[NA-Discuss] ALAC Members

Tue Jun 26 16:58:04 EDT 2007

For some reason the spam filter on the lists caught this one so I'm  
forwarding it. Reply to is set to Darlene :)

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson at GOV.NU.CA>
> Date: 26 June 2007 16:39:52 GMT-04:00
> To: <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>, <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Subject: {Spam?} RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Members
>
> Hi Jacqueline,
>
> First of all, THANK YOU so much for taking the time to write the  
> stuff below.  I really appreciate the clarification on some points  
> that were a little hazy to me.  I know how busy you've been at this  
> event so I am doubly appreciative of you taking the time to type  
> this all out.
>
> Secondly, though, I would like to differ from you on some points.   
> Its not like Alan, out of the kindness of his hear, offered to form  
> that wording.  It was how he fealt and an opinion he has been  
> putting forward for at least since he voted "no" to Telecommunities  
> Canada.  He has made his opinion on this clear.
>
> Also, if he and, frankly, all five of you, are supposed to be  
> representing global interests, then what accountability measures  
> are used?  How do you know that your opinion is global in scope?   
> There were several regions that his measures went critically  
> against their best interests (Asia/Pacific, EU & NA).  How is that  
> thinking on "a global context"?
>
> Finally, if this document has been being circulated for a long  
> time, why IS this the first that we've seen on it?  Do we get no  
> say whatsoever on this matter except by chance and at the very end?
>
> Jacqueline, I've fired off these question to "you" but in no way  
> mean them for just you (or as any kind of attack).  I am meaning  
> them as general questions for critical thinking of this process.  I  
> think that you are doing a great job over-all and truly appreciate  
> all of the time and hard work that you have been volunteering to  
> this process.
>
> Darlene
>
> From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
> Sent: Tue 6/26/2007 4:13 PM
> To: Thompson, Darlene; na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Members
>
> Hi Darlene
>
> The way the structure was set up is that there are 10 regional  
> representatives  on the ALAC. 2 are voted for from each region. The  
> other 5 are global committee members, appointed by the Nominating  
> Committee from people in each of the 5  regions. Their job isn’t to  
> represent the members of the region, but to look after the global  
> interests. So those current NomCom members are:
>
> Alan, Alice, Siavash, Annette and myself. LAC, Asia Pacific and  
> Africa will be ending their terms at the AGM in LA. NomCom will  
> announce the new 3 names before that.
>
>
> As a NomCom appointee, I would say that we are answerable to the  
> global internet community in general who are not covered by the  
> RALOs –  we are  from the region, but looking at issues in a more  
> global context. At least that’s the idea  I was given when I was  
> picked, and that’s how I operate on the committee.
>
>
> To be fair, the wording that Alan had put into the document came  
> out of a long ongoing discussion  - Alan volunteered to draft this  
> one of the positions, as you can see it was a big topic for Annette  
> and some others. Other positions have been also put forward in  
> discussion from LAC and Africa who have a lot of govt-private  
> partnerships and MSH partnerships, especially during and after  
> WSIS.  What we try to do is get a position that works for ALL the  
> regions, as we have to have a global perspective. This document was  
> also circulated over the past 5 months without any comment, and  
> most recently by Alan himself prior to San Juan, in an attempt to  
> force some more discussion on the concepts.
>
>
> You guys came in almost at the end of the discussion without having  
> heard the various things said by loads of other people over a long  
> time in a lot of meetings, so a lot of background was missing for  
> you, I think.
>
>
> Also – I think you misunderstood - ICANN is not revisiting the  
> entire structure – the bylaws mandate  review by an external agency  
> of all ICANN structures on a rotating basis. It may seem  strange  
> that the review happens just as the Interim ALAC is ending, but as  
> Paul Towmey said – the review can focus on the forward looking  
> parts, and the NEXT ALAC review can focus on the functioning of the  
> RALOs after they have been in operation for a while. (This was also  
> discussed with the Board and with the President in Lisbon – but I  
> realize that it is difficult to wade through all the minutes and  
> recordings of previous meetings in order to get up to speed if you  
> are new - I went through it myself 2 years ago)
>
> So it is unlikely that ICANN will revisit the structure before the  
> next review in 3 + years. The task of the Interim ALAC was to set  
> up the RALOS. The bylaws mandate tasks for the ALAC as well, once  
> the RALOs are formed. So we have finished one job, and have to  
> start the other.
>
>
> We have had 3 morning coordination meetings to plan for the main  
> AtLarge Committee Public meeting on Thursday, as we have found that  
> if we don’t prepare, the public meeting where we take decisions and  
> do consultation goes on for ever. These meetings are not an attempt  
