Well, no worries. I'm discouraged by this whole process enough that I won't be complaining on this front again. It will be interesting to see when the next "outreach" happens again in the NARALO as I'm sure that now it WON'T happen and I am no longer willing to put myself forward for all of the sniping. Good luck, D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 11:49 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Schedule Posted for ICANN's 30th InternationalPublicMeeting Hopefully the email I sent between this one below and the present one will help to answer some of these points. Since the NARALO met only in June, it has of course met in the last three years. I presume you are excepting this meeting from consideration for whatever reason. NARALO had opportunities to meet before forming up - most recently earlier in the year, only a couple of months before the San Juan meeting, and declined the opportunity to do so. Further, and this is particularly important: ICANN's model is not that work gets done at F2F meetings - but the opposite; every other community does the vast majority of its work between F2F meetings. It isn't sustainable for At-Large to do the reverse of what all other communities are in the habit of doing. Civil society groups in ICANN, in particular in the NCUC, do a considerable amount of work between ICANN meetings and without any travel support at all. My strong suggestion to everyone is to look for ways to work without requiring face-to-face meetings to the extent that is practicable. On 19 Sep 2007, at 15:52, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Nick,
Maybe because now the NARALO will now be going 3 years without a meeting, which the other regions would not be put through, either.
NARALO didn't meet before forming up (although LAC got to meet twice); therefore, saving ICANN money. Now that we did what ICANN wanted and rushed about getting formed up, we are being denied the opportunity and means to do outreach for the next three years (which we asked to be able to do), thereby stagnating.
This isn't very encouraging.
Darlene
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:13 AM To: RJGlass | America@Large; Evan Leibovitch Cc: Thompson, Darlene; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Schedule Posted for ICANN's 30th InternationalPublic Meeting
RJ, why would this surprise you? Why would you expect to be hosted for a NARALO meeting at two ICANN meetings in a row? No other region would receive such treatment; the budget simply doesn't make that possible.
-- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Office Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 Office Fax: +41 (22) 594 8544 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 5468 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 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
----- Original message ----- From: "RJGlass | America@Large" <jipshida@gmail.com> To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Cc: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@gov.nu.ca>, "At-Large Worldwide" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:51:35 -0400 Subject: Re: [At-Large] Schedule Posted for ICANN's 30th International Public Meeting
First, I'm not surprised but I am disturbed that ICANN failed to host a NARALO meeting.
Anyway, I presume we'll try to be brief yet functional on these matters.
I think when you announce the idea, you should solicit input on what the ALSs want to get out of the summit. One session on opening day would be good, and one more later in the week, possibly 3 brief meetings would be better than one.
aloha, RJ
On 9/18/07, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Thompson, Darlene wrote:
I'm thinking that the sooner the better for the first one so that we
can
all get on the same page and do further planning throughout.
I'm thinking more than one session will be needed.
Anybody else have thoughts on this?
My suggestion is for at least three things:
1) Specific inclusion of a Summit status report and discussion on the ALAC meeting agenda (whenever that takes place)
2) A public meeting to introduce the concept to all ICANN constituencies (early in the week)
3) at least eight hours of planning, of which at least one has Nick (or someone else from ICANN staff) present. Some of this will probably be a small enough group that it can meet in a hotel room rather than requiring the expense of a formal meeting room.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Darlene, Don't think your efforts don't go unappreciated. I would like to think that it's our duty as At-Large to keep pressing on toward what we feel is right, equally as much as it is to disseminate info and seek input. Change happens extremely slowly but it is also inevitable. If we lead by example, then one day others will see the efforts and strive to also put out equal or greater effort. If we take ourselves seriously then maybe one day ICANN as a whole will also take us seriously and we could also take it seriously. The process as a whole is as dysfunctional as it always has been, and as such with most growing entities, so all we can expect is to be patient and to speak out at every opportunity. Even with unlimited resources, things would still be dysfunctional - let alone when the majority are quasi-volunteers. For the record, I also think that NARALO should be hosted and accommodated at LA. The reasoning is that we were the last RALO to be formed, and we will continue to be a step behind given our current path. I feel that especially at this stage it would be important for this to occur rather than wait 2 years after the other regional meetings. My honest thought is that it would have been more beneficial to meet again rather than wait. The fact that we all just attended a meeting and somehow not fair to other RALOs, I think is irrelevant. However, I think we still could arrange the summit at some point and salvage the good thought of properly organizing across the ALSs. For this matter, if it were to reach a level of immediate importance of course we don't need anyone's permission. It does though help to have support, which is what we all need in order to progress. On the other hand, we also have to understand Nick's position that things must be planned and budgeted for properly, with many constraints and issues, and with lots of t's dotted and i's crossed ;) Cheer up!! -rj On 9/20/07, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
Well, no worries. I'm discouraged by this whole process enough that I won't be complaining on this front again. It will be interesting to see when the next "outreach" happens again in the NARALO as I'm sure that now it WON'T happen and I am no longer willing to put myself forward for all of the sniping.
