MOU in San Juan (Action Items)
Dear ALAC Colleagues, As the San Juan meeting approaches, we should turn our attention to finalizing the MOU with ICANN. Current Draft: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU (newest revisions, for discussion, in bold typeface) By its terms, the MOU is between ICANN and the North American At Large Structures that choose to sign it (Section 1). I point this out so you know that it is possible to participate in the ICANN process as an ICANN At Large Structure, participate in the NARALO, but choose not to sign the MOU. Nevertheless, we should strive for a MOU that a substantial majority of currently accredited ALSs would be willing to sign and which we believe would be generally acceptable to future At Large Structures from North America. *If* we can find agreement on the language of the draft MOU, then we will have an official signing ceremony in San Juan and move forward with our contemplated election of ALAC representatives from North America. As we've discussed on the list previously, this is an aspirational goal, not a hard deadline, but I am certain that with work over the next week on the list we will be able to find consensus around common language for the MOU. Here is what I would ask everyone to do in preparation for San Juan: (a) if you don't already have it, seek authority from your organization to sign the MOU on its behalf, if we can agree to terms, in San Juan. Even if you are not going to San Juan, we can still arrange to have your organization sign the MOU by mail and facsimile (my understanding is that repersentatives from all organizations will be present with the exception of CAUCE, CAUCE Canada, Alberta Community Network Association (ACNA), and People Who). Unlike our ratification vote, in which each organization had two votes, we only need one signature from each ALS. (b) review the current draft and consider whether you would be willing to sign on the current terms. Is that language in the draft that would prevent you from signing? Is there language that must be in the draft in order for you to sign? If so, please let us know as soon as possible so we can carry this back to our own organizations and have a discussion around it. (c) let me know by email bfausett **at** internet.law.pro, or on list, whether you think the current draft is something your organization will agree to approve in San Juan. This is just a straw poll, but I'd like to get a read as soon as possible about how close we are to having an acceptable draft. Questions and discussion welcome. Bret
Hi all, I am quite happy with the MOU as is stands now with one exception. That would be Wendy's second revision: [4.8 If the North American RALO, ALSs, or individuals express formal concerns about any ICANN issues, the ICANN Board should fully consider those concerns and clearly explain how it will address them.] I just can't imagine ICANN agreeing to something like that when it states "any ICANN issues". I realize the spirit of what Wendy is trying to accomplish, and agree with it, but I can also see that this could gridlock ICANN responding to petty complaints (who is to say what is formal and what isn't?) and not accomplishing its mandate. Is it possible to re-word this somehow? Just a suggestion. Darlene ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Bret Fausett Sent: Fri 6/15/2007 10:55 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] MOU in San Juan (Action Items) Dear ALAC Colleagues, As the San Juan meeting approaches, we should turn our attention to finalizing the MOU with ICANN. Current Draft: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU (newest revisions, for discussion, in bold typeface) By its terms, the MOU is between ICANN and the North American At Large Structures that choose to sign it (Section 1). I point this out so you know that it is possible to participate in the ICANN process as an ICANN At Large Structure, participate in the NARALO, but choose not to sign the MOU. Nevertheless, we should strive for a MOU that a substantial majority of currently accredited ALSs would be willing to sign and which we believe would be generally acceptable to future At Large Structures from North America. *If* we can find agreement on the language of the draft MOU, then we will have an official signing ceremony in San Juan and move forward with our contemplated election of ALAC representatives from North America. As we've discussed on the list previously, this is an aspirational goal, not a hard deadline, but I am certain that with work over the next week on the list we will be able to find consensus around common language for the MOU. Here is what I would ask everyone to do in preparation for San Juan: (a) if you don't already have it, seek authority from your organization to sign the MOU on its behalf, if we can agree to terms, in San Juan. Even if you are not going to San Juan, we can still arrange to have your organization sign the MOU by mail and facsimile (my understanding is that repersentatives from all organizations will be present with the exception of CAUCE, CAUCE Canada, Alberta Community Network Association (ACNA), and People Who). Unlike our ratification vote, in which each organization had two votes, we only need one signature from each ALS. (b) review the current draft and consider whether you would be willing to sign on the current terms. Is that language in the draft that would prevent you from signing? Is there language that must be in the draft in order for you to sign? If so, please let us know as soon as possible so we can carry this back to our own organizations and have a discussion around it. (c) let me know by email bfausett **at** internet.law.pro, or on list, whether you think the current draft is something your organization will agree to approve in San Juan. This is just a straw poll, but I'd like to get a read as soon as possible about how close we are to having an acceptable draft. Questions and discussion welcome. 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 Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
People Who will sign whatever is agreed on. (We usually need about 14 months notice to schedule travel.) Three copy-edit comments: 4. 8 'should' - this is a responsibility of ICANN - I think a better verb would to be 'will' or 'must' 5. 3 change 'encourage' to 'encouraging' 6.3 ... when signed by all parties writing. ... Either party - if there are only two parties then I suggest changing 'all' to 'both' If there are more than two parties, the word 'either' usually refers to only two Sylvia Sylvia Caras People Who
On 15 Jun 2007, at 18:58, Sylvia Caras wrote:
People Who will sign whatever is agreed on. (We usually need about 14 months notice to schedule travel.)
If you look at the page www.icann.org/meetings and look for the next North American meeting AFTER Los Angeles, that will be the next time the whole NA region will be invited with travel support to an International ICANN meeting - if that helps you plan travel.
Three copy-edit comments:
4. 8 'should' - this is a responsibility of ICANN - I think a better verb would to be 'will' or 'must'
I believe ICANN will agree to that provided the phrase 'and clearly explain how it will address them' is deleted. This is not because the board doesn't want to reply, it is because this clause would require it to reply to absolutely every comment which was made; the administrative burden of doing that could damange the ability of the board to do its job.
5. 3 change 'encourage' to 'encouraging'
6.3 ... when signed by all parties writing. ... Either party - if there are only two parties then I suggest changing 'all' to 'both' If there are more than two parties, the word 'either' usually refers to only two
Well, there is one party on one side, the other party is a group of groups - so I think it is OK as written.
Sylvia
Sylvia Caras People Who
_______________________________________________ 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
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
participants (4)
-
Bret Fausett -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Sylvia Caras -
Thompson, Darlene