> to push through decisions without consultation, but to do the  
> background work to have items on the agenda in the public meeting  
> and to  have worked though most of the main problems that may  
> prevent proper discussion and decision – if Legal needs to give an  
> opinion, we have it, if something needs explanation from Finance,  
> we have that staff person on hand to explain, etc., etc.
>
>
> In some of the past meetings the coordination meetings were after  
> 6, and we went until after 10 pm at times. So the ALAC agreed that  
> early morning was the most efficient time to do this, before the  
> other stuff we had to do. We have generally been really good on  
> time, but today was a really bad exception, probably because the  
> purpose of the meeting was not understood by all the people in the  
> room. Today the job was to get information from the Secretariats  
> for Nick to develop options on the flowsheet for presentation in  
> the public meeting – not to make any decision on the flowsheet.
>
>
> Similarly with the criteria – the meeting was to finish a potential  
> document for presentation to and discussion at the public meeting  
> on Thursday. All the ALSes will be there then. Robert asked for a  
> few of you to be able to attend as you could give assistance on the  
> wording of  some bits that we were having problems with yesterday.   
> If it were to be a full discussion meeting, I would have made sure  
> that ALL the ALSes were in the room, especially the LACRALO ALSes  
> as well as NA – they weren’t, because that wasn’t the purpose of  
> the meeting. They have the documents, and they will raise their  
> points on Thursday, and we will also have feedback from the other  
> regions present.
>
>
> One of the main problems with the ICANN meetings is lack of time.  
> We try to do a lot online before, and to be as efficient as  
> possible in our meetings with the number of other meetings and  
> panels that we need to do, so we are sometimes not as patient with  
> revisiting things for new people as we could be.
>
>
> I would suggest that the best way to prepare to participate  
> effectively would be to go over the agendas in advance (all on the  
> wiki), comment (on the wiki) and get the background of the items  
> that are on the agenda before the meeting starts. If anyone needs  
> stuff I can explain and locate documents etc, or any other ALAC  
> members or ALS members who have been around before – LACRALO is  
> here and  Erick has been around a LOOOONG time and some members of  
> the other regions are also here and can help you get up to speed on  
> some of the issues that we will be discussing.
>
>
> Jacqueline
>
>
>
>
> From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson at gov.nu.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:13 PM
> To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Members
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> I must say, I'm learning a ton of stuff here in San Juan.  One of  
> which, is that I had always thought that we had 3 ALAC members  
> representing our region and that is not, in fact, the case.  We  
> have two, who we have just elected being Robert and Beau.  Alan  
> "has no obligation" (his words) to forward any of our causes.
>
>
> I found this interesting because, some time ago, we had a huge  
> discussion on this list (which I do not mean to re-open) on whether  
> orgs-of-orgs (ICANN calls them "Umbrella Organizations") and their  
> member orgs can apply to become ALSs.  We had concensus on this  
> topic, in fact the vast majority gave their consent.  At yet, Alan  
> Greenburg actually put in contrary wording to this in the ALAC  
> Proposed Guide to ALS Application Evaluation which would have  
> prevented this, namely (and I quote):
>
>
> "Where an Umbrella Organisation applies and is accepted for  
> membership, its constituent member organizations may not be  
> accredited as ALSes. If members of an Umbrella Organisation are  
> already accredited as ALSes, and they wish to retain their  
> accreditation, the Umbrella Organisation’s application would not be  
> approved."
>
>
> We were extremely fortunate to have Robert there as he circulated  
> this document amongst several of us here that would have been  
> negatively impacted by this and arranged to have us speak to the  
> ALAC to have this wording removed.
>
>
> It is also interesting that, up until this time, it was a fairly  
> major responsibility of ALAC to assist in the formation of the five  
> regions.  Now it seems that ICANN is revisiting the entire  
> structure.  We may wish to discuss how we would like to see this  
> structure work.  I am wondering why we only get to select 2 of the  
> 3 regional ALAC reps.  If the third one is not actually forwarding  
> OUR causes, then what is the point?  Why does ICANN reserve the  
> right to select these people if, really, they are not answerable to  
> any group?
>
>
> I must say, we are very fortunate to have both Robert and Beau on  
> the committee.  They have been working unbelievably hard already  
> (meetings at 7:30 AM most days, having to stand up and speak  
> although totally new, running like crazy and organizing things).
>
>
> Thank you, Robert and Beau,
>
>
> Darlene
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date:  
> 6/24/2007 8:33 AM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date:  
> 6/24/2007 8:33 AM
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070626/6f29c28d/attachment-0001.html 