NARALO Formation Meeting
Hello Michael I was checking the archives to get up to date on the discussions in the NA region and saw this email, among a whole flurry of emails about the activities report I wrote for the ALAC teleconference tomorrow. I was a little taken aback to see that this could be considered “disturbing news”, so decided to reply to attempt to allay your concerns. The group that is convening this meeting is ICANN. Yes – the report is accurate, but not timely. The invitation was delayed owing to the Easter holiday, and was due to be sent out today, Tuesday. I did the report early owing to the holiday, and the invitation was later for the same reason. It wasn’t any sort of conspiracy. Anyway, about the invitation - The English version was sent a little while ago, and the French translation will be sent a bit later, when the North American West Coast based staff are up and about (sorry, I don’t speak French). As well, sorry for the short notice, but the holiday really did mess up the timing. There was loads of discussion on the NA list (see archives) about wanting a f2f meeting, and some direct requests, and given the opportunity offered, ICANN’s At Large staff suggested last week that we try for this meeting to finally thrash out whether NA really wants a RALO, and under what terms, as well as have some input and discussion on some important and timely policy issues. (See invitation for details). Also, the partial sponsorship of the meeting offered does not imply any quid pro quo, and has never done. We’ve had “sponsorship” from all sorts of groups and it hasn’t affected anything. I hope that you’ll be able to attend, either in person or virtually. Sincerely Jacqueline A. Morris That is disturbing news. I have supported in principle, a face to face meeting among the NA ALS and ALS applicants, at the proposed meeting in Vancouver at the end of February. That meeting was never approved and did not get support. We went ahead with an informational meeting, and with the exception of staff and Canadian participation, no one else from the US stepped forward to participate. I'd like to know which groups are convening this meetingand why there has been no discussion on the NA discussion list. Is this report accurate? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM
Although an invitation has been sent, the choice whether to hold the meeting still rests with those in the region. We can opt to hold the funding for travel to ICANN's thrice-yearly meetings instead. Bret's recollection matches mine, that since ICANN ALAC funds are finite, we had consensus that we'd all be better served saving those for travel to ICANN meetings and organizing pre-RALO activities around those face-to-face meetings where we can also meet face-to-face with others in the ICANN circle. The next ICANN meeting is at the end of June in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and we could far more usefully meet in person there. Invite reattached here for those not reading the duplicative NA-ALS list. --Wendy At 03:23 AM 4/10/2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01C7_01C77B1F.A39C7190" Content-Language: en-us
Hello Michael
I was checking the archives to get up to date on the discussions in the NA region and saw this email, among a whole flurry of emails about the activities report I wrote for the ALAC teleconference tomorrow. I was a little taken aback to see that this could be considered disturbing news, so decided to reply to attempt to allay your concerns. The group that is convening this meeting is ICANN.
Yes the report is accurate, but not timely. The invitation was delayed owing to the Easter holiday, and was due to be sent out today, Tuesday. I did the report early owing to the holiday, and the invitation was later for the same reason. It wasnt any sort of conspiracy.
Anyway, about the invitation - The English version was sent a little while ago, and the French translation will be sent a bit later, when the North American West Coast based staff are up and about (sorry, I dont speak French). As well, sorry for the short notice, but the holiday really did mess up the timing.
There was loads of discussion on the NA list (see archives) about wanting a f2f meeting, and some direct requests, and given the opportunity offered, ICANNs At Large staff suggested last week that we try for this meeting to finally thrash out whether NA really wants a RALO, and under what terms, as well as have some input and discussion on some important and timely policy issues. (See invitation for details).
Also, the partial sponsorship of the meeting offered does not imply any quid pro quo, and has never done. Weve had sponsorship from all sorts of groups and it hasnt affected anything.
I hope that youll be able to attend, either in person or virtually.
Sincerely Jacqueline A. Morris
That is disturbing news. I have supported in principle, a face to face meeting among the NA ALS and ALS applicants, at the proposed meeting in Vancouver at the end of February. That meeting was never approved and did not get support. We went ahead with an informational meeting, and with the exception of staff and Canadian participation, no one else from the US stepped forward to participate.
I'd like to know which groups are convening this meetingand why there has been no discussion on the NA discussion list.
Is this report accurate?
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM _______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.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 hold the meeting still rests with those in the region. We can opt to hold the funding for travel to ICANN's thrice-yearly meetings instead.
Bret's recollection matches mine, that since ICANN ALAC funds are finite, we had consensus that we'd all be better served saving those for travel to ICANN meetings and organizing pre-RALO activities around those face-to-face meetings where we can also meet face-to-face with others in the ICANN circle. The next ICANN meeting is at the end of June in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and we could far more usefully meet in person there.
