Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June
Dear all, Please find the summary minutes, action items and audio recording of yesterday¹s NARALO teleconference on the meeting page. The minutes are also attached below. https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?09_june_2008 Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org Summary Minutes 09 June 2008 1. Roll Call As above 2. Review of the Summary Minutes 12 May 2008 N/A 3. Review of the Action Items 12 May 2008 N/A 4. NARALO -- first 12 month review: What did we do well? * Glad that this group did more to include individuals than others. * We seem to do more discussion on policy than other regions. * NARALO has had good interventions with ALAC as a whole. * NARALO has had great energy. * We made a strong statement to the ALAC. * Even though we are rather a small group of people we have been able to make strong points to ALAC. * We reacted well to the ALAC abuse of process in the joint constituency statement. * The group has been more active in the past six months than ever and as compared to other groups. * We were able to be proactive on a couple of issues. * NARALO has been most active on the Adobe Connect policy briefings. * The leadership has been good and our RALO has been very active. What did we do badly? * We didn't make nuisances of ourselves enough and we've let ICANN get away with too much. * We need those short updates on issues and hope that we see them soon. * There is still too much garbage on list but Evan has done well in trying to control this. * RAA revisions. We failed to come together and issue an appropriate statement to the JPA. We haven't done anything to prep our ALAC reps prior to meetings. * Those that are empowered in a group usually take the time to come up to speed with issues and look for solutions. Those that are not elected tend not to participate at a level that would make for valuable input. Its very time consuming to do so. Also, without going to the meetings and interacting on a personal level, its difficult to see where people are coming from. How can we improve? * More discussion on policy. * Its hard to get a handle on all of the various policies in order to provide input. * More outreach. * Develop a strong communications mechanism. * The Staff has done good work with Adobe Connect and we should continue to utilize these tools. * We need to keep a better eye on the calendar. * Better communications and to somehow get those that are not empowered to travel once in a while. * More outreach, more education, more policy discussions. 5. Outreach -- selection of strategic events We need to identify locations far ahead of time so that we can adequately plan and implement them. NTEN - Spring CES - January ICT Summit Vancouver February Consumer Groups events in Washington (there are two coming up) Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Lawyers in October Please bring up other ideas on the mailing list and we will add it to the list. 6. July meeting election of one ALAC rep, Chair and Secretariat During the July meeting we will be electing the above. This is a proper election so calls for nomination will be done. Evan, Darlene and Beau have agreed to stand in their positions. When should we do the elections? There were no preferences so we will put it to the list. 7. Priorities for June ICANN meeting Be careful in what meetings we go to in order for us to get the most bang for our buck. There will be an RAA meeting on Monday and Danny will prep some materials for us to be prepared for it. 8. Other Matters If you received an e-mail from Frederic Teboul, please respond ASAP. The more input we have, the better everyone can work together. We now have good support staff for Nick and now that these exist, we need to make better use of it. The Summit proposal is due tomorrow. Maybe we can also kick a copy of it to John (?) Nesbitt. 9. Next Meeting July 14, 2008
I'm sorry I couldn't join you all - I'm swamped in pre-Paris work, and of course you now have Frederic as a dedicated RALO resource! One thing I should mention with respect to the minutes - apologies if this is well-understood. As I previously mentioned, I did put forward the proposal for outreach events in the initial internal budgeting worksheets. However, just because I put something forward doesn't mean that it will necessarily make the 'cut'. We will not know what precisely did make it into the At-Large budget until after the Board passes the budget in Paris - and in particular until it decides on whether or not, based upon community input, the At-Large Summit will be supported financially or not. I understand the strong feelings of NARAL related to the outreach objectives and these proposals and I have relayed these. I wanted to make sure that you knew what the status of the proposals was though, so that there wouldn't be any misunderstandings... On 10/06/2008 21:07, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote: Dear all, Please find the summary minutes, action items and audio recording of yesterday's NARALO teleconference on the meeting page. The minutes are also attached below. https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?09_june_2008 Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org Summary Minutes 09 June 2008 1. Roll Call - As above 2. Review of the Summary Minutes 12 May 2008 N/A 3. Review of the Action Items 12 May 2008 N/A 4. NARALO -- first 12 month review: What did we do well? * Glad that this group did more to include individuals than others. * We seem to do more discussion on policy than other regions. * NARALO has had good interventions with ALAC as a whole. * NARALO has had great energy. * We made a strong statement to the ALAC. * Even though we are rather a small group of people we have been able to make strong points to ALAC. * We reacted well to the ALAC abuse of process in the joint constituency statement. * The group has been more active in the past six months than ever and as compared to other groups. * We were able to be proactive on a couple of issues. * NARALO has been most active on the Adobe Connect policy briefings. * The leadership has been good and our RALO has been very active. What did we do badly? * We didn't make nuisances of ourselves enough and we've let ICANN get away with too much. * We need those short updates on issues and hope that we see them soon. * There is still too much garbage on list but Evan has done well in trying to control this. * RAA revisions. We failed to come together and issue an appropriate statement to the JPA. We haven't done anything to prep our ALAC reps prior to meetings. * Those that are empowered in a group usually take the time to come up to speed with issues and look for solutions. Those that are not elected tend not to participate at a level that would make for valuable input. Its very time consuming to do so. Also, without going to the meetings and interacting on a personal level, its difficult to see where people are coming from. How can we improve? * More discussion on policy. * Its hard to get a handle on all of the various policies in order to provide input. * More outreach. * Develop a strong communications mechanism. * The Staff has done good work with Adobe Connect and we should continue to utilize these tools. * We need to keep a better eye on the calendar. * Better communications and to somehow get those that are not empowered to travel once in a while. * More outreach, more education, more policy discussions. 5. Outreach -- selection of strategic events We need to identify locations far ahead of time so that we can adequately plan and implement them. NTEN - Spring CES - January ICT Summit - Vancouver - February Consumer Groups events in Washington (there are two coming up) Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Lawyers in October Please bring up other ideas on the mailing list and we will add it to the list. 6. July meeting election of one ALAC rep, Chair and Secretariat During the July meeting we will be electing the above. This is a proper election so calls for nomination will be done. Evan, Darlene and Beau have agreed to stand in their positions. When should we do the elections? There were no preferences so we will put it to the list. 7. Priorities for June ICANN meeting Be careful in what meetings we go to in order for us to get the most bang for our buck. There will be an RAA meeting on Monday and Danny will prep some materials for us to be prepared for it. 8. Other Matters If you received an e-mail from Frederic Teboul, please respond ASAP. The more input we have, the better everyone can work together. We now have good support staff for Nick and now that these exist, we need to make better use of it. The Summit proposal is due tomorrow. Maybe we can also kick a copy of it to John (?) Nesbitt. 9. Next Meeting July 14, 2008 ------ 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 ------ -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Nick, If the Board in Paris approves the overall budget, what will be the At-Large departmental budget for the fiscal year? regards, Danny --- On Wed, 6/11/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote:
From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 8:18 AM I'm sorry I couldn't join you all - I'm swamped in pre-Paris work, and of course you now have Frederic as a dedicated RALO resource!
One thing I should mention with respect to the minutes - apologies if this is well-understood.
As I previously mentioned, I did put forward the proposal for outreach events in the initial internal budgeting worksheets. However, just because I put something forward doesn't mean that it will necessarily make the 'cut'.
We will not know what precisely did make it into the At-Large budget until after the Board passes the budget in Paris - and in particular until it decides on whether or not, based upon community input, the At-Large Summit will be supported financially or not.
I understand the strong feelings of NARAL related to the outreach objectives and these proposals and I have relayed these. I wanted to make sure that you knew what the status of the proposals was though, so that there wouldn't be any misunderstandings...
On 10/06/2008 21:07, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Please find the summary minutes, action items and audio recording of yesterday's NARALO teleconference on the meeting page. The minutes are also attached below.
https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?09_june_2008
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org
Summary Minutes 09 June 2008
1. Roll Call - As above 2. Review of the Summary Minutes 12 May 2008
N/A 3. Review of the Action Items 12 May 2008
N/A 4. NARALO -- first 12 month review:
What did we do well?
* Glad that this group did more to include individuals than others. * We seem to do more discussion on policy than other regions. * NARALO has had good interventions with ALAC as a whole. * NARALO has had great energy. * We made a strong statement to the ALAC. * Even though we are rather a small group of people we have been able to make strong points to ALAC. * We reacted well to the ALAC abuse of process in the joint constituency statement. * The group has been more active in the past six months than ever and as compared to other groups. * We were able to be proactive on a couple of issues. * NARALO has been most active on the Adobe Connect policy briefings. * The leadership has been good and our RALO has been very active.
What did we do badly?
