[At-Large] Attending ALAC Monthly Teleconferences

Tue Jul 10 11:00:51 EDT 2007

I'm afraid we do have to worry about cost - we cannot end up in a  
situation where we have run out of funds to have meetings at all  
simply because people want to be on the call.

There is no closed meeting in At-Large that I have ever experienced -  
if one were closed, it would be identified as such.

The meetings, transcriptions, and recordings are being posted as they  
become available for SJ.

On 10 Jul 2007, at 15:35, Michael Maranda wrote:

> Regardless of cost, open meetings are open meetings, and if they  
> are, then it should be clear with each and every announcement of  
> same.  This is helpful for newcomers to the process, and we hope  
> there will be a continuing stream of newcomers.... such measures as  
> clear statements around what is open and what  is happening  will  
> provide orientation.  Yes it is a tad repetitive, but thats the  
> price we need to pay.  Bits can be recycled.
>
> BTW, are the minutes of the prior ALAC meeting (in SJ) publicly  
> available?
>
> On 7/10/07, Nick Ashton-Hart < nick.ashton-hart at icann.org> wrote:
> Michael:
>
> There is no barrier to non-ALAC members attending the call. That  
> said, every additional person on the call adds to the cost, and it  
> already costs about US$12,000 per year for these calls, so I would  
> hope that the community could use the recordings of the calls, the  
> verbatim transcripts, and the summary minutes and not attend the  
> calls in person as well. Otherwise, we will cut into the budget  
> provision for teleconferences which exists for RALO teleconferences...
>
> On 10 Jul 2007, at 14:56, Michael Maranda wrote:
>
>> Is there a clear policy on who can join this meeting?  I had no  
>> knowledge as to whether persons not on the committee could join  
>> the call, and only learned that possibility after call had commenced.
>>
>> On 7/10/07, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg at web.de > wrote:
>> Dear Wendy,
>>
>> thank you for the update.
>> I hope you are going to take part in our tel conf call today as the
>> Whois issue is important to the individual users and we would very  
>> much
>> welcome your advice.
>>
>> Best
>> Annette
>>
>>
>> Wendy Seltzer schrieb:
>> > The WHOIS working group is now working around the document  
>> attached to
>> > this list message:
>> > < http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00460.html >
>> >
>> > Although the OPOC (Operational Point of Contact) is still being
>> > discussed, the draft burdens it procedural hurdles that would  
>> make it
>> > impracticably costly -- such as verification of the OPOC or
>> > accreditation with ICANN and status as an agent for the  
>> registrant.  The
>> > intent behind many of these proposals seems, as is common, to  
>> prevent
>> > adoption of more privacy-respecting WHOIS display. If we don't  
>> keep the
>> > contact lightweight, it will be too costly for registrars to  
>> implement
>> > and individuals to adopt.
>> >
>> > As this is on the agenda for the WG's July 11 call,
>> > < http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00491.html>  it  
>> would be
>> > helpful if others who have been participating in the WG's work  
>> would
>> > also express their concerns, either on list or on the call.
>> >
>> >
>> > The OPOC's responsibility was conceived as one to pass  
>> information along
>> > to the registrant, without requiring the registrant to list his  
>> or her
>> > direct contact information in public WHOIS.  Somewhere along the  
>> way,
>> > the WG has given the OPOC an additional role of REVEALing  
>> information
>> > when a query is made but not responded to.  This too seems like an
>> > overextension and loss for privacy, at least where there is no  
>> legal
>> > reason for the registrant's information to be revealed.  As an
>> > individual participant, I continue to advocate that only due  
>> process of
>> > law should force disclosure of contact information that individuals
>> > choose to protect.  I'd be happy to hear support or argument  
>> with that
>> > view.
>> >
>> > I will be happy to join the ALAC call if there is interest in  
>> discussing
>> > any of these issues. Please let me know, and share your views if  
>> you're
>> > not participating directly in the WG.
>> >
>> > --Wendy
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- 
>> lists.icann.org
>>
>> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
>> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter
>> Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
>> Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition
>> President, Association For Community Networking
>>
>> Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance:    
>> http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- 
>> lists.icann.org
>>
>> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
>> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter
> Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
> Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition
> President, Association For Community Networking
>
> Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance:  http:// 
> www.digitalaccessalliance.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070710/acce5e91/attachment.html 