Invite reattached here for those not reading the duplicative NA-ALS list. --Wendy
At 03:23 AM 4/10/2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01C7_01C77B1F.A39C7190" Content-Language: en-us
Hello Michael
I was checking the archives to get up to date on the discussions in the NA region and saw this email, among a whole flurry of emails about the activities report I wrote for the ALAC teleconference tomorrow. I was a little taken aback to see that this could be considered "disturbing news", so decided to reply to attempt to allay your concerns. The group that is convening this meeting is ICANN.
Yes - the report is accurate, but not timely. The invitation was delayed owing to the Easter holiday, and was due to be sent out today, Tuesday. I did the report early owing to the holiday, and the invitation was later for the same reason. It wasn't any sort of conspiracy.
Anyway, about the invitation - The English version was sent a little while ago, and the French translation will be sent a bit later, when the North American West Coast based staff are up and about (sorry, I don't speak French). As well, sorry for the short notice, but the holiday really did mess up the timing.
There was loads of discussion on the NA list (see archives) about wanting a f2f meeting, and some direct requests, and given the opportunity offered, ICANN's At Large staff suggested last week that we try for this meeting to finally thrash out whether NA really wants a RALO, and under what terms, as well as have some input and discussion on some important and timely policy issues. (See invitation for details).
Also, the partial sponsorship of the meeting offered does not imply any quid pro quo, and has never done. We've had "sponsorship" from all sorts of groups and it hasn't affected anything.
I hope that you'll be able to attend, either in person or virtually.
Sincerely Jacqueline A. Morris
That is disturbing news. I have supported in principle, a face to face meeting among the NA ALS and ALS applicants, at the proposed meeting in Vancouver at the end of February. That meeting was never approved and did not get support. We went ahead with an informational meeting, and with the exception of staff and Canadian participation, no one else from the US stepped forward to participate.
I'd like to know which groups are convening this meetingand why there has been no discussion on the NA discussion list.
Is this report accurate?
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_at large-list s.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Hello Luc You are correct... the funds are available for both meetings according to ICANN. The decision to fund the meeting was an ICANN one, and I agreed, as ALAC Chair, given the information presented to me by ICANN's At Large and Global Partnerships staff. I also read the archives of the mailing list which seemed to say that quite a few ALSes wanted a f2f before San Juan. So - if the region DOES NOT WANT to have this meeting - i.e. if no one wants to come, then it obviously will not happen, but in that case I have to say that San Juan will almost certainly not see the NARALO formed - if the region does indeed want to form a RALO. IN the cases of all the other RALOs, at LEAST one f2f meeting was held to agree on issues before the final drafting and the 2nd f2f was at the ICACNN meeting that saw the signing of the MoU. Some had more f2fs, none had less. Even with the preparatory meetings, the final meeting often takes a lot to finalise. NY was suggested as there was a candidate ALS that offered the use of their conference room for whenever we wanted to hold a meeting - thought it would be good to use it for this. It's not a Canada vs US thing. When I sent an email to the current 2 NA reps about this meeting last week, Wendy was against, and Alan said that his decision depended on the status of the documents. However, there was also input from some NA ALSes that the meeting would be a good idea, so the invitation was sent out - yet again, sorry about the timing (Easter holidays for 4 days ...) and now it's up to you guys to decide. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Luc Faubert [mailto:LFaubert@conceptum.ca] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:27 AM To: Wendy Seltzer; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting 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 hold the meeting still rests with those in the region. We can opt to hold the funding for travel to ICANN's thrice-yearly meetings instead.
Bret's recollection matches mine, that since ICANN ALAC funds are finite, we had consensus that we'd all be better served saving those for travel to ICANN meetings and organizing pre-RALO activities around those face-to-face meetings where we can also meet face-to-face with others in the ICANN circle. The next ICANN meeting is at the end of June in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and we could far more usefully meet in person there.
Invite reattached here for those not reading the duplicative NA-ALS list. --Wendy
At 03:23 AM 4/10/2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01C7_01C77B1F.A39C7190" Content-Language: en-us
Hello Michael
I was checking the archives to get up to date on the discussions in the NA region and saw this email, among a whole flurry of emails about the activities report I wrote for the ALAC teleconference tomorrow. I was a little taken aback to see that this could be considered "disturbing news", so decided to reply to attempt to allay your concerns. The group that is convening this meeting is ICANN.