* We didn't make nuisances of ourselves enough and we've let ICANN get away with too much. * We need those short updates on issues and hope that we see them soon. * There is still too much garbage on list but Evan has done well in trying to control this. * RAA revisions. We failed to come together and issue an appropriate statement to the JPA. We haven't done anything to prep our ALAC reps prior to meetings. * Those that are empowered in a group usually take the time to come up to speed with issues and look for solutions. Those that are not elected tend not to participate at a level that would make for valuable input. Its very time consuming to do so. Also, without going to the meetings and interacting on a personal level, its difficult to see where people are coming from.
How can we improve?
* More discussion on policy. * Its hard to get a handle on all of the various policies in order to provide input. * More outreach. * Develop a strong communications mechanism. * The Staff has done good work with Adobe Connect and we should continue to utilize these tools. * We need to keep a better eye on the calendar. * Better communications and to somehow get those that are not empowered to travel once in a while. * More outreach, more education, more policy discussions.
5. Outreach -- selection of strategic events
We need to identify locations far ahead of time so that we can adequately plan and implement them.
NTEN - Spring CES - January ICT Summit - Vancouver - February Consumer Groups events in Washington (there are two coming up) Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Lawyers in October
Please bring up other ideas on the mailing list and we will add it to the list. 6. July meeting election of one ALAC rep, Chair and Secretariat
During the July meeting we will be electing the above. This is a proper election so calls for nomination will be done. Evan, Darlene and Beau have agreed to stand in their positions. When should we do the elections? There were no preferences so we will put it to the list. 7. Priorities for June ICANN meeting
Be careful in what meetings we go to in order for us to get the most bang for our buck. There will be an RAA meeting on Monday and Danny will prep some materials for us to be prepared for it. 8. Other Matters
If you received an e-mail from Frederic Teboul, please respond ASAP. The more input we have, the better everyone can work together. We now have good support staff for Nick and now that these exist, we need to make better use of it.
The Summit proposal is due tomorrow. Maybe we can also kick a copy of it to John (?) Nesbitt. 9. Next Meeting
July 14, 2008
------ 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 ------
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart ------ 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 ------
Dear Danny: I understand that there are pretty much always modifications to the budget before it is passed based upon consultations with the community. Certainly because of the Summit question the At-Large budget is very much an open question. On 11/06/2008 14:45, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote: Nick, If the Board in Paris approves the overall budget, what will be the At-Large departmental budget for the fiscal year? regards, Danny --- On Wed, 6/11/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote:
From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 8:18 AM I'm sorry I couldn't join you all - I'm swamped in pre-Paris work, and of course you now have Frederic as a dedicated RALO resource!
One thing I should mention with respect to the minutes - apologies if this is well-understood.
As I previously mentioned, I did put forward the proposal for outreach events in the initial internal budgeting worksheets. However, just because I put something forward doesn't mean that it will necessarily make the 'cut'.
We will not know what precisely did make it into the At-Large budget until after the Board passes the budget in Paris - and in particular until it decides on whether or not, based upon community input, the At-Large Summit will be supported financially or not.
I understand the strong feelings of NARAL related to the outreach objectives and these proposals and I have relayed these. I wanted to make sure that you knew what the status of the proposals was though, so that there wouldn't be any misunderstandings...
On 10/06/2008 21:07, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Please find the summary minutes, action items and audio recording of yesterday's NARALO teleconference on the meeting page. The minutes are also attached below.
https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?09_june_2008
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org
Summary Minutes 09 June 2008
1. Roll Call - As above 2. Review of the Summary Minutes 12 May 2008
N/A 3. Review of the Action Items 12 May 2008
N/A 4. NARALO -- first 12 month review:
What did we do well?
* Glad that this group did more to include individuals than others. * We seem to do more discussion on policy than other regions. * NARALO has had good interventions with ALAC as a whole. * NARALO has had great energy. * We made a strong statement to the ALAC. * Even though we are rather a small group of people we have been able to make strong points to ALAC. * We reacted well to the ALAC abuse of process in the joint constituency statement. * The group has been more active in the past six months than ever and as compared to other groups. * We were able to be proactive on a couple of issues. * NARALO has been most active on the Adobe Connect policy briefings. * The leadership has been good and our RALO has been very active.
What did we do badly?
* We didn't make nuisances of ourselves enough and we've let ICANN get away with too much. * We need those short updates on issues and hope that we see them soon. * There is still too much garbage on list but Evan has done well in trying to control this. * RAA revisions. We failed to come together and issue an appropriate statement to the JPA. We haven't done anything to prep our ALAC reps prior to meetings. * Those that are empowered in a group usually take the time to come up to speed with issues and look for solutions. Those that are not elected tend not to participate at a level that would make for valuable input. Its very time consuming to do so. Also, without going to the meetings and interacting on a personal level, its difficult to see where people are coming from.
How can we improve?
* More discussion on policy. * Its hard to get a handle on all of the various policies in order to provide input. * More outreach. * Develop a strong communications mechanism. * The Staff has done good work with Adobe Connect and we should continue to utilize these tools. * We need to keep a better eye on the calendar. * Better communications and to somehow get those that are not empowered to travel once in a while. * More outreach, more education, more policy discussions.
5. Outreach -- selection of strategic events
We need to identify locations far ahead of time so that we can adequately plan and implement them.
NTEN - Spring CES - January ICT Summit - Vancouver - February Consumer Groups events in Washington (there are two coming up) Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Lawyers in October
Please bring up other ideas on the mailing list and we will add it to the list. 6. July meeting election of one ALAC rep, Chair and Secretariat
During the July meeting we will be electing the above. This is a proper election so calls for nomination will be done. Evan, Darlene and Beau have agreed to stand in their positions. When should we do the elections? There were no preferences so we will put it to the list. 7. Priorities for June ICANN meeting
Be careful in what meetings we go to in order for us to get the most bang for our buck. There will be an RAA meeting on Monday and Danny will prep some materials for us to be prepared for it. 8. Other Matters
If you received an e-mail from Frederic Teboul, please respond ASAP. The more input we have, the better everyone can work together. We now have good support staff for Nick and now that these exist, we need to make better use of it.
The Summit proposal is due tomorrow. Maybe we can also kick a copy of it to John (?) Nesbitt. 9. Next Meeting
July 14, 2008
------ 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 ------
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart ------ 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 ------
------ 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 ------ -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Nick, Allow me to re-phrase the question. Having reviewed the minutes of the AFRALO 7 May session, I see that: "The Staff noted that the travel budget is currently under review and that there is a strong likelihood that At-Large’s travel budget will be reduced to match the travel budgets of the other ICANN constituencies." Under the proposed ICANN Travel Support draft, other individual constituencies (such as the GNSO, ASO, or ccNSO) will be getting an allocation equal to Half of Council Size + 1 for Chair (with the highest per constituency dollar total set at $184,800). Is it being proposed by Staff that a similar formula be used for At-Large travel? Setting aside the issue of Summit funding, what budget totals have been proposed for the At-Large by the ICANN Staff? When can we see a breakdown of the proposed At-Large budget? Related questions: The ICANN Accountability & Transparency Frameworks document indicates Financial Accounts • Within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year, the Audit Committee presents to the Board a final audited set of accounts for the year, along with an audit report that examines the standard of compliance with accounting standards. • The final accounts are posted on the ICANN website for the information of the ICANN community. Within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year would have been around March 1, yet I haven't seen the final audited set of accounts for the year posted on the ICANN website. Neither have I seen IRS Form 990 posted for many many years. I direct your attention to this section of the IRS Letter Granting Tax Exemption to ICANN: "You are required to make your form 990 available for public inspection for three years after the later of the due date of your return or the date the return is filed. You are also required to make available for public inspection your exemption application, any supporting documents, and this exemption letter. Copies of these documents must be provided to any individual upon written or in person request without charge other than reasonable fees for copying and postage. You may fulfill this requirement by placing these documents on the Internet. Penalties may be imposed for failure to comply with these requirements." http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/us/irs-letter-grant-28aug00.htm Looking forward to any elucidations. regards, Danny --- On Wed, 6/11/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote:
From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 12:47 PM Dear Danny:
I understand that there are pretty much always modifications to the budget before it is passed based upon consultations with the community. Certainly because of the Summit question the At-Large budget is very much an open question.
On 11/06/2008 14:45, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nick,
If the Board in Paris approves the overall budget, what will be the At-Large departmental budget for the fiscal year?
regards, Danny
--- On Wed, 6/11/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote:
From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 8:18 AM I'm sorry I couldn't join you all - I'm swamped in pre-Paris work, and of course you now have Frederic as a dedicated RALO resource!
One thing I should mention with respect to the minutes
apologies if this is well-understood.
