US ALSs to be considered representative of North America and I do not think that having a RALO primarily populated by Canadian groups will help the US ALS cause. Perhaps unfortunate, but that is my opinion unless someone can convince me otherwise.

Also, I definitely agree with Michael Maranda’s opinions. We are not trying to create some complicated structure as I understand has been done in the past – just attempting to form up under the processes that are in place at this time.. Personally, I thought that it would be important for the Canadian ALSs and US ALSs to get together since some of our US counterparts have more experience in this group than some of the newer ones coming in from Canada. There would be valuable information to share and, perhaps, give us better focus in order to be more effective. Also, I never really saw the Vancouver meeting as being the definitive meeting to create the NA RALO but more of a preliminary one to bring everybody up to speed.

There are two points here, whether face-to-face meetings will help the cause, and whether the proposed Vancouver was a good idea. Taking the second point first, I agree that this meeting would NOT have been the "definitive" NARALO meeting. Unfortunately, precedent with other regions indicates that ICANN has been willing to fund just one such organizational meeting. And no one from ICANN has indicated otherwise for North America. Which is why I said that I supported ICANN funding this meeting *IF* it was not considered the definitive NARALO organizational meeting. Regarding the value of face-to-face meetings, I disagree with John. I find value in such meetings and I think that people work differently (and perhaps better) with each other after having met in person. Perhaps it is a generation thing - I have only been using e-mail for half of my life (starting in 1976 - 30 years ago). If I had started earlier in life, perhaps it would be the medium of choice. Optimally, I would recommend a meeting early in the NARALO organizational process, and a second one towards the end. But "early" still means when there is already a critical mass of US-based ALSs.

I guess those south of the border don’t see this as being important, though. Its rather a shame.

Perhaps. Perhaps the message has not been properly communicated. Or perhaps the ALS concept simply has little meaning for a country which boasts 65 web sites for every 100 people (Canada is about 12, and Mexico (not part of ICANN's NA) is 3). Perhaps since Queen Elizabeth is the official Chief of State of Canada, we should really be in the EURALO, then the US could form its own RALO. Or not... Alan PS Please note that the part about the Queen and EURALO is a JOKE!!

Darlene

Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 429 Pond Inlet, NU X0A 0S0 Phone: (867) 899-7363 Fax: (867) 899-7334 dthompson@gov.nu.ca

---------- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:43 PM To: Luc Faubert; Nick Ashton-Hart; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver

I was offline most of last week, and am just starting to catch up.

My position was not quite as you stated. I felt that a NARALO formation meeting was not appropriate at this time. I was quite happy to have the meeting take place with funding from ICANN, but as a meeting primarily aimed at Canadian ALSs.

I think that for a NARALO to have a chance of succeeding, there needs to be more US-based ALSs in existence and participating in the RALO creation process. I agree with John that their should be significant progress made electronically, although I believe that a face-to-face meeting prior to the formal signing would be a good thing. However, having the definitive NARALO formation meeting with so few US ALSs and only one in attendance is both premature and a recipe of failure.

For the record, I could not attend the meeting due to other commitments.

Alan

At 02/02/2007 03:14 PM, Luc Faubert wrote:

Nick,

If I understand well, you're telling us that Wendy Seltzer, John Levine and Alan Greenberg, the North American ALAC reps have decided that a NARALO formation meeting is not a good idea?

Given that their mandate includes -- at least for Wendy and John who have the NA interim seats -- "assist[ing] in the formation and qualification of At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs)" (see "Responsibilities of the Interim ALAC" at <http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/>http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/ ), I guess I'm missing something here.

I would appreciate explanations from our 3 ALAC reps, as I don't recall them stating their views on this list. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken, _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU

Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP