Thank you, Wolf, for your gracious reply. It seems the budget document needs some unraveling. As we saw from Dev's note, there are a bunch of things that appear to be rolled into the overall "controversial" sum, including an SSAC workshop and other meetings. So I was hammering on a straw man. And of course I am glad to see the regional funding for Toronto allocated, though I am not sure if it's final, or when and how the region is authorized to spend it. Unfortunately, at least one NARALO representative on the ALAC budget committee, possibly two, have had to or chosen to scale back their participation. This is a difficult topic to bring up, and I don't want to be seen to be telling other regions how to conduct their business. It's not about that. However, having been on the receiving end more than once of requests from other regions to contribute potentially available NARALO travel slots (and I believe we have enthusiastically complied with every such request, historically, as we are doing for Prague, since one of our ALAC budget committee representatives cannot attend), I would like to think we can have an open discussion on such matters, because the money all comes from the same pot. If that open discussion has already occurred elsewhere, well, I missed the meeting or didn't read the wiki. But being all-volunteer, our system of communications must evolve beyond that. NARALO is shrinking, not growing, and there are a range of reasons why. It has a core group of people who are turned to time and again, and they are burning out, and similar situations no doubt exist in other regions. If ALAC is "ramping up," as Olivier says, it seems to me a fundamental question underpinning all our work that if we cannot get additional ALSs or individuals to join, there is something wrong with our message, or it's not getting out. This is why I find continued discussion on how to deal with non-performing ALSs absurd, though I am happy to help the group (if I can) to resolve the issue online or offline, or in person in Prague. My issue with IGF remains ideological and strategic. It can be simplified thus: Who in IGF does not already know about ICANN? Can we assume that we have already "reached" that audience, and that potential new recruits from that arena have already been tapped? Are they not adequately represented already in the community by the GAC and membership of the NCSG? Should we seek to build functional bridges (of what sort, I do not know) with Jeremy Malcolm, or some other person who stands somewhat apart from the organization? To illustrate my point, take a look at this page: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/941-mag-2012- There are a number of familiar names out of the list of 56: Izumi Aizu; Olga Cavalli; Veronica Cretu; Chris Disspain; Bill Drake; Heather Dryden; Raul Echeberria; Wendy Seltzer; Theresa Swinehart; Paul Wilson -- about one-fifth, and I have probably missed a few. Seems to me we can do a lot of IGF outreach in Prague, if that's a priority. Or if there is some other strategic plan afoot, such as combining resources with IGF or merging efforts or something, well, I would be fascinated to know about that. Or maybe we could create a more formalized role for the IGF within at-large -- a policy advisory committee, let's say -- since ICANN can actually make policy and IGF cannot? What if we reached out to IGF and put together a subgrouping of their MAG who we could turn to on a somewhat formal basis and solicit their policy advice when there's an issue that intersects? There is an interesting article written by Avri Doria that talks about some of the challenges facing Internet governance in general, from October: http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2011/10/11/internet-governance-commen... Conversely, where can ICANN look to draw more members of the public into the fold? Maybe we (i.e. the appropriate region) should consider spending some money on a strategic outreach event in Russia, for instance. Or India. Or Brazil. Or China. Countries in which ICANN is viewed suspiciously or poorly regarded. Or perhaps we should consider funding some sort of outreach effort to public interest groups who have previously steered clear of ICANN for a variety of reasons that may have been valid once, but are not so much anymore? I did this five years ago with Nick Ashton-Hart and was not particularly successful. But ALAC has changed a lot for the better since then. -----Original Message-----

From: Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> Sent: May 24, 2012 10:23 AM To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net>, Silvia Vivanco <silvia.vivanco@icann.org>, "Thompson,Darlene" <DThompson1@GOV.NU.CA>, "Oksana Prykhodko (sana.pryhod@gmail.com)" <sana.pryhod@gmail.com>, "Charles Mok (gmail)" <charlespmok@gmail.com>, Pavan Budhrani <pavan@registry.asia>, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa@gmail.com>, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>, "sylvia@internautabrasil.org" <sylvia@internautabrasil.org>, José Francisco Arce <josefranciscoarce@gmail.com>, "Fatimata Seye Sylla <fsylla@gmail.com> (fsylla@gmail.com)" <fsylla@gmail.com>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@gmail.com> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: Prague - Regional Secretariats meeting Agenda- Kindly review

Hi Beau and all,

I agree with some of your observations below, particularly regarding the time allocations for the old / repeated / continuous agenda items (what I cut down already!) compared to new ones. And I would agree to shorten the old items further -- short update and asking whether we can take a decision (or to mandate a group to work out a compromise solution). And we shouldn't waste too much time on these issues again.

By doing so, we would gain more time for new issues on the agenda, incl. the one you raised below. As stated on the ALAC list early May already and in my comment to Dev before, I have some questions on the FY 12 - 13 budget approvals and rejections for the regions as well, detect a problem of proportionality and inconsistencies in the ICANN reasoning why a project (with a considerable amount like the IGF WS) was approved while others were rejected as "non-ICANN event". Or, as you argued below, the one is considered as a "valid" outreach while the project Evan suggested years ago (and for a comparable much smaller amount) was rejected again? Decisions like this have a higher impact on our regional planning and tend to reinforce frustrations at NARALO and EURALO here again.

Therefore, let me suggest to add this point to the Agenda of the Regional Secretariats meeting in Prague: (new AI 7) Briefing and discussion on the FY 12-13 ICANN budget allocations for the regions.

If we further cut down on the old stuff (AI 3 and 4), we can save time for this new AI 7 and the new issues on the agenda.

If we can agree on this modification, may I ask Silvia to adjust the draft agenda accordingly.

Thanks for your comments and kind regards, Wolf