Followup -- secret meetings, ombudsman, etc.
Hello all. Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, I've been both busy and a little ill. The issue of the secret meetings -- touched off by my anger over the non-announcement of regional ICANN meetings for contracted parties -- was raised and significantly debated at the ALAC executive committee earlier this week. (There are as yet no minutes or transcripts on the meeting page at https://st.icann.org/alac-excomm/index.cgi?08_september_2009) In the discussion, a number points were raised that I found useful: * There is significant anger over this in ALAC as previous secret meetings have also been noted and the subject of complaint * Going to the Ombudsman is seen to be a last-ditch effort which angers everyone in the process yet will likely change little in itself * Stories vary dramatically regarding Richard Sexton's behaviour and subsequent removal from the Toronto meeting. He says he did nothing wrong; staff has said (though not on the record) that he was disruptive to the meetings. * A new CEO and new respect for At-Large may affect the way we are heard on such matters now * All meeting issues are now under the watch of CFO Kevin Wilson, who has been receptive to our issues so far The ExComm suggested that we draft a letter for transmission to Kevin and and Rod describing the unacceptable nature of these secret meetings. Such a letter would have full support of ALAC (and probably other regions should we want their endorsements). We would then meet with them in Seoul to obtain an assurance that all ICANN-funded meetings will be public. We are also owed a detailed explanation regarding the ejection of Richard Sexton. If Richard's account is correct, ICANN must be held accountable. And if Richard's account is wrong, it requires an on-the-record rebuttal. (A related issue -- whether such regional meetings should be expanded to cover At-Large face-to-face meetings -- is still to be dealt with, but is part of ICANN;'s strategic plan and should not be mixed into the immediate issue of secrecy and transparency.) Alan has volunteered to word-craft the letter with my assistance. The is the situation as I understand it. - Evan
I'm finding this entire thread pretty funny. It wasn't too long ago that another unpublicized, generally closed meeting was held in Toronto. Despite the fact that I had received an invitation to attend from a colleague involved in the planning, I was unable to secure an official invitation via staff. The Hows and Whys of Internet Operations and Policy Making: Envisioning Canadian Participation Informal Workshop [20-30 participants] Wednesday, June 14, 2006 University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada I don't think the problem that you've all identified has anything to do with contracted parties, any more than my inability to attend the '06 meeting had anything to do with the ALAC. /r On Sep 11, 2009, at 1:46 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hello all.
Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, I've been both busy and a little ill.
The issue of the secret meetings -- touched off by my anger over the non-announcement of regional ICANN meetings for contracted parties -- was raised and significantly debated at the ALAC executive committee earlier this week.
(There are as yet no minutes or transcripts on the meeting page at https://st.icann.org/alac-excomm/index.cgi?08_september_2009)
In the discussion, a number points were raised that I found useful:
* There is significant anger over this in ALAC as previous secret meetings have also been noted and the subject of complaint * Going to the Ombudsman is seen to be a last-ditch effort which angers everyone in the process yet will likely change little in itself * Stories vary dramatically regarding Richard Sexton's behaviour and subsequent removal from the Toronto meeting. He says he did nothing wrong; staff has said (though not on the record) that he was disruptive to the meetings. * A new CEO and new respect for At-Large may affect the way we are heard on such matters now * All meeting issues are now under the watch of CFO Kevin Wilson, who has been receptive to our issues so far
The ExComm suggested that we draft a letter for transmission to Kevin and and Rod describing the unacceptable nature of these secret meetings. Such a letter would have full support of ALAC (and probably other regions should we want their endorsements). We would then meet with them in Seoul to obtain an assurance that all ICANN-funded meetings will be public.
We are also owed a detailed explanation regarding the ejection of Richard Sexton. If Richard's account is correct, ICANN must be held accountable. And if Richard's account is wrong, it requires an on-the-record rebuttal.
(A related issue -- whether such regional meetings should be expanded to cover At-Large face-to-face meetings -- is still to be dealt with, but is part of ICANN;'s strategic plan and should not be mixed into the immediate issue of secrecy and transparency.)
Alan has volunteered to word-craft the letter with my assistance.
The is the situation as I understand it.
- 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 ------
best, Ross Rader General Manager, Hover t. (408) 538-0441 The Easiest Way To Buy and Use Your Domain Names http://www.hover.com Check out our blog at: http://stuff.hover.com Hover on Twitter: http://about.hover.com/twitter Check my availability at: http://rossrader.com/available ..sent from my phone
Ross Rader wrote:
I'm finding this entire thread pretty funny. It wasn't too long ago that another unpublicized, generally closed meeting was held in Toronto. Despite the fact that I had received an invitation to attend from a colleague involved in the planning, I was unable to secure an official invitation via staff.
I'm happy that you're being entertained. That was a workshop intended for specific 30 participants, not a general constituency meeting. And "wasn't too long ago" still predates the creation of NARALO (and a fully representative ALAC) by about a year. So the correlation is not necessarily identical
I don't think the problem that you've all identified has anything to do with contracted parties, any more than my inability to attend the '06 meeting had anything to do with the ALAC. It's about the contracted parties to the extent that ICANN panders to them and funds regional meetings. Either ICANN is being needlessly paternal or the contracted parties don't *want* the unwashed masses sitting in on their meetings (while they sit in on ours frequently).
Why didn't *you* mention the Toronto meeting before it happened, or complain that it wasn't public? - Evan
On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Why didn't *you* mention the Toronto meeting before it happened, or complain that it wasn't public?
I was out that week on a charity bike tour and didn't know that it wasn't public/hadn't been publicized. Further, every time I raise my voice on this list, I'm met with a hostile attitude that I'd rather avoid. I thought the At-large would be a nice place to spend some time after my involvement in ICANN as a registrar came to an end. It hasn't been the most welcoming place though.
That was a workshop intended for specific 30 participants, not a general constituency meeting.
The difference being? /r
participants (2)
-
Evan Leibovitch -
Ross Rader