As I previously mentioned, I did put forward the proposal for outreach events in the initial internal budgeting worksheets. However, just because I put something forward doesn't mean that it will necessarily make the 'cut'.
We will not know what precisely did make it into the At-Large budget until after the Board passes the budget in Paris - and in particular until it decides on whether or not, based upon community input, the At-Large Summit will be supported financially or not.
I understand the strong feelings of NARAL related to the outreach objectives and these proposals and I have relayed these. I wanted to make sure that you knew what the status of the proposals was though, so that there wouldn't be any misunderstandings...
On 10/06/2008 21:07, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Please find the summary minutes, action items and audio recording of yesterday's NARALO teleconference on the meeting page. The minutes are also attached below.
https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?09_june_2008
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org
Summary Minutes 09 June 2008
1. Roll Call - As above 2. Review of the Summary Minutes 12 May 2008
N/A 3. Review of the Action Items 12 May 2008
N/A 4. NARALO -- first 12 month review:
What did we do well?
* Glad that this group did more to include individuals than others. * We seem to do more discussion on policy than other regions. * NARALO has had good interventions with ALAC as a whole. * NARALO has had great energy. * We made a strong statement to the ALAC. * Even though we are rather a small group of people we have been able to make strong points to ALAC. * We reacted well to the ALAC abuse of process in the joint constituency statement. * The group has been more active in the past six months than ever and as compared to other groups. * We were able to be proactive on a couple of issues. * NARALO has been most active on the Adobe Connect policy briefings. * The leadership has been good and our RALO has been very active.
What did we do badly?
* We didn't make nuisances of ourselves enough and we've let ICANN get away with too much. * We need those short updates on issues and hope that we see them soon. * There is still too much garbage on list but Evan has done well in trying to control this. * RAA revisions. We failed to come together and issue an appropriate statement to the JPA. We haven't done anything to prep our ALAC reps prior to meetings. * Those that are empowered in a group usually take the time to come up to speed with issues and look for solutions. Those that are not elected tend not to participate at a level that would make for valuable input. Its very time consuming to do so. Also, without going to the meetings and interacting on a personal level, its difficult to see where people are coming from.
How can we improve?
* More discussion on policy. * Its hard to get a handle on all of the various policies in order to provide input. * More outreach. * Develop a strong communications mechanism. * The Staff has done good work with Adobe Connect and we should continue to utilize these tools. * We need to keep a better eye on the calendar. * Better communications and to somehow get those that are not empowered to travel once in a while. * More outreach, more education, more policy discussions.
5. Outreach -- selection of strategic events
We need to identify locations far ahead of time so that we can adequately plan and implement them.
NTEN - Spring CES - January ICT Summit - Vancouver - February Consumer Groups events in Washington (there are two coming up) Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Lawyers in October
Please bring up other ideas on the mailing list and we will add it to the list. 6. July meeting election of one ALAC rep, Chair and Secretariat
During the July meeting we will be electing the above. This is a proper election so calls for nomination will be done. Evan, Darlene and Beau have agreed to stand in their positions. When should we do the elections? There were no preferences so we will put it to the list. 7. Priorities for June ICANN meeting
Be careful in what meetings we go to in order for us to get the most bang for our buck. There will be an RAA meeting on Monday and Danny will prep some materials for us to be prepared for it. 8. Other Matters
If you received an e-mail from Frederic Teboul, please respond ASAP. The more input we have, the better everyone can work together. We now have good support staff for Nick and now that these exist, we need to make better use of it.
The Summit proposal is due tomorrow. Maybe we can also kick a copy of it to John (?) Nesbitt. 9. Next Meeting
July 14, 2008
------ 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 ------
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN)
Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart ------ 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 ------
------ 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 ------
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Dear Danny: Happy to clarify this, however in part I must refer you to my previous answer: * There is no settled travel budget for this community until the board has approved the budget. * There is also no settled formula for any other group - the travel support proposals are undergoing community review as you know, and are themselves subject to change. * At-Large, just like every other community, has equal access to information related to the budget, allowing an equal opportunity to provide input. * I would refer you to other sections of the proposed travel support draft, which directly address ALAC in specific. As to the more specific budget questions, I refer you to the various previous replies to this question and related questions by Denise, myself, and Doug. A number of those are available in writing from the Finance and Budget Subcommittee wiki page at: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?finance_and_budget_committee. On 12/06/2008 22:48, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote: Nick, Allow me to re-phrase the question. Having reviewed the minutes of the AFRALO 7 May session, I see that: "The Staff noted that the travel budget is currently under review and that there is a strong likelihood that At-Large's travel budget will be reduced to match the travel budgets of the other ICANN constituencies." Under the proposed ICANN Travel Support draft, other individual constituencies (such as the GNSO, ASO, or ccNSO) will be getting an allocation equal to Half of Council Size + 1 for Chair (with the highest per constituency dollar total set at $184,800). Is it being proposed by Staff that a similar formula be used for At-Large travel? Setting aside the issue of Summit funding, what budget totals have been proposed for the At-Large by the ICANN Staff? When can we see a breakdown of the proposed At-Large budget? Related questions: The ICANN Accountability & Transparency Frameworks document indicates Financial Accounts * Within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year, the Audit Committee presents to the Board a final audited set of accounts for the year, along with an audit report that examines the standard of compliance with accounting standards. * The final accounts are posted on the ICANN website for the information of the ICANN community. Within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year would have been around March 1, yet I haven't seen the final audited set of accounts for the year posted on the ICANN website. Neither have I seen IRS Form 990 posted for many many years. I direct your attention to this section of the IRS Letter Granting Tax Exemption to ICANN: "You are required to make your form 990 available for public inspection for three years after the later of the due date of your return or the date the return is filed. You are also required to make available for public inspection your exemption application, any supporting documents, and this exemption letter. Copies of these documents must be provided to any individual upon written or in person request without charge other than reasonable fees for copying and postage. You may fulfill this requirement by placing these documents on the Internet. Penalties may be imposed for failure to comply with these requirements." http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/us/irs-letter-grant-28aug00.htm Looking forward to any elucidations. regards, Danny --- On Wed, 6/11/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote:
From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 12:47 PM Dear Danny:
I understand that there are pretty much always modifications to the budget before it is passed based upon consultations with the community. Certainly because of the Summit question the At-Large budget is very much an open question.
On 11/06/2008 14:45, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nick,
If the Board in Paris approves the overall budget, what will be the At-Large departmental budget for the fiscal year?
regards, Danny
--- On Wed, 6/11/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote:
From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 8:18 AM I'm sorry I couldn't join you all - I'm swamped in pre-Paris work, and of course you now have Frederic as a dedicated RALO resource!
One thing I should mention with respect to the minutes
apologies if this is well-understood.
As I previously mentioned, I did put forward the proposal for outreach events in the initial internal budgeting worksheets. However, just because I put something forward doesn't mean that it will necessarily make the 'cut'.
We will not know what precisely did make it into the At-Large budget until after the Board passes the budget in Paris - and in particular until it decides on whether or not, based upon community input, the At-Large Summit will be supported financially or not.
I understand the strong feelings of NARAL related to the outreach objectives and these proposals and I have relayed these. I wanted to make sure that you knew what the status of the proposals was though, so that there wouldn't be any misunderstandings...
On 10/06/2008 21:07, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Please find the summary minutes, action items and audio recording of yesterday's NARALO teleconference on the meeting page. The minutes are also attached below.
https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?09_june_2008
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org
Summary Minutes 09 June 2008
1. Roll Call - As above 2. Review of the Summary Minutes 12 May 2008
N/A 3. Review of the Action Items 12 May 2008
N/A 4. NARALO -- first 12 month review:
What did we do well?
* Glad that this group did more to include individuals than others. * We seem to do more discussion on policy than other regions. * NARALO has had good interventions with ALAC as a whole. * NARALO has had great energy. * We made a strong statement to the ALAC. * Even though we are rather a small group of people we have been able to make strong points to ALAC. * We reacted well to the ALAC abuse of process in the joint constituency statement. * The group has been more active in the past six months than ever and as compared to other groups. * We were able to be proactive on a couple of issues. * NARALO has been most active on the Adobe Connect policy briefings. * The leadership has been good and our RALO has been very active.
What did we do badly?
* We didn't make nuisances of ourselves enough and we've let ICANN get away with too much. * We need those short updates on issues and hope that we see them soon. * There is still too much garbage on list but Evan has done well in trying to control this. * RAA revisions. We failed to come together and issue an appropriate statement to the JPA. We haven't done anything to prep our ALAC reps prior to meetings. * Those that are empowered in a group usually take the time to come up to speed with issues and look for solutions. Those that are not elected tend not to participate at a level that would make for valuable input. Its very time consuming to do so. Also, without going to the meetings and interacting on a personal level, its difficult to see where people are coming from.
