Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
While that may be true in thepry, the practical reality is that ICANN allocates finite funds to at-large activities. The more we spend in one place, the less we have available for other things the group might find more valuable. --Wendy -----Original Message----- From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:29 am Size: 3K To: "'Wendy Seltzer'" <wendy@seltzer.com>, "'Luc Faubert'" <LFaubert@conceptum.ca>, <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Hi Wendy The meeting in NY will not affect funding for San Juan. Funding has been allocated to bring ALSes from the region to the ICANN meeting in the region. Funding was also allocated for at least one f2f in advance of the ICANN meeting at which the RALO was to be signed, for each region. Funding for these meetings is not only from the AtLarge budget at ICANN, but other ICANN budget line items as well. So - to be clear, funding is NOT a valid reason to say no to the meeting. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:35 AM To: Luc Faubert; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Neither the full ALAC nor its North American members have approved this meeting. It was sprung on us all by staff. I am arguing against this one for the same reasons I argued against Vancouver: the group will ultimately have to work online and should use its limited budget to attend as many full-ICANN meetings as possible. We can draft documents as we have been, on the wiki and lists, but we can't talk to Board and other Constituency members over drinks and in hallways online. --Wendy -----Original Message----- From: "Luc Faubert" <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:29 am Size: 3K To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@seltzer.com>, <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> If we are to stick to our initial plan of signing the NARALO-ICANN MOU in San Juan in June, it is imperative that we agree on our MOU and Operating principles before then. In this light, I think that -- as I argued when we were discussing the possibility of meeting in Vancouver last February -- a face to face meeting could be helpful to advance our discussions and I am willing to attend the NY meeting to represent ISOC Québec. I suppose the ALAC has approved this planned meeting in NY. One question that comes to my mind is why approve this meeting after having refused to hold a similar meeting in Vancouver in February. This is not a matter of arguing for a meeting in Canada vs the US; I would just like to understand the decision. Regarding funding for a face to face meeting prior to San Juan and our discussions on the issue, my recollection is that opinions diverged. Some ALSes thought a face to face meeting was not necessary, others wanted one. As for our ALAC reps, they thought a meeting was not necessary and consequently refused to fund the Vancouver meeting. As for the availability of travels funds, my understanding is that holding the preparatory meeting in NY does not preclude ICANN funding our presence in San Juan, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 10 avril 2007 05:28 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
Although an invitation has been sent, the choice whether to
--- message truncated ---
Hello Wendy I ran this again past the ICANN VP in charge of the AtLArge budget. In theory and in practicality, ICANN has indicated that funds have been allocated specifically to RALO formation work. This isn't a NA budget, or an EU, LAC, AF or AP budget. A possible scenario is that if the NA region doesn't want to have this meeting, or form a RALO, the funds budgeted for this year for RALO formation may be used for attendees to the LAC GA in San Juan, or more AP ALS reps to the November ICANN meeting for the AP official MoU signing, and not necessarily on other ALAC items we might want that are not RALO-connected. Remember that ALAC has no discretionary funds - it's ICANN's At Large Director and VP that have control of the AtLarge budget. We can and do suggest activities that we would like funded, but ICANN Staff determines exactly how those funds are expended. We are more than halfway though the current fiscal year already. So funding is NOT a valid reason for objection, according to the people who hold the purse strings. Jacqueline Quoting Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>:
While that may be true in thepry, the practical reality is that ICANN allocates finite funds to at-large activities. The more we spend in one place, the less we have available for other things the group might find more valuable.
--Wendy -----Original Message-----
From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:29 am Size: 3K To: "'Wendy Seltzer'" <wendy@seltzer.com>, "'Luc Faubert'" <LFaubert@conceptum.ca>, <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Hi Wendy The meeting in NY will not affect funding for San Juan. Funding has been allocated to bring ALSes from the region to the ICANN meeting in the region. Funding was also allocated for at least one f2f in advance of the ICANN meeting at which the RALO was to be signed, for each region. Funding for these meetings is not only from the AtLarge budget at ICANN, but other ICANN budget line items as well.
