[At-Large] At-Large Summit update

[Adam Peake]

The summit is a great idea. Agree with Ross, it's not something to 
let drop. But I'm also not well up on events so far, what's been 
planned and discussed and what's not.

Could we start again and work through how it might be organized.

ICANN meetings are arranged through a formal request for proposals 
process.  Would the Paris organizers be able to accommodate a new set 
of meetings? (meeting rooms, hotel rooms, etc.)

How many people might be expected to attend?  How many parallel 
sessions (i.e. how many rooms for how many people for how many days.)

How much money will be required for travel and other expenses? (can 
other sponsors be found.)

What's ICANN's and the ALAC's budget cycle?  The only ICANN 
organization I've worked with closely is the NomCom, and budget for 
that runs July to July.  How would something the Summit get into the 
budget planning process?

Whatever... I think it's a really good idea, would like to see what 
can be made of it.

If not Paris then the next stop would be somewhere in Africa, which 
makes travel more expensive (less of a hub.)  After that Latin 
America, Asia Pacific and Europe as the three meetings for 2009.

Best,

Adam

(not a member of the NA RALO list so can't cc.)



>Hello folks.
>
>We have been recently informed by Nick that the Summit, as it is
>presently developed as described at
>http://www.icannwiki.org/wiki/At-Large_Global_Summit
>http://www.icannwiki.org/wiki/ICANN_Ensemble
>is officially dead, by decree of ICANN staff. No staff support will be
>offered and no funding would be made available for anyone to attend.
>
>We are told by Nick (who has been our sole ICANN contact from day one)
>that the decision is final, though a conference call has been requested
>between us, Nick and Denise Michell in order to clarify the rationale.
>Although no formal application was ever made, we have been told that a
>formal rejection letter will be sent after the conference call.
>
>To say that this early rejection was unexpected and disappointing is an
>understatement. We have done absolutely everything that has been asked
>of us by Nick. We have acted in a manner that we believe to be
>professional, fiscally responsible, and accommodating to all concerns
>expressed by staff to date.
>
>What has been most upsetting has been the attitude of ICANN staff, which
>has obviously put itself in the role of sole judge of how to spend the
>money ICANN allocates for At-Large. (Indeed, while being constantly
>telling us that there was no money available for the Summit, staff has
>repeatedly refused to actually reveal what the allocation is.)
>
>We had hoped that we could work with staff as partner and facilitator,
>in the implementation of a project which has attracted support from
>ALAC and all regions. Instead we have found nothing but a stream of
>obstacles,from staff that clearly has a different vision of ICANN's
>At-Large community than the community has of itself.
>
>We thank everyone who has offered support and help so far, and are
>certainly welcome to ideas and methods of keeping the project alive. We
>still believe that the Summit has the potential to be a key component in
>the development of the community's ability to make substantial
>contribution to the ICANN decision-making processes.
>
>Since staff has been unsupportive of our request for ongoing
>collaboration resources, we will maintain the Google Group discussion
>area at http://groups.google.com/group/icann-summit to which all are
>welcome.
>
>Evan Leibovitch
>Darlene Thompson
>
>_______________________________________________
>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