Yes - the report is accurate, but not timely. The invitation was delayed owing to the Easter holiday, and was due to be sent out today, Tuesday. I did the report early owing to the holiday, and the invitation was later for the same reason. It wasn't any sort of conspiracy.
Anyway, about the invitation - The English version was sent a little while ago, and the French translation will be sent a bit later, when the North American West Coast based staff are up and about (sorry, I don't speak French). As well, sorry for the short notice, but the holiday really did mess up the timing.
There was loads of discussion on the NA list (see archives) about wanting a f2f meeting, and some direct requests, and given the opportunity offered, ICANN's At Large staff suggested last week that we try for this meeting to finally thrash out whether NA really wants a RALO, and under what terms, as well as have some input and discussion on some important and timely policy issues. (See invitation for details).
Also, the partial sponsorship of the meeting offered does not imply any quid pro quo, and has never done. We've had "sponsorship" from all sorts of groups and it hasn't affected anything.
I hope that you'll be able to attend, either in person or virtually.
Sincerely Jacqueline A. Morris
That is disturbing news. I have supported in principle, a face to face meeting among the NA ALS and ALS applicants, at the proposed meeting in Vancouver at the end of February. That meeting was never approved and did not get support. We went ahead with an informational meeting, and with the exception of staff and Canadian participation, no one else from the US stepped forward to participate.
I'd like to know which groups are convening this meetingand why there has been no discussion on the NA discussion list.
Is this report accurate?
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_at large-list s.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
In light of the distinction between this beinig discussed versus already decided, I feel a bit better about it. I am still in the camp that a face-face meeting is better, but this assumes we can get majority of the ALSs there. Am operating in the field today ... can someone post proposed meeting details inline rather than as attachment? Thanks! -MM
Hi All, back when I was doing environmental work, we used to jump at the chance to meet in person. In my experience it's always better to sit round a table and hash out the issues face to face, agree on next actions and jump into the next meeting on the front foot. Plus you get a chance to meet interesting people, have a couple of beers, and make friends! cheers, Jacob Jacob Malthouse ICANN jacob.malthouse@icann.org 310 430 3856 On 10-Apr-07, at 8:20 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Hello Luc You are correct... the funds are available for both meetings according to ICANN.
The decision to fund the meeting was an ICANN one, and I agreed, as ALAC Chair, given the information presented to me by ICANN's At Large and Global Partnerships staff. I also read the archives of the mailing list which seemed to say that quite a few ALSes wanted a f2f before San Juan.
So - if the region DOES NOT WANT to have this meeting - i.e. if no one wants to come, then it obviously will not happen, but in that case I have to say that San Juan will almost certainly not see the NARALO formed - if the region does indeed want to form a RALO. IN the cases of all the other RALOs, at LEAST one f2f meeting was held to agree on issues before the final drafting and the 2nd f2f was at the ICACNN meeting that saw the signing of the MoU. Some had more f2fs, none had less. Even with the preparatory meetings, the final meeting often takes a lot to finalise.
NY was suggested as there was a candidate ALS that offered the use of their conference room for whenever we wanted to hold a meeting - thought it would be good to use it for this. It's not a Canada vs US thing.
When I sent an email to the current 2 NA reps about this meeting last week, Wendy was against, and Alan said that his decision depended on the status of the documents. However, there was also input from some NA ALSes that the meeting would be a good idea, so the invitation was sent out - yet again, sorry about the timing (Easter holidays for 4 days ...) and now it's up to you guys to decide.
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Luc Faubert [mailto:LFaubert@conceptum.ca] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:27 AM To: Wendy Seltzer; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
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 hold the meeting still rests with those in the region. We can opt to hold the funding for travel to ICANN's thrice-yearly meetings instead.
Bret's recollection matches mine, that since ICANN ALAC funds are finite, we had consensus that we'd all be better served saving those for travel to ICANN meetings and organizing pre-RALO activities around those face-to-face meetings where we can also meet face-to-face with others in the ICANN circle. The next ICANN meeting is at the end of June in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and we could far more usefully meet in person there.
Invite reattached here for those not reading the duplicative NA-ALS list. --Wendy
At 03:23 AM 4/10/2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01C7_01C77B1F.A39C7190" Content-Language: en-us
Hello Michael
I was checking the archives to get up to date on the discussions in the NA region and saw this email, among a whole flurry of emails about the activities report I wrote for the ALAC teleconference tomorrow. I was a little taken aback to see that this could be considered "disturbing news", so decided to reply to attempt to allay your concerns. The group that is convening this meeting is ICANN.
Yes - the report is accurate, but not timely. The invitation was delayed owing to the Easter holiday, and was due to be sent out today, Tuesday. I did the report early owing to the holiday, and the invitation was later for the same reason. It wasn't any sort of conspiracy.