Good luck,
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 11:49 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Schedule Posted for ICANN's 30th InternationalPublicMeeting
Hopefully the email I sent between this one below and the present one will help to answer some of these points.
Since the NARALO met only in June, it has of course met in the last three years. I presume you are excepting this meeting from consideration for whatever reason.
NARALO had opportunities to meet before forming up - most recently earlier in the year, only a couple of months before the San Juan meeting, and declined the opportunity to do so.
Further, and this is particularly important: ICANN's model is not that work gets done at F2F meetings - but the opposite; every other community does the vast majority of its work between F2F meetings. It isn't sustainable for At-Large to do the reverse of what all other communities are in the habit of doing. Civil society groups in ICANN, in particular in the NCUC, do a considerable amount of work between ICANN meetings and without any travel support at all. My strong suggestion to everyone is to look for ways to work without requiring face-to-face meetings to the extent that is practicable.
On 19 Sep 2007, at 15:52, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Nick,
Maybe because now the NARALO will now be going 3 years without a meeting, which the other regions would not be put through, either.
NARALO didn't meet before forming up (although LAC got to meet twice); therefore, saving ICANN money. Now that we did what ICANN wanted and rushed about getting formed up, we are being denied the opportunity and means to do outreach for the next three years (which we asked to be able to do), thereby stagnating.
This isn't very encouraging.
Darlene
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:13 AM To: RJGlass | America@Large; Evan Leibovitch Cc: Thompson, Darlene; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Schedule Posted for ICANN's 30th InternationalPublic Meeting
RJ, why would this surprise you? Why would you expect to be hosted for a NARALO meeting at two ICANN meetings in a row? No other region would receive such treatment; the budget simply doesn't make that possible.
-- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Office Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 Office Fax: +41 (22) 594 8544 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 5468 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 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
----- Original message ----- From: "RJGlass | America@Large" <jipshida@gmail.com> To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Cc: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@gov.nu.ca>, "At-Large Worldwide" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:51:35 -0400 Subject: Re: [At-Large] Schedule Posted for ICANN's 30th International Public Meeting
First, I'm not surprised but I am disturbed that ICANN failed to host a NARALO meeting.
Anyway, I presume we'll try to be brief yet functional on these matters.
I think when you announce the idea, you should solicit input on what the ALSs want to get out of the summit. One session on opening day would be good, and one more later in the week, possibly 3 brief meetings would be better than one.
aloha, RJ
On 9/18/07, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Thompson, Darlene wrote:
I'm thinking that the sooner the better for the first one so that we
can
all get on the same page and do further planning throughout.
I'm thinking more than one session will be needed.
Anybody else have thoughts on this?