How can we improve?
* More discussion on policy. * Its hard to get a handle on all of the various policies in order to provide input. * More outreach. * Develop a strong communications mechanism. * The Staff has done good work with Adobe Connect and we should continue to utilize these tools. * We need to keep a better eye on the calendar. * Better communications and to somehow get those that are not empowered to travel once in a while. * More outreach, more education, more policy discussions.
5. Outreach -- selection of strategic events
We need to identify locations far ahead of time so that we can adequately plan and implement them.
NTEN - Spring CES - January ICT Summit - Vancouver - February Consumer Groups events in Washington (there are two coming up) Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Lawyers in October
Please bring up other ideas on the mailing list and we will add it to the list. 6. July meeting election of one ALAC rep, Chair and Secretariat
During the July meeting we will be electing the above. This is a proper election so calls for nomination will be done. Evan, Darlene and Beau have agreed to stand in their positions. When should we do the elections? There were no preferences so we will put it to the list. 7. Priorities for June ICANN meeting
Be careful in what meetings we go to in order for us to get the most bang for our buck. There will be an RAA meeting on Monday and Danny will prep some materials for us to be prepared for it. 8. Other Matters
If you received an e-mail from Frederic Teboul, please respond ASAP. The more input we have, the better everyone can work together. We now have good support staff for Nick and now that these exist, we need to make better use of it.
The Summit proposal is due tomorrow. Maybe we can also kick a copy of it to John (?) Nesbitt. 9. Next Meeting
July 14, 2008
------ 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 ------
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN)
Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart ------ 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 ------
------ 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 ------
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Nick, Thank you once again for the high quality of the non-answer that has been provided. There was a time when ICANN was a trifle more revealing with their budget figures; perhaps you may recall this disclosure from a few years ago: C. At Large and Community Projects General Description This line item falls under “Developing Country Internet Community Projects” in the adopted budget. At-Large activities include expenses to improve upon the significant progress that has been made on the creation and involvement of ICANN At-Large. As ICANN attempts Regional At-Large Organisations, additional start-up funds are needed. To increase the likelihood of establishing the At-Large framework envisioned in the bylaws, additional ICANN support is required for At-Large organizing/outreach, including staff support to secure the involvement of a significant number of At-Large Structures in each region in ICANN policy activities, and face-to-face interactions at ICANN meetings of At-Large community leaders. Line item amount: $381K Run rate: $188K [The run rate varies from month to month. Higher levels of expenditures are made during the ICANN meetings due to travel expenses. During this period, ALAC will hold activity levels and meeting travel at rates consistent with last year.] Detailed spending: − $133,500 – Development and distribution of informational materials, support for RALO organizing meetings, secretariat support for RALO formation efforts, and inregion staff/consultant services to support At-Large organizing and outreach objectives; − $235,000 – Travel for ALAC members and key At-Large leaders to ICANN meetings to conduct ALAC policy development and outreach activities, and travel for ALAC members and/or At-Large leaders to attend 2 key outreach events in each region; − $12,500 – Administration expenses to support At-Large efforts, including regular conference call meetings. Task description The At-Large and Community Projects budget of $381,000 will be used to build upon the significant progress that has been made in the creation of a global framework of "At-Large" user groups and their involvement in ICANN, including the work of the At-Large Advisory Committee. Feel free to contrast the above disclosure with the total lack of data on at-large spending that ICANN currently is offering. Thus far, your clarifications have provided no numbers whatsoever. I would ask you to have that oversight corrected. regards, Danny --- On Fri, 6/13/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote:
From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, June 13, 2008, 2:02 AM Dear Danny:
Happy to clarify this, however in part I must refer you to my previous answer:
* There is no settled travel budget for this community until the board has approved the budget. * There is also no settled formula for any other group - the travel support proposals are undergoing community review as you know, and are themselves subject to change. * At-Large, just like every other community, has equal access to information related to the budget, allowing an equal opportunity to provide input. * I would refer you to other sections of the proposed travel support draft, which directly address ALAC in specific.
As to the more specific budget questions, I refer you to the various previous replies to this question and related questions by Denise, myself, and Doug. A number of those are available in writing from the Finance and Budget Subcommittee wiki page at: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?finance_and_budget_committee.
On 12/06/2008 22:48, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nick,
Allow me to re-phrase the question.
Having reviewed the minutes of the AFRALO 7 May session, I see that:
"The Staff noted that the travel budget is currently under review and that there is a strong likelihood that At-Large's travel budget will be reduced to match the travel budgets of the other ICANN constituencies."
Under the proposed ICANN Travel Support draft, other individual constituencies (such as the GNSO, ASO, or ccNSO) will be getting an allocation equal to Half of Council Size + 1 for Chair (with the highest per constituency dollar total set at $184,800).
Is it being proposed by Staff that a similar formula be used for At-Large travel?
Setting aside the issue of Summit funding, what budget totals have been proposed for the At-Large by the ICANN Staff? When can we see a breakdown of the proposed At-Large budget?
Related questions:
The ICANN Accountability & Transparency Frameworks document indicates
Financial Accounts * Within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year, the Audit Committee presents to the Board a final audited set of accounts for the year, along with an audit report that examines the standard of compliance with accounting standards. * The final accounts are posted on the ICANN website for the information of the ICANN community.
Within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year would have been around March 1, yet I haven't seen the final audited set of accounts for the year posted on the ICANN website. Neither have I seen IRS Form 990 posted for many many years.
I direct your attention to this section of the IRS Letter Granting Tax Exemption to ICANN:
"You are required to make your form 990 available for public inspection for three years after the later of the due date of your return or the date the return is filed. You are also required to make available for public inspection your exemption application, any supporting documents, and this exemption letter. Copies of these documents must be provided to any individual upon written or in person request without charge other than reasonable fees for copying and postage. You may fulfill this requirement by placing these documents on the Internet. Penalties may be imposed for failure to comply with these requirements."
http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/us/irs-letter-grant-28aug00.htm
Looking forward to any elucidations.
regards, Danny
--- On Wed, 6/11/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote:
From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 12:47 PM Dear Danny:
I understand that there are pretty much always modifications to the budget before it is passed based upon consultations with the community. Certainly because of the Summit question the At-Large budget is very much an open question.
On 11/06/2008 14:45, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nick,
If the Board in Paris approves the overall budget, what will be the At-Large departmental budget for the fiscal year?
regards, Danny
--- On Wed, 6/11/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote:
From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 8:18 AM I'm sorry I couldn't join you all - I'm swamped in pre-Paris work, and of course you now have Frederic as a dedicated RALO resource!
One thing I should mention with respect to the minutes
apologies if this is well-understood.
As I previously mentioned, I did put forward the proposal for outreach events in the initial internal budgeting worksheets. However, just because I put something forward doesn't mean that it will necessarily make the 'cut'.
We will not know what precisely did make it into the At-Large budget until after the Board passes the budget in Paris - and in particular until it decides on whether or not, based upon community input, the At-Large Summit will be supported financially or not.
I understand the strong feelings of NARAL related to the outreach objectives and these proposals and I have relayed these. I wanted to make sure that you knew what the status of the proposals was though, so that there wouldn't be any misunderstandings...
On 10/06/2008 21:07, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Please find the summary minutes, action items and audio recording of yesterday's NARALO teleconference on the meeting page. The minutes are also attached below.
https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?09_june_2008
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic
Teboul
ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org
Summary Minutes 09 June 2008
1. Roll Call - As above 2. Review of the Summary Minutes 12 May 2008
N/A 3. Review of the Action Items 12 May 2008
N/A 4. NARALO -- first 12 month review:
What did we do well?
* Glad that this group did more to include individuals than others. * We seem to do more discussion on policy than other regions. * NARALO has had good interventions with ALAC as a whole. * NARALO has had great energy. * We made a strong statement to the ALAC. * Even though we are rather a small group of people we have been able to make strong points to ALAC. * We reacted well to the ALAC abuse of process in the joint constituency statement. * The group has been more active in the past six months than ever and as compared to other groups. * We were able to be proactive on a couple of issues. * NARALO has been most active on the Adobe Connect policy briefings. * The leadership has been good and our RALO has been very active.
What did we do badly?
* We didn't make nuisances of ourselves enough and we've let ICANN get away with too much. * We need those short updates on issues and hope that we see them soon. * There is still too much garbage on list but Evan has done well in trying to control this. * RAA revisions. We failed to come together and issue an appropriate statement to the JPA. We haven't done anything to prep our ALAC reps prior to meetings. * Those that are empowered in a group usually take the time to come up to speed with issues and look for solutions. Those that are not elected tend not to participate at a level that would make for valuable input. Its very time consuming to do so. Also, without going to the meetings and interacting on a personal level, its difficult to see where people are coming from.