So - to be clear, funding is NOT a valid reason to say no to the meeting.
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:35 AM To: Luc Faubert; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
Neither the full ALAC nor its North American members have approved this meeting. It was sprung on us all by staff.
I am arguing against this one for the same reasons I argued against Vancouver: the group will ultimately have to work online and should use its limited budget to attend as many full-ICANN meetings as possible. We can draft documents as we have been, on the wiki and lists, but we can't talk to Board and other Constituency members over drinks and in hallways online.
--Wendy
-----Original Message-----
From: "Luc Faubert" <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:29 am Size: 3K To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@seltzer.com>, <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
If we are to stick to our initial plan of signing the NARALO-ICANN MOU in San Juan in June, it is imperative that we agree on our MOU and Operating principles before then. In this light, I think that -- as I argued when we were discussing the possibility of meeting in Vancouver last February -- a face to face meeting could be helpful to advance our discussions and I am willing to attend the NY meeting to represent ISOC Québec.
I suppose the ALAC has approved this planned meeting in NY. One question that comes to my mind is why approve this meeting after having refused to hold a similar meeting in Vancouver in February. This is not a matter of arguing for a meeting in Canada vs the US; I would just like to understand the decision.
Regarding funding for a face to face meeting prior to San Juan and our discussions on the issue, my recollection is that opinions diverged. Some ALSes thought a face to face meeting was not necessary, others wanted one. As for our ALAC reps, they thought a meeting was not necessary and consequently refused to fund the Vancouver meeting.
As for the availability of travels funds, my understanding is that holding the preparatory meeting in NY does not preclude ICANN funding our presence in San Juan,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 10 avril 2007 05:28 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
Although an invitation has been sent, the choice whether to
--- message truncated ---
-- Jacqueline A. Morris www.jacquelinemorris.com
Jacueline: let me raise two points: 1. Budget cycle - do we know the exact dates? Usually fiscal years do not correspond to calendar year. If i'm not mistaken ICANN's fiscal year is June to May. I'm not sure, so please correct me if i'm mistaken. A may meeting would be using unallocated surplus funds and not new funds, as would be the case for the San Juan meeting. 2. Consultation - As one of the few persons in the NA region who have been trying to get groups in the region interested in ICANN and internet governance issues, I'm frankly surprised by the lack of consultation that has taken place in regards to a possible meeting in May. There are significant differences of opinion in regards to the establishment of a RALO in the region. For many, the value proposition isn't quite there as it is not clear what additional benefit a RALO will give the region. Others, particularly the newer ALS , see the RALO formation as a strategic step that will allow for greater involvement both @ ICANN and its many structures. The differences of opinion are vast and reconciling the different views will be not be easy. My position on how to proceed is well known to both ICANN staff and ALS in the region - strategic outreach, engagement and trust building is needed for groups in Canada and the USA to form a RALO. A meeting planned with the collaboration of groups in the region could help. An event without effective consultation, will likely serve only to polarize the debate even further and make it even harder to establish a NA RALO. Will that happen, in the end ? well, I hope the ongoing thread helps move the discussion further. regards Robert On 10-Apr-07, at 1:37 PM, jam@jacquelinemorris.com wrote:
Hello Wendy
I ran this again past the ICANN VP in charge of the AtLArge budget.
In theory and in practicality, ICANN has indicated that funds have been allocated specifically to RALO formation work. This isn't a NA budget, or an EU, LAC, AF or AP budget. A possible scenario is that if the NA region doesn't want to have this meeting, or form a RALO, the funds budgeted for this year for RALO formation may be used for attendees to the LAC GA in San Juan, or more AP ALS reps to the November ICANN meeting for the AP official MoU signing, and not necessarily on other ALAC items we might want that are not RALO-connected.