My suggestion is for at least three things:
1) Specific inclusion of a Summit status report and discussion on the ALAC meeting agenda (whenever that takes place)
2) A public meeting to introduce the concept to all ICANN constituencies (early in the week)
3) at least eight hours of planning, of which at least one has Nick (or someone else from ICANN staff) present. Some of this will probably be a small enough group that it can meet in a hotel room rather than requiring the expense of a formal meeting room.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.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 NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
I see that at least two constituencies (registries and ISPs) have already held formal teleconferences with ICANN regarding the ICANN Strategic Plan. Do members on this list similarly wish to schedule a teleconference to discuss elements of the Strategic Plan? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
As with any other subject within ICANN's mission, I am always very happy to arrange teleconference briefings on the issues. Just tell me what issue or issues, and an idea of when :) On 21 Sep 2007, at 16:37, Danny Younger wrote:
I see that at least two constituencies (registries and ISPs) have already held formal teleconferences with ICANN regarding the ICANN Strategic Plan.
Do members on this list similarly wish to schedule a teleconference to discuss elements of the Strategic Plan?
______________________________________________________________________ ______________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
------ 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 NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
Nick, The Joint Project Agreement's Affirmation of Responsibilities called for a review of corporate administrative structure. In activities on this front, the President's Strategic Advisory Committee encouraged the ICANN Board to explore the private international organization model as part of its review and to operationalize whatever outcomes result from the review. While work was started by Ambassador Hans Correll -- see the extensive work here: http://www.icann.org/psc/corell-24aug06.html -- the current Strategic Plan Issues Report glosses over this entire area of "legal status and identity" with the single comment: "Defining the steps towards an independent ICANN will be an important task during the life of the next strategic plan". My concern is that the current plan appears to place a lower priority on this initiative than would seem to be warranted (especially in light of the fact that we are now already fast approaching the JPA mid-term review). I would appreciate an update from the ALAC liaison to the PSC if at all possible on the Review and on the plans to operationalize the Review outcomes. While a teleconference could be arranged, I have not seen expressions of interest from other ALSs that would warrant setting up a call at this time. regards, Danny --- Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> wrote:
As with any other subject within ICANN's mission, I am always very happy to arrange teleconference briefings on the issues. Just tell me what issue or issues, and an idea of when :)
On 21 Sep 2007, at 16:37, Danny Younger wrote:
I see that at least two constituencies (registries and ISPs) have already held formal teleconferences with ICANN regarding the ICANN Strategic Plan.
Do members on this list similarly wish to schedule a teleconference to discuss elements of the Strategic Plan?
____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
Pierre: I am aware that you attend the PSC in your personal capacity and not as a liaison or representative of the At-Large community per se but would you be so kind as to give us your thoughts on the below? Begin forwarded message:
From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Date: 27 September 2007 15:43:37 GMT+02:00 To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Strategic Plan Consultation
Nick,
The Joint Project Agreement's Affirmation of Responsibilities called for a review of corporate administrative structure.
In activities on this front, the President's Strategic Advisory Committee encouraged the ICANN Board to explore the private international organization model as part of its review and to operationalize whatever outcomes result from the review.
While work was started by Ambassador Hans Correll -- see the extensive work here: http://www.icann.org/psc/corell-24aug06.html -- the current Strategic Plan Issues Report glosses over this entire area of "legal status and identity" with the single comment: "Defining the steps towards an independent ICANN will be an important task during the life of the next strategic plan".
My concern is that the current plan appears to place a lower priority on this initiative than would seem to be warranted (especially in light of the fact that we are now already fast approaching the JPA mid-term review).
I would appreciate an update from the ALAC liaison to the PSC if at all possible on the Review and on the plans to operationalize the Review outcomes.
While a teleconference could be arranged, I have not seen expressions of interest from other ALSs that would warrant setting up a call at this time.
regards, Danny
--- Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> wrote:
As with any other subject within ICANN's mission, I am always very happy to arrange teleconference briefings on the issues. Just tell me what issue or issues, and an idea of when :)
On 21 Sep 2007, at 16:37, Danny Younger wrote:
I see that at least two constituencies (registries and ISPs) have already held formal teleconferences with ICANN regarding the ICANN Strategic Plan.
Do members on this list similarly wish to schedule a teleconference to discuss elements of the Strategic Plan?
______________________________________________________________________ ______________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
-- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 email: nashton@consensus.pro Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
participants (4)
-
Danny Younger -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Thompson, Darlene