How can we improve?
* More discussion on policy. * Its hard to get a handle on all of the various policies in order to provide input. * More outreach. * Develop a strong communications mechanism. * The Staff has done good work with Adobe Connect and we should continue to utilize these tools. * We need to keep a better eye on the calendar. * Better communications and to somehow get those that are not empowered to travel once in a while. * More outreach, more education, more policy discussions.
5. Outreach -- selection of strategic events
We need to identify locations far ahead of time so that we can adequately plan and implement them.
NTEN - Spring CES - January ICT Summit - Vancouver - February Consumer Groups events in Washington (there are two coming up) Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Lawyers in October
Please bring up other ideas on the mailing list and we will add it to the list. 6. July meeting election of one ALAC rep, Chair and Secretariat
During the July meeting we will be electing the above. This is a proper election so calls for nomination will be done. Evan, Darlene and Beau have agreed to stand in their positions. When should we do the elections? There were no preferences so we will put it to the list. 7. Priorities for June ICANN meeting
Be careful in what meetings we go to in order for us to get the most bang for our buck. There will be an RAA meeting on Monday and Danny will prep some materials for us to be prepared for it. 8. Other Matters
If you received an e-mail from Frederic Teboul, please respond ASAP. The more input we have, the better everyone can work together. We now have good support staff for Nick and now that these exist, we need to make better use of it.
The Summit proposal is due tomorrow. Maybe we can also kick a copy of it to John (?) Nesbitt. 9. Next Meeting
July 14, 2008
------ 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 ------
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN)
Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart ------ 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 ------
------ 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 ------
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN)
Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Dear Danny: I'm sorry that you find the answer not satisfying. What I would add is that Kevin Wilson did state on the teleconference that he understood the requests made on the call for information of the kind you are asking for and that there is work underway in Finance to review the detail relating to budget and expenditure and how this is provided to the whole community, in a way which is consistent and sustainable. This is something that will be discussed in Paris by myself, Kevin, and others. On 13/06/2008 14:37, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote: Nick, Thank you once again for the high quality of the non-answer that has been provided. There was a time when ICANN was a trifle more revealing with their budget figures; perhaps you may recall this disclosure from a few years ago: C. At Large and Community Projects General Description This line item falls under "Developing Country Internet Community Projects" in the adopted budget. At-Large activities include expenses to improve upon the significant progress that has been made on the creation and involvement of ICANN At-Large. As ICANN attempts Regional At-Large Organisations, additional start-up funds are needed. To increase the likelihood of establishing the At-Large framework envisioned in the bylaws, additional ICANN support is required for At-Large organizing/outreach, including staff support to secure the involvement of a significant number of At-Large Structures in each region in ICANN policy activities, and face-to-face interactions at ICANN meetings of At-Large community leaders. Line item amount: $381K Run rate: $188K [The run rate varies from month to month. Higher levels of expenditures are made during the ICANN meetings due to travel expenses. During this period, ALAC will hold activity levels and meeting travel at rates consistent with last year.] Detailed spending: - $133,500 - Development and distribution of informational materials, support for RALO organizing meetings, secretariat support for RALO formation efforts, and inregion staff/consultant services to support At-Large organizing and outreach objectives; - $235,000 - Travel for ALAC members and key At-Large leaders to ICANN meetings to conduct ALAC policy development and outreach activities, and travel for ALAC members and/or At-Large leaders to attend 2 key outreach events in each region; - $12,500 - Administration expenses to support At-Large efforts, including regular conference call meetings. Task description The At-Large and Community Projects budget of $381,000 will be used to build upon the significant progress that has been made in the creation of a global framework of "At-Large" user groups and their involvement in ICANN, including the work of the At-Large Advisory Committee. Feel free to contrast the above disclosure with the total lack of data on at-large spending that ICANN currently is offering. Thus far, your clarifications have provided no numbers whatsoever. I would ask you to have that oversight corrected. regards, Danny --- On Fri, 6/13/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote:
From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, June 13, 2008, 2:02 AM Dear Danny:
Happy to clarify this, however in part I must refer you to my previous answer:
* There is no settled travel budget for this community until the board has approved the budget. * There is also no settled formula for any other group - the travel support proposals are undergoing community review as you know, and are themselves subject to change. * At-Large, just like every other community, has equal access to information related to the budget, allowing an equal opportunity to provide input. * I would refer you to other sections of the proposed travel support draft, which directly address ALAC in specific.
As to the more specific budget questions, I refer you to the various previous replies to this question and related questions by Denise, myself, and Doug. A number of those are available in writing from the Finance and Budget Subcommittee wiki page at: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?finance_and_budget_committee.
On 12/06/2008 22:48, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nick,
Allow me to re-phrase the question.
Having reviewed the minutes of the AFRALO 7 May session, I see that:
"The Staff noted that the travel budget is currently under review and that there is a strong likelihood that At-Large's travel budget will be reduced to match the travel budgets of the other ICANN constituencies."
Under the proposed ICANN Travel Support draft, other individual constituencies (such as the GNSO, ASO, or ccNSO) will be getting an allocation equal to Half of Council Size + 1 for Chair (with the highest per constituency dollar total set at $184,800).
Is it being proposed by Staff that a similar formula be used for At-Large travel?
Setting aside the issue of Summit funding, what budget totals have been proposed for the At-Large by the ICANN Staff? When can we see a breakdown of the proposed At-Large budget?
Related questions:
The ICANN Accountability & Transparency Frameworks document indicates
Financial Accounts * Within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year, the Audit Committee presents to the Board a final audited set of accounts for the year, along with an audit report that examines the standard of compliance with accounting standards. * The final accounts are posted on the ICANN website for the information of the ICANN community.
Within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year would have been around March 1, yet I haven't seen the final audited set of accounts for the year posted on the ICANN website. Neither have I seen IRS Form 990 posted for many many years.
I direct your attention to this section of the IRS Letter Granting Tax Exemption to ICANN:
"You are required to make your form 990 available for public inspection for three years after the later of the due date of your return or the date the return is filed. You are also required to make available for public inspection your exemption application, any supporting documents, and this exemption letter. Copies of these documents must be provided to any individual upon written or in person request without charge other than reasonable fees for copying and postage. You may fulfill this requirement by placing these documents on the Internet. Penalties may be imposed for failure to comply with these requirements."
http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/us/irs-letter-grant-28aug00.htm
Looking forward to any elucidations.
regards, Danny
--- On Wed, 6/11/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote:
From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 12:47 PM Dear Danny:
I understand that there are pretty much always modifications to the budget before it is passed based upon consultations with the community. Certainly because of the Summit question the At-Large budget is very much an open question.
On 11/06/2008 14:45, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nick,
If the Board in Paris approves the overall budget, what will be the At-Large departmental budget for the fiscal year?
regards, Danny
--- On Wed, 6/11/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote:
From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 8:18 AM I'm sorry I couldn't join you all - I'm swamped in pre-Paris work, and of course you now have Frederic as a dedicated RALO resource!
One thing I should mention with respect to the minutes
apologies if this is well-understood.
As I previously mentioned, I did put forward the proposal for outreach events in the initial internal budgeting worksheets. However, just because I put something forward doesn't mean that it will necessarily make the 'cut'.
We will not know what precisely did make it into the At-Large budget until after the Board passes the budget in Paris - and in particular until it decides on whether or not, based upon community input, the At-Large Summit will be supported financially or not.
I understand the strong feelings of NARAL related to the outreach objectives and these proposals and I have relayed these. I wanted to make sure that you knew what the status of the proposals was though, so that there wouldn't be any misunderstandings...
On 10/06/2008 21:07, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Please find the summary minutes, action items and audio recording of yesterday's NARALO teleconference on the meeting page. The minutes are also attached below.
https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?09_june_2008
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic
Teboul
ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org
Summary Minutes 09 June 2008
1. Roll Call - As above 2. Review of the Summary Minutes 12 May 2008
N/A 3. Review of the Action Items 12 May 2008
N/A 4. NARALO -- first 12 month review:
What did we do well?
* Glad that this group did more to include individuals than others. * We seem to do more discussion on policy than other regions. * NARALO has had good interventions with ALAC as a whole. * NARALO has had great energy. * We made a strong statement to the ALAC. * Even though we are rather a small group of people we have been able to make strong points to ALAC. * We reacted well to the ALAC abuse of process in the joint constituency statement. * The group has been more active in the past six months than ever and as compared to other groups. * We were able to be proactive on a couple of issues. * NARALO has been most active on the Adobe Connect policy briefings. * The leadership has been good and our RALO has been very active.
What did we do badly?