Remember that ALAC has no discretionary funds - it's ICANN's At Large Director and VP that have control of the AtLarge budget. We can and do suggest activities that we would like funded, but ICANN Staff determines exactly how those funds are expended. We are more than halfway though the current fiscal year already.
So funding is NOT a valid reason for objection, according to the people who hold the purse strings.
Jacqueline
Quoting Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>:
While that may be true in thepry, the practical reality is that ICANN allocates finite funds to at-large activities. The more we spend in one place, the less we have available for other things the group might find more valuable.
--Wendy -----Original Message-----
From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:29 am Size: 3K To: "'Wendy Seltzer'" <wendy@seltzer.com>, "'Luc Faubert'" <LFaubert@conceptum.ca>, <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Hi Wendy The meeting in NY will not affect funding for San Juan. Funding has been allocated to bring ALSes from the region to the ICANN meeting in the region. Funding was also allocated for at least one f2f in advance of the ICANN meeting at which the RALO was to be signed, for each region. Funding for these meetings is not only from the AtLarge budget at ICANN, but other ICANN budget line items as well.
So - to be clear, funding is NOT a valid reason to say no to the meeting.
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:35 AM To: Luc Faubert; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
Neither the full ALAC nor its North American members have approved this meeting. It was sprung on us all by staff.
I am arguing against this one for the same reasons I argued against Vancouver: the group will ultimately have to work online and should use its limited budget to attend as many full-ICANN meetings as possible. We can draft documents as we have been, on the wiki and lists, but we can't talk to Board and other Constituency members over drinks and in hallways online.
--Wendy
-----Original Message-----
From: "Luc Faubert" <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:29 am Size: 3K To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@seltzer.com>, <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
If we are to stick to our initial plan of signing the NARALO-ICANN MOU in San Juan in June, it is imperative that we agree on our MOU and Operating principles before then. In this light, I think that -- as I argued when we were discussing the possibility of meeting in Vancouver last February -- a face to face meeting could be helpful to advance our discussions and I am willing to attend the NY meeting to represent ISOC Québec.
I suppose the ALAC has approved this planned meeting in NY. One question that comes to my mind is why approve this meeting after having refused to hold a similar meeting in Vancouver in February. This is not a matter of arguing for a meeting in Canada vs the US; I would just like to understand the decision.
Regarding funding for a face to face meeting prior to San Juan and our discussions on the issue, my recollection is that opinions diverged. Some ALSes thought a face to face meeting was not necessary, others wanted one. As for our ALAC reps, they thought a meeting was not necessary and consequently refused to fund the Vancouver meeting.
As for the availability of travels funds, my understanding is that holding the preparatory meeting in NY does not preclude ICANN funding our presence in San Juan,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 10 avril 2007 05:28 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
Although an invitation has been sent, the choice whether to
--- message truncated ---
-- Jacqueline A. Morris www.jacquelinemorris.com
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Amen 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) 975-5605 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mr. Robert Guerra Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:34 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: 'Luc Faubert'; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Jacueline: let me raise two points: 1. Budget cycle - do we know the exact dates? Usually fiscal years do not correspond to calendar year. If i'm not mistaken ICANN's fiscal year is June to May. I'm not sure, so please correct me if i'm mistaken. A may meeting would be using unallocated surplus funds and not new funds, as would be the case for the San Juan meeting. 2. Consultation - As one of the few persons in the NA region who have been trying to get groups in the region interested in ICANN and internet governance issues, I'm frankly surprised by the lack of consultation that has taken place in regards to a possible meeting in May. There are significant differences of opinion in regards to the establishment of a RALO in the region. For many, the value proposition isn't quite there as it is not clear what additional benefit a RALO will give the region. Others, particularly the newer ALS , see the RALO formation as a strategic step that will allow for greater involvement both @ ICANN and its many structures. The differences of opinion are vast and reconciling the different views will be not be easy. My position on how to proceed is well known to both ICANN staff and ALS in the region - strategic outreach, engagement and trust building is needed for groups in Canada and the USA to form a RALO. A meeting planned with the collaboration of groups in the region could help. An event without effective consultation, will likely serve only to polarize the debate even further and make it even harder to establish a NA RALO. Will that happen, in the end ? well, I hope the ongoing thread helps move the discussion further. regards Robert On 10-Apr-07, at 1:37 PM, jam@jacquelinemorris.com wrote:
Hello Wendy
I ran this again past the ICANN VP in charge of the AtLArge budget.
