[NA-Discuss] FW: [Secretariat] ICANN Summit planning group

[Thompson, Darlene]

Hi all,

I am forwarding this e-mail so that those of us that are working on the
LA meeting planning can see what Nick is saying is needed for us to come
up with.  I am assuming that ICANN would need the same type of framework
to convince them of the LA meeting as it would for the Summit.  (Ignore
the parts of the message below where Nick and I are squabbling.)

So, judging by what Nick states, it may not be quite the horrendous
amount of work that we first thought that it would be.

D

Darlene A. Thompson
Community Access Program Administrator
Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP
c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910
Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0
Phone:  (867) 975-6531
Fax:  (867) 979-8870
dthompson at gov.nu.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nick.ashton-hart at icann.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:01 AM
To: Evan Leibovitch
Cc: Thompson, Darlene; jam at jacquelinemorris.com;
secretariat at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [Secretariat] ICANN Summit planning group

Thanks for your note Evan, but it is important that everyone  
understands the process that goes on when a request for funding is  
made in At-Large to ICANN, such as the one that you have made.

The proposal for a project and funding connected with it is then sent  
to ICANN (me). We then internally must speak about it and we come  
back to the requestors with either a decision or a request for more  
information.

At no time would the community be presenting the idea to the board  
for funding, or presenting it to anyone else; it is sufficient that  
you have sent it to me.

What would be helpful is if the North American regional request can  
be endorsed by the other four regions. It would also be useful if we  
can come up with a basic framework for the structure of the meetings  
- not agendas, but objectives from your part, and from the logistical  
perspective, the structure of the meetings - how many plenaries, how  
many meetings of each region, and any subcommittees that you think  
should meet, how many members they would have, and how often they  
would meet.

I can very happily come up with a proposed structure along these  
lines for you - or you can do that yourself; as you wish. What you  
could definitely do is get the regional buy-in from the other four  
regions.

I hope that this makes sense and that you now realise that the task  
which confronts you is perhaps less onerous than you had thought it  
might be.

On 1 Aug 2007, at 10:30, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
>
> As you correctly state, Nick, the Summit -- if it happens -- will be a
> _major_ undertaking. Much needs to be done, not the least of which is
> demonstrating to ICANN early on that
>
> a) it's worth doing (both in regards to budget as well as  
> endorsement of
> the event itself)
> b) the people involved have the drive and skill required to make it  
> happen
>
> There is a sense that we need to move with a speed that (based on  
> my own
> observations) may be unusual for ICANN At-Large. The work that  
> needs to
> be done in just the next few weeks is substantial, as I suspect that
> proponents of the idea will need to "pitch" it to ICANN's Board and
> staff as well to the At-Large community at the LA meeting. To  
> succeed at
> this we will need to be well prepared in advance, both to outline what
> is required as well as to anticipate objections and be able to address
> them. We need to act now, simply to ensure that the Summit is  
> adequately
> part of the appropriate LA meeting agendas to allow us to state our  
> case.
>
> As well, as Darlene said we experienced a significant amount of
> enthusiasm for the proposal in San Juan, and proponents have been
> concerned that we don't want to lose that momentum. The creation of  
> the
> area on Google Groups was done (by me), not to circumvent any channels
> but to ensure the _immediate_ existence of an on-line "home" for the
> event planning as we spread the word to other RALOs. Not having  
> such an
> on-line home to date has been seen as an obstacle to our finding  
> out who
> else within the At-Large community is interested in participating. I
> don't think there will be any objection to moving the discussions,  
> file
> areas etc. to official At-Large resources as they are made  
> available to
> us. As we move forward the effort will require need not only a mailing
> list, but also a private wiki and place from which participants can
> upload and download shared files (before they're ready for full public
> access).
>
> Please understand that while we saw the need to quickly have a private
> workspace for Summit planners -- especially in the very early  
> period --
> there was never any intention to create a "hidden" area. The
> participants who I know care very much about transparency, not just in
> regards to the ombudsman. We will need as much support for our  
> proposal
> within ICANN as we can achieve, and it does not serve our purpose to
> alienate _anyone_.
>
> Now -- having said all this, I kindly ask to return to focus on
> Darlene's original request. We need the assistance of all RALOs in
> helping us find people from every region who would be interested in
> supporting -- or, even better, contributing their skills to -- our  
> effort.
>
> - Evan