New Access Codes for the NARALO Teleconference today
Dear NA colleagues: Due to the unfortunate email below-referenced and the possibility that this may result in disruption of your teleconference today, I have been asked to change the access code and send out individual emails to the community with the new code. You should receive a new code in the next couple of hours - if you do not, and you wish to attend the teleconference today, simply send an email to staff@alac.icann.org and we'll send you the code by reply. Begin forwarded message:
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ga@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 07 July 2007 14:30 To: ga@gnso.icann.org Subject: [ga] NARALO Teleconference
The NARALO will be having a teleconference on Monday -- details are here: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org/ 2007-July/001280.html
If you don't remember what the NARALO is (they're the group being paid to attend ICANN meetings that pushed through their MOU with ICANN and had it ratified by the Board in San Juan without the benefit of a publicized Public Comment Period so that they could all enjoy a staged photo op), then it wouldn't hurt to see what the U.S. civil society representatives that pretend to be the at-large are up to.
______________________________________________________________________ ______ ________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/
I am traveling and really don't have time to respond to Danny's comments. No photo op was staged and the comments are just false.. Suffice it to say, I strongly disagree with both the tone, nature and substance of Danny's comments. I agree with the approach of sending out individual access codes. regards Robert
Dear NA colleagues:
Due to the unfortunate email below-referenced and the possibility that this may result in disruption of your teleconference today, I have been asked to change the access code and send out individual emails to the community with the new code.
You should receive a new code in the next couple of hours - if you do not, and you wish to attend the teleconference today, simply send an email to staff@alac.icann.org and we'll send you the code by reply.
Begin forwarded message:
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ga@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 07 July 2007 14:30 To: ga@gnso.icann.org Subject: [ga] NARALO Teleconference
The NARALO will be having a teleconference on Monday -- details are here: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org/ 2007-July/001280.html
If you don't remember what the NARALO is (they're the group being paid to attend ICANN meetings that pushed through their MOU with ICANN and had it ratified by the Board in San Juan without the benefit of a publicized Public Comment Period so that they could all enjoy a staged photo op), then it wouldn't hurt to see what the U.S. civil society representatives that pretend to be the at-large are up to.
______________________________________________________________________ ______ ________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________ 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
Well, I did have time for the conference call, but not to deal with this sort of thing...separate access codes? Danny, I'd like to see if we can arrange a meeting. I'd be interested to learn more about you and what particular experiences have led you to express yourself in e-mails in this regard to people you've never met. We could probably even arrange to pay expenses for such a meeting on our end (WebWatch, that is, not ICANN -- no one paid me to attend the meeting in San Juan except my employer, which is Consumer Reports. I'm assuming Consumer Reports is an example of a "U.S. civil society representatives that pretend to be the at-large"). Let me know if there's a time later in July (I'm out on vacation starting Wednesday, through Wednesday of the following week). Regards, Beau Brendler ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of lists@privaterra.info Sent: Mon 7/9/2007 3:04 AM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] New Access Codes for the NARALO Teleconference today I am traveling and really don't have time to respond to Danny's comments. No photo op was staged and the comments are just false.. Suffice it to say, I strongly disagree with both the tone, nature and substance of Danny's comments. I agree with the approach of sending out individual access codes. regards Robert
Dear NA colleagues:
Due to the unfortunate email below-referenced and the possibility that this may result in disruption of your teleconference today, I have been asked to change the access code and send out individual emails to the community with the new code.
You should receive a new code in the next couple of hours - if you do not, and you wish to attend the teleconference today, simply send an email to staff@alac.icann.org and we'll send you the code by reply.
Begin forwarded message:
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ga@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 07 July 2007 14:30 To: ga@gnso.icann.org Subject: [ga] NARALO Teleconference
The NARALO will be having a teleconference on Monday -- details are here: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org/ 2007-July/001280.html
If you don't remember what the NARALO is (they're the group being paid to attend ICANN meetings that pushed through their MOU with ICANN and had it ratified by the Board in San Juan without the benefit of a publicized Public Comment Period so that they could all enjoy a staged photo op), then it wouldn't hurt to see what the U.S. civil society representatives that pretend to be the at-large are up to.
______________________________________________________________________ ______ ________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 *** Scanned
Hello Nick,
Due to the unfortunate email below-referenced and the possibility that this may result in disruption of your teleconference today, I have been asked to change the access code and send out individual emails to the community with the new code.
Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know who made the request? As much as I find Danny's contributions notable only for their pointlessness and intent to outrage, I don't consider them reason for us to close the meeting. We still have an real interest in transparency, and should resist the temptation to go private at the smallest hint of disquiet. We generally have good people, who are ready to move forward with real projects which I believe will increase useful public involvement in ICANN processes. I have confidence that our chair and other participants have the skills and desire to hold a productive meeting. If it is determined by our chair that today's call is completely unmanagable because of individuals deliberately working to disrupt, alternative plans can be developed. In the meantime, IMO we should work to keep processes as transparent and accessible as possible. Unless it was the NARALO chair who specifically requested the change in access codes, I request that we revert to the status quo of an open meeting. While the confcall may indeed be subject of a hijack attempt, we have an obligation to make our best attempt at an open process. Just as I appreciated the ability to sit in (and even occasionally contrinute) at LACRALO and ALAC meetings in San Juan, I see no reason to deliberately avoid an audience for our own efforts. Danny's email, while it represents a naive and contrary POV, is not in itself sufficient justification to run and hide. We should not let a committment to openness be so easily intimidated. I'm not. - Evan
Since an objection to the meeting being closed has been registered (the request for a change didn't come from the chair - or me, if you are curious, but I will keep in confidence who it was unless that person wishes to speak up), we will continue with the existing code. I hope everyone understands that I'm protecting the person who made the request out of respect for them, as they would undoubtedly receive a torrent of inbound mail of a highly pejorative nature and I think that facilitating that serves no purpose. If that means I get a torrent of inbound mail of a highly pejorative mail instead, so be it ;) On 9 Jul 2007, at 08:20, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hello Nick,
Due to the unfortunate email below-referenced and the possibility that this may result in disruption of your teleconference today, I have been asked to change the access code and send out individual emails to the community with the new code.
Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know who made the request? As much as I find Danny's contributions notable only for their pointlessness and intent to outrage, I don't consider them reason for us to close the meeting. We still have an real interest in transparency, and should resist the temptation to go private at the smallest hint of disquiet.
We generally have good people, who are ready to move forward with real projects which I believe will increase useful public involvement in ICANN processes. I have confidence that our chair and other participants have the skills and desire to hold a productive meeting.
If it is determined by our chair that today's call is completely unmanagable because of individuals deliberately working to disrupt, alternative plans can be developed. In the meantime, IMO we should work to keep processes as transparent and accessible as possible.
Unless it was the NARALO chair who specifically requested the change in access codes, I request that we revert to the status quo of an open meeting. While the confcall may indeed be subject of a hijack attempt, we have an obligation to make our best attempt at an open process.
Just as I appreciated the ability to sit in (and even occasionally contrinute) at LACRALO and ALAC meetings in San Juan, I see no reason to deliberately avoid an audience for our own efforts.
Danny's email, while it represents a naive and contrary POV, is not in itself sufficient justification to run and hide. We should not let a committment to openness be so easily intimidated. I'm not.
- Evan
Hello Nick, As the North American Regional At-Large Organization (NARALO) is chartered to promote and assure the North American user participation in the ICANN policy development process, actions that serve to limit participation in what had been billed as an open discoursive session (wherein no decisions would be taken) run contrary to established ICANN policies on openness, contrary to NARALO Operating Principles, and adversely affect [chill] the participatory rights of unaffiliated individuals that retain rights within the NARALO. I believe that we have a right to know whether this disruptive "request for a change" came from another member of ICANN Staff or from a member of the ICANN Board as it may become necessary to invoke ICANN's accountability procedures. best regards, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
Your email is noted. I refer you to my previous email on the subject. On 9 Jul 2007, at 13:33, Danny Younger wrote:
Hello Nick,
As the North American Regional At-Large Organization (NARALO) is chartered to promote and assure the North American user participation in the ICANN policy development process, actions that serve to limit participation in what had been billed as an open discoursive session (wherein no decisions would be taken) run contrary to established ICANN policies on openness, contrary to NARALO Operating Principles, and adversely affect [chill] the participatory rights of unaffiliated individuals that retain rights within the NARALO.
I believe that we have a right to know whether this disruptive "request for a change" came from another member of ICANN Staff or from a member of the ICANN Board as it may become necessary to invoke ICANN's accountability procedures.
best regards, Danny
______________________________________________________________________ ______________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
Thanks for the quick correction, Evan and Nick. Having shared many of Danny's views until I had a chance to meet and talk with the NA delegates, I think openness is the best way for NARALO to show its value. Danny, I hope you'll join the call and get a chance to discuss policy matters, so that you too may see the many among the NA group who are genuinely concerned with the interests of individual Internet users. --Wendy Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Since an objection to the meeting being closed has been registered (the request for a change didn't come from the chair - or me, if you are curious, but I will keep in confidence who it was unless that person wishes to speak up), we will continue with the existing code.
I hope everyone understands that I'm protecting the person who made the request out of respect for them, as they would undoubtedly receive a torrent of inbound mail of a highly pejorative nature and I think that facilitating that serves no purpose. If that means I get a torrent of inbound mail of a highly pejorative mail instead, so be it ;)
On 9 Jul 2007, at 08:20, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hello Nick,
Due to the unfortunate email below-referenced and the possibility that this may result in disruption of your teleconference today, I have been asked to change the access code and send out individual emails to the community with the new code.
Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know who made the request? As much as I find Danny's contributions notable only for their pointlessness and intent to outrage, I don't consider them reason for us to close the meeting. We still have an real interest in transparency, and should resist the temptation to go private at the smallest hint of disquiet.
We generally have good people, who are ready to move forward with real projects which I believe will increase useful public involvement in ICANN processes. I have confidence that our chair and other participants have the skills and desire to hold a productive meeting.
If it is determined by our chair that today's call is completely unmanagable because of individuals deliberately working to disrupt, alternative plans can be developed. In the meantime, IMO we should work to keep processes as transparent and accessible as possible.
Unless it was the NARALO chair who specifically requested the change in access codes, I request that we revert to the status quo of an open meeting. While the confcall may indeed be subject of a hijack attempt, we have an obligation to make our best attempt at an open process.
Just as I appreciated the ability to sit in (and even occasionally contrinute) at LACRALO and ALAC meetings in San Juan, I see no reason to deliberately avoid an audience for our own efforts.
Danny's email, while it represents a naive and contrary POV, is not in itself sufficient justification to run and hide. We should not let a committment to openness be so easily intimidated. I'm not.
- Evan
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Could we try to avoid these types of confusions in the future? I refer to the entirety of this thread. Randy Glass A@L
participants (7)
-
Brendler, Beau -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
lists＠privaterra.info -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Wendy Seltzer