* We didn't make nuisances of ourselves enough and we've let ICANN get away with too much. * We need those short updates on issues and hope that we see them soon. * There is still too much garbage on list but Evan has done well in trying to control this. * RAA revisions. We failed to come together and issue an appropriate statement to the JPA. We haven't done anything to prep our ALAC reps prior to meetings. * Those that are empowered in a group usually take the time to come up to speed with issues and look for solutions. Those that are not elected tend not to participate at a level that would make for valuable input. Its very time consuming to do so. Also, without going to the meetings and interacting on a personal level, its difficult to see where people are coming from.
How can we improve?
* More discussion on policy. * Its hard to get a handle on all of the various policies in order to provide input. * More outreach. * Develop a strong communications mechanism. * The Staff has done good work with Adobe Connect and we should continue to utilize these tools. * We need to keep a better eye on the calendar. * Better communications and to somehow get those that are not empowered to travel once in a while. * More outreach, more education, more policy discussions.
5. Outreach -- selection of strategic events
We need to identify locations far ahead of time so that we can adequately plan and implement them.
NTEN - Spring CES - January ICT Summit - Vancouver - February Consumer Groups events in Washington (there are two coming up) Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Lawyers in October
Please bring up other ideas on the mailing list and we will add it to the list. 6. July meeting election of one ALAC rep, Chair and Secretariat
During the July meeting we will be electing the above. This is a proper election so calls for nomination will be done. Evan, Darlene and Beau have agreed to stand in their positions. When should we do the elections? There were no preferences so we will put it to the list. 7. Priorities for June ICANN meeting
Be careful in what meetings we go to in order for us to get the most bang for our buck. There will be an RAA meeting on Monday and Danny will prep some materials for us to be prepared for it. 8. Other Matters
If you received an e-mail from Frederic Teboul, please respond ASAP. The more input we have, the better everyone can work together. We now have good support staff for Nick and now that these exist, we need to make better use of it.
The Summit proposal is due tomorrow. Maybe we can also kick a copy of it to John (?) Nesbitt. 9. Next Meeting
July 14, 2008
------ 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 ------
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN)
Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart ------ 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 ------
------ 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 ------
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN)
Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
------ 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 ------ -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Dear Nick, While I certainly appreciate the fact that matters will be discussed in Paris, I also understand that the Board will vote on the budget in Paris. This leaves us with no opportunity whatsoever to comment upon budget figures as they pertain to the at-large. There are significant issues at stake here: 1. Does ICANN respect transparency, or not? If a culture of respect for transparency were in place, we wouldn't need to beg to see the financial data. 2. Is fairness at play? Is travel funding for the various segments of the ICANN community being managed equitably, or are some groups in receipt of a greater degree of largesse than others? 3. Like Enron, is ICANN trying to hide something? Why are prior cited line items dropping out of the posted budget when those line items still exist? In prior budgets, the At-Large Activity dollars were cited right alongside expenditures for NonCom, IDN Activities, Outreach Programs, Contingency, etc. ... and thank you for noting my dissatisfaction. --- On Fri, 6/13/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote:
From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, June 13, 2008, 8:51 AM Dear Danny:
I'm sorry that you find the answer not satisfying.
What I would add is that Kevin Wilson did state on the teleconference that he understood the requests made on the call for information of the kind you are asking for and that there is work underway in Finance to review the detail relating to budget and expenditure and how this is provided to the whole community, in a way which is consistent and sustainable.
This is something that will be discussed in Paris by myself, Kevin, and others.
While I generally agree with some of Danny's concerns, my support is not universal.
2. Is fairness at play? Is travel funding for the various segments of the ICANN community being managed equitably, or are some groups in receipt of a greater degree of largesse than others?
At-Large absolutely does deserve a larger share than other constituencies, thanks to its very nature and the reason it was created. I have no qualms at all arguing that orgs which ICANN is explicitly trying to actively solicit for opinions should have subsidy priority over those who are involved because they have vested interests. Maybe Danny would like to see ICANN "largesse" spread evenly amongst IP law firms, business interests, registrars. governments, and community groups that are normally not involved in policy issues that already work on shoestring budgets. I would venture that such a view is not dominant within At-Large today. Indeed, the inconsistency of his argument is all the more puzzling considering Danny has strongly argued on the Summit WG list to deny travel funding for "American lawyers". - Evan
Evan, You are at liberty to make the case that the at-large deserves more dollars than other constituent bodies. I would argue that those who do the work are to be rewarded, while those that accomplish almost nothing should receive almost nothing.
Danny, A bit sarky view ;-) The fact that the constituencies are doing a more visible work may be derived from its higher status and their organizational integration and stability. At-Large is still in progress and evolution having just advisory voice in result. Therefore I would not compare who deserves what. However, I have to agree with Evan in that after the consolidation At-Large, by its organizational nature and the overall public outreach it is intended to cover, will need more money than other much smaller constituencies. The consolidation, however, also means the promotion of At-Large to a body with voting right. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 4:53 PM To: At-Large Staff; Evan Leibovitch Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June Evan, You are at liberty to make the case that the at-large deserves more dollars than other constituent bodies. I would argue that those who do the work are to be rewarded, while those that accomplish almost nothing should receive almost nothing. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Dominik, Time for a reality check. Take a moment and pop into the wasteland that the ALAC calls Working Groups. You will see almost no participation whatsoever and almost no discussion on anything even remotely related to policy concerns. This is the norm here, not the exception. So, do Civil Society folk have the ability to work on-line and get things done? I see plenty of evidence elsewhere that they can... I recall the IGOVAP Forum discussions that involved 180 members from 27 countries that generated 350 messages within a matter of a few short weeks. I see the steady ongoing involvement of many CS orgs on the cpsr governance list... and it's amazing how many of them (also ALS reps) regularly participate there, but not here. Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves who should be financially supported and why. I favor supporting those that make an effort to involve themselves in on-line policy working groups, who do the investigative work, who come up with findings that lead to recommendations. I support the notion of providing funding for their necessary intersessional face to face meetings to resolve any outstanding policy debates. I don't support spending money on those who during most of the year have nothing to say, who won't work in an on-line environment to get things done, and who seem to think that ICANN owes them travel funding just so that they can get together for a few days three times a year, pontificate and come up with "Me Too" Statements. For many years I have seen certain groups working hard, organizing workshops with expert commentators, presenting position papers, negotiating policy points with those who don't share their views -- and all without any funding from ICANN. Then I look at those who are budgeted at three-quarters of a million dollars or more and I'm appalled by the almost useless return on investment. For that kind of money anyone could hire a group akin to the Pew Charitable Trust to conduct wide-reaching global surveys of user views (if user views was all that we sought to obtain). But we should be expecting a lot more for that kind of financial outlay. At the very least we should be getting the type and quantity of documents produced by the SSAC detailing user concerns, findings and recommendations. Other Advisory Committees manage to get their work done in a straightforward and responsible fashion. This AC does not. The model is flawed and we keep pouring good money after bad down a rathole. In a statement posted by the registrar's constituency yesterday to the Budget Forum the question is asked: "How can you justify that the support for certain groups is disproportional with their contributions?" Apparently, I'm not the only one that holds such views. regards, Danny --- On Fri, 6/13/08, Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk> wrote:
From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Cc: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, June 13, 2008, 11:26 AM Danny,
A bit sarky view ;-) The fact that the constituencies are doing a more visible work may be derived from its higher status and their organizational integration and stability. At-Large is still in progress and evolution having just advisory voice in result. Therefore I would not compare who deserves what. However, I have to agree with Evan in that after the consolidation At-Large, by its organizational nature and the overall public outreach it is intended to cover, will need more money than other much smaller constituencies. The consolidation, however, also means the promotion of At-Large to a body with voting right.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 4:53 PM To: At-Large Staff; Evan Leibovitch Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June
Evan,
You are at liberty to make the case that the at-large deserves more dollars than other constituent bodies. I would argue that those who do the work are to be rewarded, while those that accomplish almost nothing should receive almost nothing.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Danny Younger wrote:
So, do Civil Society folk have the ability to work on-line and get things done? I see plenty of evidence elsewhere that they can...
Logic 101: The fact that "some can" does not equate to "all do". In any case, lumping in At-Large as "Civil Society" has its own set of flawed logical baggage...
I don't support spending money on those who during most of the year have nothing to say, who won't work in an on-line environment to get things done, and who seem to think that ICANN owes them travel funding just so that they can get together for a few days three times a year, pontificate and come up with "Me Too" Statements.
How utterly condescending.
In a statement posted by the registrar's constituency yesterday to the Budget Forum the question is asked: "How can you justify that the support for certain groups is disproportional with their contributions?"
Apparently, I'm not the only one that holds such views.
