[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board

Mon Nov 17 07:49:16 EST 2008

Dear Robert & Members:

As I see that Cheryl has responded to various elements of the below, I will
confine my remarks to providing a further clarification with respect to the
remote participation issues that have been raised.

Many of you will know that I had stated clearly some time in advance of the
Cairo meeting that I would not ask for two-way telephonic remote
participation at Cairo. This is not because it isn¹t important or because I
wished to discourage participation, but because I have requested telephonic
participation in every meeting since Sao Paulo, and every time the technical
provisions have been entirely unsatisfactory. I have a good deal of personal
expertise with the technology involved and I agree that it should work, that
it does work for many other communities outside of ICANN, and that
periodically it has sort-of worked for ICANN communities. However, it didn¹t
seem reasonable to me to tell you all, once again, that we would setup
remote participation only to have it be unfit for purpose. I don¹t enjoy
letting people down and it seemed to me the better part of valour to see if
the new vendor arrangements the Meetings staff are working with had a
positive effect on the reliability of technical services for our meetings
before trying again.

I am informed by other colleagues that there were improvements to the remote
participation telephonically in Cairo and the AV facilities in general
thanks to new providers and other changes in the way meetings have been
conducted. Unfortunately, it was my experience that many of the technical
problems that have afflicted At-Large meetings in the past were still
afflicting us in Cairo.

I would be overjoyed to have reliable remote participation at our meetings
via telephone and chat. I will say again what I have said many times, which
is that I completely understand that this is not viewed as optional, but as
absolutely necessary. I will commit once again to doing all that I can to
improving remote participation facilities, but you must understand I am not
in control of any aspect of the meetings beyond asking for facilities and
room configurations.

On 17/11/2008 05:12, "Robert Guerra" <lists at privaterra.info> wrote:

> Evan,
> 
> The issue of local user participation ended up being less then optimal
> due to a couple of reasons. First, repeated requests for a room to
> host users was blocked - ewith the excuse given that rooms were not
> free. Of course that was not the case as the at large room was pretty
> well free when we were nothere. Icann and some alac members expressed
> the vire informally that a local user event was not in "in the remit
> of at-large" any sensitive ssues might require that "a formal
> appology" be given to thee egyptian govt offcials.
> 
> When aked directly if the video could be shown at the enf of at alac
> meeting cheryl stated to me that it was possible, only if it was
> screen by her. I was not awarethat the chair has ever had vetting
> righs on content
> 
> Local users did want to come, but with no possible ok from the chair
> or nick, an adhoc session had to be organized. With little adcance
> notice - of course few people came. Whilei was very disappointed with
> the turnout - it was good to see who did attend. It was mainly just
> the north americans. The rest , well did not seem interested.
> 
> That alac and at large present did seem interested does not mean that
> local users did not want to meet us. Comments and blog posting in key
> MENA sites clearly show that the locals did want to meet us.
> 
> On the larger issue of engagement, namely virtual participation - I
> was shocked by the lack of effort undertaken. No dial-in, no open
> skype (voice) chat, no virtual questions. While in the past (san juan,
> la, etc) dial-ups did take place - nothing was done in cairo. Voip, is
> easy to do - and there is no excuse not to allow for virtual
> participation. In an age where we are more connected then ever, to do
> nothing - well, if not to care in the least. Indeed, a formal
> complaint should b e lodged and actions taken to make sure virtual
> participation - at alac meetings and other icann sessions is not just
> considered, but actually done in a way that is effective and
> participatory. Icann can do better on this, it must ..
> 
> As for the public forum - indeed it seems that the "public
> participation director" seems to have had little effect in enhancing
> public participation at meetings. Can one not learn from the US
> election and use youtube to seek questions and comments and play them
> back at thr meeting. Sigh.
> 
> In summary, I think there is a bottom up interest for participation
> and dialogue - but these are resisted by management who prefer to
> control the agenda and keep desenting views to a min. What can be done
> - well, comment and participate using other channels . Perhaps
> interested actors would be well advised to submit a letter not to the
> board, but instead to the incoming adminstration .
> 
> Robert
> 
> On 11/12/08, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele at blacknight.ie> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 7 Nov 2008, at 14:33, Danny Younger wrote:
>> >
>>> >> I am of the view that the ALAC needs to write a very strong letter
>>> >> to the Board expressing their disgust with (1) the manner in which
>>> >> the ICANN Public Forum session was conducted that allowed for a very
>>> >> limited amount of time within which to interact with the Board and
>>> >> (2) the almost total lack of remote participation opportunities that
>>> >> were available to at-large members.
>>> >>
>>> >> As someone that attempted to participate remotely, I can't point to
>>> >> a single ALAC session that allowed for meaningful remote
>>> >> participation, nor were audio feeds available for many workshops.
>>> >>
>>> >> This has to be the worst case of both in-person and remote
>>> >> participation management that I have ever seen at an ICANN session.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> At-Large mailing list
>>> >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> >> 
>>> 
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann>>>
.org
>>> >>
>>> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> >
>> >
>> > Were there issues with the Cairo meeting? Normally I'd have expected
>> > to see at least one press release per day etc., etc., I was also
>> > interested in following some of the "action" but couldn't see how
>> >
>> > Michele
>> >
>> >
>> > Mr Michele Neylon
>> > Blacknight Solutions
>> > Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
>> > http://www.blacknight.com/
>> > http://blog.blacknight.com/
>> > Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>> > US: 213-233-1612
>> > UK: 0844 484 9361
>> > Locall: 1850 929 929
>> > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>> > Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
>> > -------------------------------
>> > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
>> > Park,Sleaty
>> > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > At-Large mailing list
>> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > 
>> 
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.>>
org
>> >
>> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> >
> 
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
> 
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann
> .org
> 
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------
> 

-- 
Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart
Director for At-Large
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88
USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637
Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68
email: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com / Skype:
nashtonhart
Online Bio:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2398 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20081117/e8d22034/attachment.p7s>