Anyway, about the invitation - The English version was sent a little while ago, and the French translation will be sent a bit later, when the North American West Coast based staff are up and about (sorry, I don't speak French). As well, sorry for the short notice, but the holiday really did mess up the timing.
There was loads of discussion on the NA list (see archives) about wanting a f2f meeting, and some direct requests, and given the opportunity offered, ICANN's At Large staff suggested last week that we try for this meeting to finally thrash out whether NA really wants a RALO, and under what terms, as well as have some input and discussion on some important and timely policy issues. (See invitation for details).
Also, the partial sponsorship of the meeting offered does not imply any quid pro quo, and has never done. We've had "sponsorship" from all sorts of groups and it hasn't affected anything.
I hope that you'll be able to attend, either in person or virtually.
Sincerely Jacqueline A. Morris
That is disturbing news. I have supported in principle, a face to face meeting among the NA ALS and ALS applicants, at the proposed meeting in Vancouver at the end of February. That meeting was never approved and did not get support. We went ahead with an informational meeting, and with the exception of staff and Canadian participation, no one else from the US stepped forward to participate.
I'd like to know which groups are convening this meetingand why there has been no discussion on the NA discussion list.
Is this report accurate?
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_at large-list s.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Jacob Malthouse wrote:
back when I was doing environmental work, we used to jump at the chance to meet in person. In my experience it's always better to sit round a table and hash out the issues face to face, agree on next actions and jump into the next meeting on the front foot. Plus you get a chance to meet interesting people, have a couple of beers, and make friends!
Hi Jacob, I share your sentiment. As part of an newer ALS with next to zero travel budget of its own, we want to maximize our participation. We don't regularly attend these meetings so we need them to be meaningful and have some planning behind them. The social element is important, but I would expect that in face meetings have specific deliverables and are usually the end of a process rather than the start of one. To get maximum value out of the few face-to-face meetings, I would suggest making more use of tools such as conference calls. It would also be nice to have some more confidence in the funding process for the meetings deemed important enough to subsidize; there is a subtle but real difference between "it would be nice if you could attend this meeting" and "we really want you at this meeting; we'll cover travel costs". Cheers, Evan Leibovitch Executive Director CLUE
Hi Evan, good points,
As part of an newer ALS with next to zero travel budget of its own, we want to maximize our participation. We don't regularly attend these meetings so we need them to be meaningful and have some planning behind them. The social element is important, but I would expect that in face meetings have specific deliverables and are usually the end of a process rather than the start of one.
Agreed. Luc's email notes these nicely: - for everybody to agree on the 2 documents, - for each ALS to name its 2 representatives to the General Assembly, - for individual users to name their 2 reps to the GA, - name the Chair of the General Assembly, - name our Secreteriat, - choose our 2 ALAC reps. And would add a session on the key policy issues going forward.
To get maximum value out of the few face-to-face meetings, I would suggest making more use of tools such as conference calls. It would also be nice to have some more confidence in the funding process for the meetings deemed important enough to subsidize; there is a subtle but real difference between "it would be nice if you could attend this meeting" and "we really want you at this meeting; we'll cover travel costs".
Totally agree. the sooner we can communicate precise information on these the better. Nick's on holiday and this is his lead but from my POV we might make a monthly call a tradition, I know this is how I've acted as secretariat in the past for groups like this: - monthly call (needs a chair) -- agenda (proposed by sect and agreed by chair and members) -- minutes (standard format) -- task tracking - password protected website - public website - annual in person meeting to brainstorm strategy and discuss challenges - marketing/participation collateral for members to distribute to drum up participation It's a pretty bog standard "secretariat package".
I can only speak for my ALS, America@Large. We would very much like to participate and contribute. However, face to face meeting which require travel are normally a hinderance due to financial concerns. One day, I can see where we can be self-supporting and have someone who can do the travelling. However at this time, our organization is funded entirely by the directors. Therefore, long distance travel is often not practical. Our online methods of collaboration are also quite jumbled. I'm sure all of us on this group often have to deal with more than 100 emails per day. It is my opinion that the ALAC/RALO should be able to consolodate and make things more efficient to come to consensus on issues. Regarding these issues, it is often unclear which issues are serious issues, and which are just issues in passing. -Randy Glass A@L On 4/9/07, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hello Michael
I was checking the archives to get up to date on the discussions in the NA region and saw this email, among a whole flurry of emails about the activities report I wrote for the ALAC teleconference tomorrow. I was a little taken aback to see that this could be considered "disturbing news", so decided to reply to attempt to allay your concerns. The group that is convening this meeting is ICANN.