In theory and in practicality, ICANN has indicated that funds have been allocated specifically to RALO formation work. This isn't a NA budget, or an EU, LAC, AF or AP budget. A possible scenario is that if the NA region doesn't want to have this meeting, or form a RALO, the funds budgeted for this year for RALO formation may be used for attendees to the LAC GA in San Juan, or more AP ALS reps to the November ICANN meeting for the AP official MoU signing, and not necessarily on other ALAC items we might want that are not RALO-connected.
Remember that ALAC has no discretionary funds - it's ICANN's At Large Director and VP that have control of the AtLarge budget. We can and do suggest activities that we would like funded, but ICANN Staff determines exactly how those funds are expended. We are more than halfway though the current fiscal year already.
So funding is NOT a valid reason for objection, according to the people who hold the purse strings.
Jacqueline
Quoting Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>:
While that may be true in thepry, the practical reality is that ICANN allocates finite funds to at-large activities. The more we spend in one place, the less we have available for other things the group might find more valuable.
--Wendy -----Original Message-----
From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:29 am Size: 3K To: "'Wendy Seltzer'" <wendy@seltzer.com>, "'Luc Faubert'" <LFaubert@conceptum.ca>, <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Hi Wendy The meeting in NY will not affect funding for San Juan. Funding has been allocated to bring ALSes from the region to the ICANN meeting in the region. Funding was also allocated for at least one f2f in advance of the ICANN meeting at which the RALO was to be signed, for each region. Funding for these meetings is not only from the AtLarge budget at ICANN, but other ICANN budget line items as well.
So - to be clear, funding is NOT a valid reason to say no to the meeting.
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:35 AM To: Luc Faubert; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
Neither the full ALAC nor its North American members have approved this meeting. It was sprung on us all by staff.
I am arguing against this one for the same reasons I argued against Vancouver: the group will ultimately have to work online and should use its limited budget to attend as many full-ICANN meetings as possible. We can draft documents as we have been, on the wiki and lists, but we can't talk to Board and other Constituency members over drinks and in hallways online.
--Wendy
-----Original Message-----
From: "Luc Faubert" <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:29 am Size: 3K To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@seltzer.com>, <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
If we are to stick to our initial plan of signing the NARALO-ICANN MOU in San Juan in June, it is imperative that we agree on our MOU and Operating principles before then. In this light, I think that -- as I argued when we were discussing the possibility of meeting in Vancouver last February -- a face to face meeting could be helpful to advance our discussions and I am willing to attend the NY meeting to represent ISOC Québec.
I suppose the ALAC has approved this planned meeting in NY. One question that comes to my mind is why approve this meeting after having refused to hold a similar meeting in Vancouver in February. This is not a matter of arguing for a meeting in Canada vs the US; I would just like to understand the decision.
Regarding funding for a face to face meeting prior to San Juan and our discussions on the issue, my recollection is that opinions diverged. Some ALSes thought a face to face meeting was not necessary, others wanted one. As for our ALAC reps, they thought a meeting was not necessary and consequently refused to fund the Vancouver meeting.
