Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] NARALO Formation Meeting
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I am seriously puzzled by this. I thought that the Chair of ALAC would have the authority to agree with ICANN about a meeting.
Perhaps, if that had been the process from the start. In this case, however, that procedure was chosen only after the previous one, in which regional reps were looked to for advice about regional activites, failed to produce the results ICANN wanted. It smacks of post-hoc routing around critics.
If something is flawed, it is not necessarily the RALO formation process (which is proceeding in all other regions). Incidentally, am I the only one who considers inappropriate the veto by the only remaining initial interim ALAC member (who should step down when the NARALO will become operational)? I still remember the "Boardsquatter" campaign....
I did not unilaterally decide a face-to-face meeting wasn't warranted, but listened to discussion among the region's accredited ALSs. Many of them expressed the view that since the RALO would have to do its work online, it should conduct its formation activities online as a test of their workability. I have heard nothing in subsequent discussions to convince me that the consensus has shifted. Squatting or astroturf (fake grassroots, engineered by ICANN itself) seems to be the choice of the moment. --Wendy -- 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/
I can check to see if this approval process was available in February. I'm not sure. It may have changed, or it may have been there but not used? With regard to a f2f, more than half of the 12 currently approved ALSes have indicated that they want a f2f meeting before San Juan. 2 have said no and the rep has indicated that the online work preference is the reason. One has expressed concern about the funding availability, but has not said no to the concept of a f2f meeting. But I do wonder - if the preference is for online work, then why come to San Juan? Why not participate in all the meetings online and remotely? Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:41 AM To: Roberto Gaetano Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I am seriously puzzled by this. I thought that the Chair of ALAC would have the authority to agree with ICANN about a meeting.
Perhaps, if that had been the process from the start. In this case, however, that procedure was chosen only after the previous one, in which regional reps were looked to for advice about regional activites, failed to produce the results ICANN wanted. It smacks of post-hoc routing around critics.
If something is flawed, it is not necessarily the RALO formation process (which is proceeding in all other regions). Incidentally, am I the only one who considers inappropriate the veto by the only remaining initial interim ALAC member (who should step down when the NARALO will become operational)? I still remember the "Boardsquatter" campaign....
I did not unilaterally decide a face-to-face meeting wasn't warranted, but listened to discussion among the region's accredited ALSs. Many of them expressed the view that since the RALO would have to do its work online, it should conduct its formation activities online as a test of their workability. I have heard nothing in subsequent discussions to convince me that the consensus has shifted. Squatting or astroturf (fake grassroots, engineered by ICANN itself) seems to be the choice of the moment. --Wendy -- 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/ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- 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
Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
I can check to see if this approval process was available in February. I'm not sure. It may have changed, or it may have been there but not used?
With regard to a f2f, more than half of the 12 currently approved ALSes have indicated that they want a f2f meeting before San Juan.
That does not match my count. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 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/
I agree with Evan. We should meet if we need to meet and save ourselves and ICANN the time and money if we don't need to meet. By a separate message, I'll tick through the issues we need to resolve. Whether we meet in person in May or not, why don't we schedule some teleconference time next week to run through the issues? -- Bret On 4/10/07 7:47 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I'm all for a meeting and agree that something co-ordinated ought to be held before San Juan. What I'm unsure about is whether this is best done by conference call or in-person meeting. To me it depends on how much needs to be done, and how much prep is required. If doing the May meeting by phone makes it more likely that we can be subsidized to the annual meeting, that works best.
Great idea Brett. How is 10 AM PST next Tuesday for a conference call? Please respond to me only so we don't clog up people's inboxes. cheers, Jacob Jacob Malthouse ICANN jacob.malthouse@icann.org 310 430 3856 On 11-Apr-07, at 11:26 AM, bfausett@internet.law.pro wrote:
I agree with Evan. We should meet if we need to meet and save ourselves and ICANN the time and money if we don't need to meet. By a separate message, I'll tick through the issues we need to resolve. Whether we meet in person in May or not, why don't we schedule some teleconference time next week to run through the issues?
-- Bret
On 4/10/07 7:47 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I'm all for a meeting and agree that something co-ordinated ought to be held before San Juan. What I'm unsure about is whether this is best done by conference call or in-person meeting. To me it depends on how much needs to be done, and how much prep is required. If doing the May meeting by phone makes it more likely that we can be subsidized to the annual meeting, that works best.
_______________________________________________ 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
But I do wonder - if the preference is for online work, then why come to San Juan? Why not participate in all the meetings online and remotely?
Hi. It's the same reason we said when we turned down the Vancouver meeting -- at a full ICANN meeting, there's a lot more people than just the other ALS to meet and get to know. R's, John
Sometimes a tighter focus is important... On 12 Apr 2007 00:13:04 -0400, John R Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
But I do wonder - if the preference is for online work, then why come to San Juan? Why not participate in all the meetings online and remotely?
Hi. It's the same reason we said when we turned down the Vancouver meeting -- at a full ICANN meeting, there's a lot more people than just the other ALS to meet and get to know.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
I am travelling and have little connectivity or time to read and reply to the firestorm of messages over the last few days. But as a NA ALAC rep, I need to get my views out. 1. I did not support the Vancouver meeting because it had become clear that there would be virtually no US ALSs present, and I felt that this would be a bad start to a NARALO. 2. Unlike some others, I value a face-to-face meeting. I appreciate the belief that people "should" be able to function fully via e-mail without in-person contact, but in reality many people function better electronically after a face-to-face meeting. I am one of them. That does not mean I cannot work "blind", I have plenty of times, but it is just less effective. (Perhaps it is an age thing - although I have been an e-mail user for 30 years, and a heavy user for most of that time, I did start a bit late in life.) 3. If a well-represented NARALO can be organized in time for San Juan, fine. If not, the world will not end if it takes another month or two. 4. I support a face-to-face meeting (in Yonkers or Montreal or wherever) assuming it is announced in sufficient time for people to make arrangement to attend, it does not conflict with other major events, and that there we can get a significant number of both US and Canadian ALSs (or likely candidate ALSs) to attend (I will not get into playing the 50% game though). 5. I would not be able to attend the tentative meeting in Yonkers due to schedule conflict. It strike me that a date in early June might be more suitable, but I have not passed this by anyone. Alan
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
bfausett＠internet.law.pro -
Jacob Malthouse -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
John R Levine -
Michael Maranda -
Wendy Seltzer