[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting

Wed Apr 11 08:00:48 EDT 2007

I am seriously puzzled by this.
I thought that the Chair of ALAC would have the authority to agree with
ICANN about a meeting.

If something is flawed, it is not necessarily the RALO formation process
(which is proceeding in all other regions).
Incidentally, am I the only one who considers inappropriate the veto by the
only remaining initial interim ALAC member (who should step down when the
NARALO will become operational)? I still remember the "Boardsquatter"
campaign....

Cheers,
Roberto

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
> [mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of 
> Wendy Seltzer
> Sent: 11 April 2007 09:04
> To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Cc: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
> 
> At 06:02 PM 4/10/2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
> >Hello Evan
> >The Vancouver meeting funding was approved by ICANN staff but was 
> >apparently vetoed by the NA ALAC members at that time (from 
> what I have 
> >been told and read). When it was brought up again just after Lisbon 
> >that people still wanted to have a meeting, ICANN staff said - let's 
> >see how we can facilitate
> >- Wendy voted no, Alan didn't say no, but didn't say yes, John is no 
> >longer on the ALAC, ICANN said yes and I said yes. A different 
> >procedure seems to exist now for approval of projects like this 
> >compared to February when Vancouver funding was apparently 
> vetoed by your regional representatives.
> >There's no uncertainties regarding travel subsidy anymore.
> 
> Yup.  ICANN doesn't like the result of one decisionmaking 
> process, so it just changes the rules and process.  When ALAC 
> members weren't compliant enough with ICANN staff's 
> interests, we got shut out of the process. Typical of the way 
> ICANN treats all its critics.
> 
> >The reasons for the meeting and the timing are clear - it 
> needs to be 
> >at a reasonable time before June if the MoU is to be ready 
> then. We are in April.
> >The policy issues need to be discussed  at the same time for 
> the same 
> >reason. We want to finalise some feedback and positions, translate 
> >documents etc in time for San Juan, so consultation has to happen in 
> >that timing as well.
> 
> There's absolutely no imperative, except ICANN's desire for 
> feel-good publicity, for a signing in San Juan.  If the North 
> Americans aren't ready by then, it might be an indication 
> that the structure is flawed, not that they haven't had an 
> opportunity to meet.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> 
> 
> >Between now and June is May. So May is self-evident. East Coast was 
> >suggested from not wanting to have everyone travel too far. 
> Suggestions 
> >were made, and offers were made, and one was picked as the most 
> >reasonable suggestion. As you should have seen from Robert's 
> email, it 
> >can be Montreal, it can be anywhere..
> >
> >Meeting space availability was not the overriding reason - I really 
> >don't see how that understanding could come about. There's meeting 
> >space available in every city in the world...
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan at telly.org]
> >Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:55 PM
> >To: jam at jacquelinemorris.com
> >Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
> >
> >Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
> > > Also - I'm not an US native, so my understanding of the 
> nuances of 
> > > the language may be different. There was no "willful 
> intent to impose control"
> >-
> > > at least how I think you mean that phrase. Of course I may have a
> >different
> > > understanding...
> > >
> >Hello Jaqueline,
> >
> >What I meant by "imposing control" is simple (and I'm not a 
> US native 
> >either ;-)  );
> >
> >The ALSs expressed a preference to have a meeting in Vancouver, and 
> >that meeting did not happen. I certainly heard no indication 
> that ICANN 
> >would support travel expenses for that meeting, so I know 
> that we could 
> >not attend.
> >
> >Now, ICANN staff proposes a meeting in New York, and the ONLY reason 
> >(that I can determine) offered for this particular choice of 
> date and 
> >location was that someone was making meeting space available at that 
> >tine. This is, to me, one of the silliest, least important 
> reasons to 
> >have a meeting at a particular time or place.
> >
> >The availability and readiness of participants is infinitely more 
> >important than the availability of meeting space (which can 
> be rented).
> >The setting of a specific time/place, before consulting any of the 
> >people intended to be there, is what I consider to be a form of 
> >crontrol. The suggestion that travel subsidy is available 
> for New York, 
> >when it appeared to have been unavailable for Vancouver, enforces a 
> >belief that ICANN is pushing its own agenda and timing over 
> that which 
> >is preferred by the participants themselves.
> >
> >If there is truly no intent to control, then ICANN must 
> fully support 
> >the meeting plans determined by the ALSs themselves, which includes 
> >travel expense support where requested. I have seen 
> admirable prudence 
> >in the activities here so far, nobody is rushing to spend ICANN's 
> >travel budget needlessly. So when we (the ALSs) say a meeting is 
> >needed, it is incumbent on ICANN to support such plans if there is 
> >truly an intent to support our activities and not control them. This 
> >means eliminating -- definitely -- the budget uncertainties 
> regarding travel subsidy.
> >
> >- Evan
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release 
> Date: 4/9/2007
> >10:59 PM
> >
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release 
> Date: 4/9/2007
> >10:59 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >NA-Discuss mailing list
> >NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_at
> large-list
> >s.icann.org
> >---
> >Draft MoU with ICANN:
> >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
> >
> >Draft Operating Principles:
> >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
> 
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org
> Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School 
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society 
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l
> ists.icann.org
> 
> www.alac.icann.org
> www.icannalac.org