Yes, Danny, your view echoes that of the registar's community -- one that stands to benefit the most from silencing public pushback on what it has extracted from ICANN -- very well. Congratulations. Good company you're keeping. - Evan
Please feel free to convey your concerns to your elected voting representative on the ICANN Board of Directors. ooops, you don't have one, do you?
Danny Younger wrote:
Please feel free to convey your concerns to your elected voting representative on the ICANN Board of Directors.
ooops, you don't have one, do you?
Right now my concern is not with the Board of ICANN; it is with pompous elitists within our midst who seek to deny resources to anyone who isn't as arrogant and clever as they are. The Board representation will come soon enough. It doesn't help our cause to have saboteurs from within, who exist here mainly to disrupt our work, then claim that we don't get enough done. - Evan
Hi Evan Why not just ignore where this thread is going (which is into a waste of time and effort as you two are not going to agree) and focus on some of the other things that have been raised? Paris is coming and with it the requirement to speak on several issues. And NARALO has been speaking a lot, so should continue. BTW - I took off the cc list (nick, icann staff etc - all are subscribed to the list) Jacqueline Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
Please feel free to convey your concerns to your elected voting representative on the ICANN Board of Directors.
ooops, you don't have one, do you?
Right now my concern is not with the Board of ICANN; it is with pompous elitists within our midst who seek to deny resources to anyone who isn't as arrogant and clever as they are.
The Board representation will come soon enough. It doesn't help our cause to have saboteurs from within, who exist here mainly to disrupt our work, then claim that we don't get enough done.
- 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 ------
Evan, Let me know when your finished hurling your less-than-civil insults so that the rest of us can get on with discussions regarding the budget and policy matters. --- On Fri, 6/13/08, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com Cc: "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk>, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, June 13, 2008, 12:31 PM Danny Younger wrote:
Please feel free to convey your concerns to your elected voting representative on the ICANN Board of Directors.
ooops, you don't have one, do you?
Right now my concern is not with the Board of ICANN; it is with pompous elitists within our midst who seek to deny resources to anyone who isn't as arrogant and clever as they are.
The Board representation will come soon enough. It doesn't help our cause to have saboteurs from within, who exist here mainly to disrupt our work, then claim that we don't get enough done.
- Evan
I agree, Evan. The group is plagued by monotonous input that invariably goes in the same direction with every thread. RJGlass A@L On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
Please feel free to convey your concerns to your elected voting representative on the ICANN Board of Directors.
ooops, you don't have one, do you?
Right now my concern is not with the Board of ICANN; it is with pompous elitists within our midst who seek to deny resources to anyone who isn't as arrogant and clever as they are.
The Board representation will come soon enough. It doesn't help our cause to have saboteurs from within, who exist here mainly to disrupt our work, then claim that we don't get enough done.
- 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 ------
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
Danny, Evan, A very, very difficult topic to disentangle... No doubt some of the Danny's observations are right. I have to admit that as regards at least the way how the domain tasting issue and the related working group with zero contributions posted altogether were being conducted is alarming. Also just few posts strictly based on the issue merit. The issue is particularly important for the wide community and therefore it really deserved much more care taken about. The ALAC statement should have not contain any sort of compromise. It is an advisory committee and as such it is expected to provide independent, objective, well-funded advices supported by number of expert analyses. This is what is naturally expected from every well functioning advisory body wherever else. This did not happen and it is a failure that has to be clearly and explicitly spoken out as is. Without realizing this as well as some sort of self-reflection At-Large cannot recover from the mistakes and proceed further effectively. If this happened, and it happened, I tend to believe that some other issues might have been conducted in the same way. With lack of deeper interest, professionalism or personal involvement. Evan, I appreciate your optimism, creative enthusiasm as well as the overall personal involvement. Indeed, a right man in the right place with a clear vision. But from time to time you have to stop to recapitulate what has been actually done. And to critically evaluate and conclude conseqences if necessary. Otherwise the vision will not come true. Danny, whatever statement posted by the registrar's constituency at any time regarding the budget sounds deceptively to me. Even if it sounds right. We all know that the whole ICANN is significantly influenced by the registry/registrars interests not striving for objective judgments and needs. And, please, stop fighting :-) You are both pretty smart guys, try to understand each other. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 6:07 PM To: At-Large Staff; Evan Leibovitch; Dominik Filipp Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June Dominik, Time for a reality check. Take a moment and pop into the wasteland that the ALAC calls Working Groups. You will see almost no participation whatsoever and almost no discussion on anything even remotely related to policy concerns. This is the norm here, not the exception. So, do Civil Society folk have the ability to work on-line and get things done? I see plenty of evidence elsewhere that they can... I recall the IGOVAP Forum discussions that involved 180 members from 27 countries that generated 350 messages within a matter of a few short weeks. I see the steady ongoing involvement of many CS orgs on the cpsr governance list... and it's amazing how many of them (also ALS reps) regularly participate there, but not here. Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves who should be financially supported and why. I favor supporting those that make an effort to involve themselves in on-line policy working groups, who do the investigative work, who come up with findings that lead to recommendations. I support the notion of providing funding for their necessary intersessional face to face meetings to resolve any outstanding policy debates. I don't support spending money on those who during most of the year have nothing to say, who won't work in an on-line environment to get things done, and who seem to think that ICANN owes them travel funding just so that they can get together for a few days three times a year, pontificate and come up with "Me Too" Statements. For many years I have seen certain groups working hard, organizing workshops with expert commentators, presenting position papers, negotiating policy points with those who don't share their views -- and all without any funding from ICANN. Then I look at those who are budgeted at three-quarters of a million dollars or more and I'm appalled by the almost useless return on investment. For that kind of money anyone could hire a group akin to the Pew Charitable Trust to conduct wide-reaching global surveys of user views (if user views was all that we sought to obtain). But we should be expecting a lot more for that kind of financial outlay. At the very least we should be getting the type and quantity of documents produced by the SSAC detailing user concerns, findings and recommendations. Other Advisory Committees manage to get their work done in a straightforward and responsible fashion. This AC does not. The model is flawed and we keep pouring good money after bad down a rathole. In a statement posted by the registrar's constituency yesterday to the Budget Forum the question is asked: "How can you justify that the support for certain groups is disproportional with their contributions?" Apparently, I'm not the only one that holds such views. regards, Danny --- On Fri, 6/13/08, Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk> wrote:
From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Cc: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, June 13, 2008, 11:26 AM Danny,
A bit sarky view ;-) The fact that the constituencies are doing a more
visible work may be derived from its higher status and their organizational integration and stability. At-Large is still in progress and evolution having just advisory voice in result. Therefore I would not compare who deserves what. However, I have to agree with Evan in that after the consolidation At-Large, by its organizational nature and the overall public outreach it is intended to cover, will need more money than other much smaller constituencies. The consolidation, however, also means the promotion of At-Large to a body with voting right.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny
Younger Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 4:53 PM To: At-Large Staff; Evan Leibovitch Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June
Evan,
You are at liberty to make the case that the at-large deserves more dollars than other constituent bodies. I would argue that those who do the work are to be rewarded, while those that accomplish almost nothing should receive almost nothing.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists
.icann.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Dominik Filipp wrote:
A very, very difficult topic to disentangle...
Thanks for the good words, which ring true in many ways.
No doubt some of the Danny's observations are right. Of course they are. As we sit right now At-Large is still largely toothless, with no Board vote. Ensuring that ALAC cannot be a truly independent voice are the one-third of its members who are unelected and unaccountable, chosen for their ability to ensure that ICANN conventional wisdom be maintained. These are the same kinds of appointees that, for much of this decade, in the absense of RALOs pretended to speak for the public with no justification (and, apparently, nothing to show for it).
Finding cynics is easy; finding problems and missed opportunities is even easier. As I entered this environment as an ICANN newcomer I encountered many people asking me why I bothered, and some accused me of participating in a sham by validating a massive PR stunt. Yet these same people refused to answer I asked back why they too were still involved in this same "sham" if it were so useless.
I have to admit that as regards at least the way how the domain tasting issue and the related working group with zero contributions posted altogether were being conducted is alarming. As the first issue of substance that ALAC has tackled in its many years of existence, it's all to easy to say that the first time through was not done as well as it should have been. At some points it seemed like North America was making all the noise about AGP elimination and every other region was simply reacting to our initiative. For At-Large to survive as the great global experiment, that situation cannot sustain -- there needs to be initiative from other regions as well. Otherwise regional resentment is inevitable.