Yes – the report is accurate, but not timely. The invitation was delayed owing to the Easter holiday, and was due to be sent out today, Tuesday. I did the report early owing to the holiday, and the invitation was later for the same reason. It wasn't any sort of conspiracy.
Anyway, about the invitation - The English version was sent a little while ago, and the French translation will be sent a bit later, when the North American West Coast based staff are up and about (sorry, I don't speak French). As well, sorry for the short notice, but the holiday really did mess up the timing.
There was loads of discussion on the NA list (see archives) about wanting a f2f meeting, and some direct requests, and given the opportunity offered, ICANN's At Large staff suggested last week that we try for this meeting to finally thrash out whether NA really wants a RALO, and under what terms, as well as have some input and discussion on some important and timely policy issues. (See invitation for details).
Also, the partial sponsorship of the meeting offered does not imply any quid pro quo, and has never done. We've had "sponsorship" from all sorts of groups and it hasn't affected anything.
I hope that you'll be able to attend, either in person or virtually.
Sincerely
Jacqueline A. Morris
That is disturbing news. I have supported in principle, a face to face
meeting among the NA ALS and ALS applicants, at the proposed meeting in
Vancouver at the end of February. That meeting was never approved and did
not get support. We went ahead with an informational meeting, and with the
exception of staff and Canadian participation, no one else from the US
stepped forward to participate.
I'd like to know which groups are convening this meetingand why there has
been no discussion on the NA discussion list.
Is this report accurate?
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
Hi Randy If ICANN is supporting the meeting, then the travel for the ALS rep is paid for by ICANN. Jacqueline From: RJGlass | America@Large [mailto:jipshida@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 3:29 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting I can only speak for my ALS, America@Large. We would very much like to participate and contribute. However, face to face meeting which require travel are normally a hinderance due to financial concerns. One day, I can see where we can be self-supporting and have someone who can do the travelling. However at this time, our organization is funded entirely by the directors. Therefore, long distance travel is often not practical. Our online methods of collaboration are also quite jumbled. I'm sure all of us on this group often have to deal with more than 100 emails per day. It is my opinion that the ALAC/RALO should be able to consolodate and make things more efficient to come to consensus on issues. Regarding these issues, it is often unclear which issues are serious issues, and which are just issues in passing. -Randy Glass A@L On 4/9/07, Jacqueline A. Morris <HYPERLINK "mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com"jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: Hello Michael I was checking the archives to get up to date on the discussions in the NA region and saw this email, among a whole flurry of emails about the activities report I wrote for the ALAC teleconference tomorrow. I was a little taken aback to see that this could be considered "disturbing news", so decided to reply to attempt to allay your concerns. The group that is convening this meeting is ICANN. Yes – the report is accurate, but not timely. The invitation was delayed owing to the Easter holiday, and was due to be sent out today, Tuesday. I did the report early owing to the holiday, and the invitation was later for the same reason. It wasn't any sort of conspiracy. Anyway, about the invitation - The English version was sent a little while ago, and the French translation will be sent a bit later, when the North American West Coast based staff are up and about (sorry, I don't speak French). As well, sorry for the short notice, but the holiday really did mess up the timing. There was loads of discussion on the NA list (see archives) about wanting a f2f meeting, and some direct requests, and given the opportunity offered, ICANN's At Large staff suggested last week that we try for this meeting to finally thrash out whether NA really wants a RALO, and under what terms, as well as have some input and discussion on some important and timely policy issues. (See invitation for details). Also, the partial sponsorship of the meeting offered does not imply any quid pro quo, and has never done. We've had "sponsorship" from all sorts of groups and it hasn't affected anything. I hope that you'll be able to attend, either in person or virtually. Sincerely Jacqueline A. Morris That is disturbing news. I have supported in principle, a face to face meeting among the NA ALS and ALS applicants, at the proposed meeting in Vancouver at the end of February. That meeting was never approved and did not get support. We went ahead with an informational meeting, and with the exception of staff and Canadian participation, no one else from the US stepped forward to participate. I'd like to know which groups are convening this meetingand why there has been no discussion on the NA discussion list. Is this report accurate? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list HYPERLINK "mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org"NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.or g HYPERLINK "http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic ann.org" \nhttp://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.i cann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: HYPERLINK "http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU" \nhttp://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: HYPERLINK "http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP" \nhttp://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
participants (7)
-
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacob Malthouse -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Luc Faubert -
Michael Maranda -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Wendy Seltzer