As for the availability of travels funds, my understanding is that holding the preparatory meeting in NY does not preclude ICANN funding our presence in San Juan,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 10 avril 2007 05:28 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
Although an invitation has been sent, the choice whether to
--- message truncated ---
-- Jacqueline A. Morris www.jacquelinemorris.com
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
My recollection from our previous discussions was that we had money set aside for two meetings: one for RALO formation and one for the signing meeting. We had discussed doing the RALO formation online and by teleconference -- and, frankly, aren't we almost complete with the draft MOU? -- and using the travel money for San Juan and the ICANN annual meeting in November (Bombay?). What I believe is now on the table is an option for a RALO meeting in Yonkers, NY in early May for RALO formation. As with the proposed meeting in Vancouver, I personally would recommend against the Yonkers meeting and, instead, recommend using the funds for Bombay travel in November. Before we call this to a vote, or a consensus hum as it may be, perhaps we should review where we are on the documents. If there's really not much left to resolve, then this may be an easy call. As much as I like grabbing beers and meeting new people, as Jacob suggested we do, I'd rather do that around a meeting with a substantive agenda. Nick, can you send us pointers to the documents and give us a short summary of where we are and what remains to decide? Many thanks, Bret
The links to our documents are: Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP What remains to do, as far as I can tell, is: - for everybody to agree on the 2 documents, - for each ALS to name its 2 representatives to the General Assembly, - for individual users to name their 2 reps to the GA, - name the Chair of the General Assembly, - name our Secreteriat, - choose our 2 ALAC reps. _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: 10 avril 2007 13:59 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Status report on NA-RALO documents?
My recollection from our previous discussions was that we had money set aside for two meetings: one for RALO formation and one for the signing meeting. We had discussed doing the RALO formation online and by teleconference -- and, frankly, aren't we almost complete with the draft MOU? -- and using the travel money for San Juan and the ICANN annual meeting in November (Bombay?).
What I believe is now on the table is an option for a RALO meeting in Yonkers, NY in early May for RALO formation. As with the proposed meeting in Vancouver, I personally would recommend against the Yonkers meeting and, instead, recommend using the funds for Bombay travel in November.
Before we call this to a vote, or a consensus hum as it may be, perhaps we should review where we are on the documents. If there's really not much left to resolve, then this may be an easy call. As much as I like grabbing beers and meeting new people, as Jacob suggested we do, I'd rather do that around a meeting with a substantive agenda.
Nick, can you send us pointers to the documents and give us a short summary of where we are and what remains to decide?
Many thanks,
Bret
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
On 10-Apr-07, at 1:58 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:
Nick, can you send us pointers to the documents and give us a short summary of where we are and what remains to decide?
Bret: If I recall well, Nick mentioned a few days ago that he was on leave until the 20th (or so). regards Robert
I am just going over the MOU and OP. I am glad to see progress, but I'm not quite clear on how all of this fits together and how the ALSs are involved. Can someone give a summary of how all the layers are proposed to be involved? Thanks! Randy Glass A@L On 4/10/07, Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> wrote:
My recollection from our previous discussions was that we had money set aside for two meetings: one for RALO formation and one for the signing meeting. We had discussed doing the RALO formation online and by teleconference -- and, frankly, aren't we almost complete with the draft MOU? -- and using the travel money for San Juan and the ICANN annual meeting in November (Bombay?).
What I believe is now on the table is an option for a RALO meeting in Yonkers, NY in early May for RALO formation. As with the proposed meeting in Vancouver, I personally would recommend against the Yonkers meeting and, instead, recommend using the funds for Bombay travel in November.
Before we call this to a vote, or a consensus hum as it may be, perhaps we should review where we are on the documents. If there's really not much left to resolve, then this may be an easy call. As much as I like grabbing beers and meeting new people, as Jacob suggested we do, I'd rather do that around a meeting with a substantive agenda.
Nick, can you send us pointers to the documents and give us a short summary of where we are and what remains to decide?
Many thanks,
Bret
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
participants (7)
-
Bret Fausett -
jam＠jacquelinemorris.com -
Luc Faubert -
Mr. Robert Guerra -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Thompson, Darlene -
Wendy Seltzer