Counting the flaws in what happened is certainly easier than counting what went right. But I will take it as a significant milestone that -- for once -- we at least had a coherent position, albeit crafted in a manner that was ultimately designed to be part of a consensus than to take a principled stand right to the end. Central to our challenge were (and still are) two philosophical splits within At-Large: - one was between short-term and long-term goals. Those who carried the day narrowly focused on tasting itself; others saw tasting as merely a symptom, and the tasting PDP as an opportunity to get rid of the root cause -- the AGP. - the other was advocacy rather than consensus building. Remember, this is a global body, and many here are not as comfortable with adversarial politics as North Americans. We need to bring them around, and that won't happen overnight. It is not unreasonable to have a healthy debate, in which advocates need to demonstrate to self-styled "diplomats" that appeasement will not accomplish our goals. I understand and agree with your opinion that ALAC needs to take principled stands. To me the fact this did not happen on the tasting issue is not "alarming", but it is an identified challenge that At-Large needs to overcome. Some of this IMO will come through increased self-confidence as a group, but there is no doubt a gap to be bridged. I refuse to take At-Large's unwillingness to be as aggressive as its North American region, to indicate a failure of the process. There is learning to be done and cultural sensitivity is needed all around.
Also just few posts strictly based on the issue merit. The issue is particularly important for the wide community and therefore it really deserved much more care taken about. The ALAC statement should have not contain any sort of compromise. It is an advisory committee and as such it is expected to provide independent, objective, well-funded advices supported by number of expert analyses.
Actually, I would not even go that far. ICANN has all the "expert" analysis it needs, from its existing constituencies. ALAC should be a distillation of the public point of view, the result of education and consultation at a grassroots level, in plain language and many languages. It should not need to be supported by experts -- that is part of our whole mess with NomComm appointees. Indeed, one would have hoped that the "experts" in NCUC would have provided advocacy support to the public's point of view, but for unfathomable reasons it actually defended the AGP. As someone who has long wished for clear distinction defined between ALAC and NCUC -- both within At-Large and ICANN in general -- I am saddened that NCUC has not stepped up to provide the "expert" policy that supports the public good. Of course, I have little sense of history -- all I can see so far is how out-of-sync they were with At-Large on the first issue that was important enough for us to take a stand. To me, a large problem with At-Large's mandate (to solicit non-policy-driven public orgs' points of view) is the increasing rate at which its lined are blurred with NCUC. Organizations such as ISOC chapters and Danny himself have come to At-Large because NCUC -- which _DOES_ have a Board vote -- has apparently not satisfied their needs to be heard. Indeed, the "double-dipping" of some groups as members of both NCUC and At-Large hurts the environment even more through its clear unfairness. ALAC has enough deficiencies of its own to deal with... yet apparently it must deal with NCUC's deficiencies as well. These issues surfaced slightly during the gNSO review debate but were never really addressed. They still remain unresolved.
from time to time you have to stop to recapitulate what has been actually done. And to critically evaluate and conclude conseqences if necessary. Otherwise the vision will not come true.
Such evaluation started the moment I became an ALS rep and has never stopped. I see that At-Large has many important issues to deal with, and that many within ICANN that have an interest in us not asserting ourselves. I accept that At-Large and ALAC are in a highly transitional state -- far different from what it was two year ago, and likely far different from what it will be two years from now. In that context, I have very little patience for those who repeatedly whine that the experiment has failed before it has even started. I am fully aware that At-Large was a botch for many years but I can't do anything about that. I simply see what exists, what is possible, and vision and a path that is good even if it is not as fast as some people would like. This is why I show my frustration with Danny so easily. His contributions to our policy interests are invaluable, especially his ability to find things that have "slipped through the cracks" and ought to be on our radar. His calls for greater transparecy are always welcomed, even when pointed internally. I am hoping his help will, in the future, avoid the last-minute deadline rushes on policy that have plagued ALAC since I've been involved. But that good work does not excuse -- and indeed is tainted by -- the relentlessness of his actions to actively diminish and demoralize At-Large because it's not full of policy experts like him. That is simply not what At-Large is supposed to be. Just because he doesn't need resources from ICANN to do what he does should not be a reason for him to advocate choking resources from those that lack his available time or passion. Aren't there enough _real_ ICANN policy issues that require our time? Can we not concentrate on our common ground to achieve those policy goals? I fully agree with the vision that created At-Large (as something _designed_ to be distinct from NCUC) and I can even see the rationale behind why the original direct-election scheme was abandoned. I agree that, without a Board vote and a more grassroots representation, ALAC cannot do what it must do. However I also believe that, in the pre-RALO days, it was reasonable to deny Board representation to the un-representative ALAC. We are going through a formal ALAC review, one that I _expect_ will recommend some major modifications. I _expect_ that some important changes will receive Board consent. If, OTOH, I discover that ICANN ultimately refuses to support its own vision, I will be more than happy to join the ranks of the critics and cynics and the "PR stunt" crowd. But if that happens I will certainly not hang around here and complain -- why continue to be part of the problem? There are other ways to attack such a problem -- sniping from within is simply counter-productive. - Evan
Danny Younger wrote:
You are at liberty to make the case that the at-large deserves more dollars than other constituent bodies. I would argue that those who do the work are to be rewarded, while those that accomplish almost nothing should receive almost nothing.
Danny, you can't suck and blow at the same time. In your counter-proposal to Summit funding you advocated a formula that refused to fund anyone that had so much as participated in an email discussion, subsidizing only the silent ones. Now you magically argue for just the opposite. Both arguments, seemingly changing in tune with the tides, are critically flawed. They're not only mind-boggingly inconsistent, they're simply wrong. At-Large is a body explicitly designed to find people and organizations who are not already deeply versed in policy, to bring them to a sufficient level of awareness and then to extract opinion. During the last NARALO conference call -- that Danny supposedly attended -- a number of people clearly indicated that they are intimidated by the lingo and the elitism that serves as a barrier to effective participation by newcomers. Some by nature are hesitant to participate in discussions dominated by those who are more .... assertive. Others who are unsure of their positions simply choose not to participate for fear of embarrassing themselves. That does not mean they cannot contribute or that their views are not worth hearing. It means that this particular form of communications does not work for all. The face to face meetings afforded by travel subsidy is another form of communications, less frequent but extremely effective. It's been my experience that some people simply work better when they can put faces to email addresses and look people in the eye as they're talking. The occasional smile helps too. As for other constituent bodies, they have vested interests to protect, interests that are generally well-financed. Lacking such vested interests, At-Large will almost by definition not match the resources of the other constituencies. So the choice is either providing resources, or silencing At-Large (with the exception of squeaky wheels such as Danny; this explains why he wants to cut funding to us no matter which rationale-of-the-day he uses, -- silencing all these poor, uninformed policy pretenders leaves more of the stage to him). One size does not fit all. I prefer not to shut out people whose views have been under-represented simply because the current forms of ICANN communications are badly suited to them. So I will continue to advocate for support for a process that is an inclusive and diverse as possible. - Evan
Ditto. Jacqueline Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
You are at liberty to make the case that the at-large deserves more dollars than other constituent bodies. I would argue that those who do the work are to be rewarded, while those that accomplish almost nothing should receive almost nothing.
Danny, you can't suck and blow at the same time. In your counter-proposal to Summit funding you advocated a formula that refused to fund anyone that had so much as participated in an email discussion, subsidizing only the silent ones. Now you magically argue for just the opposite. Both arguments, seemingly changing in tune with the tides, are critically flawed. They're not only mind-boggingly inconsistent, they're simply wrong.
At-Large is a body explicitly designed to find people and organizations who are not already deeply versed in policy, to bring them to a sufficient level of awareness and then to extract opinion. During the last NARALO conference call -- that Danny supposedly attended -- a number of people clearly indicated that they are intimidated by the lingo and the elitism that serves as a barrier to effective participation by newcomers. Some by nature are hesitant to participate in discussions dominated by those who are more .... assertive. Others who are unsure of their positions simply choose not to participate for fear of embarrassing themselves. That does not mean they cannot contribute or that their views are not worth hearing. It means that this particular form of communications does not work for all.
The face to face meetings afforded by travel subsidy is another form of communications, less frequent but extremely effective. It's been my experience that some people simply work better when they can put faces to email addresses and look people in the eye as they're talking. The occasional smile helps too.
As for other constituent bodies, they have vested interests to protect, interests that are generally well-financed. Lacking such vested interests, At-Large will almost by definition not match the resources of the other constituencies. So the choice is either providing resources, or silencing At-Large (with the exception of squeaky wheels such as Danny; this explains why he wants to cut funding to us no matter which rationale-of-the-day he uses, -- silencing all these poor, uninformed policy pretenders leaves more of the stage to him).
One size does not fit all. I prefer not to shut out people whose views have been under-represented simply because the current forms of ICANN communications are badly suited to them. So I will continue to advocate for support for a process that is an inclusive and diverse as possible.
- 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 ------
participants (7)
-
At-Large Staff -
Danny Younger -
Dominik Filipp -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
RJGlass | America＠Large