From sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr Mon Aug 3 08:49:50 2009 From: sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr (=?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Bachollet?=) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 10:49:50 +0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] TR: Draft ALAC Statement on the IIC - The Way Forward Message-ID: <008001ca1417$5d357bf0$17a073d0$@bachollet@isoc.fr> Dear Working group members ? I am just back from my (long) holidays in Australia and try to catch-up with all the At-large stuff. Have you comments on the proposal? Thanks All the best. S?bastien Bachollet Pr?sident d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr De : icann-future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:icann-future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de ICANN AtLarge Staff Envoy? : vendredi 17 juillet 2009 01:01 ? : alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org; icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org Objet : [Icann-future-wg] Draft ALAC Statement on the IIC - The Way Forward Dear All, As per S?bastien Bachollet?s request please find attached the Draft ALAC Statement on the document entitled ?Improving Institutional Confidence ? The Way Forward? which was published by the President?s Strategy Committee on May 31st. This Draft Statement should have sent to you on July 1st but S?bastien was on holidays during the last couple of days and experienced problems when he tried to access his files remotely. A revised version of the Draft Statement incorporating all comments received on the attached version by the members of the ALAC and the Working Group on the Future Structure of ICANN ill be posted in early August for full community feedback. Please comment on the current version by responding to this email. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff at atlarge.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090803/82856317/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AL-ALAC-ST-0609-4 Re#8B67E2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 127943 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090803/82856317/AL-ALAC-ST-0609-4Re8B67E2.doc -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00959.txt Url: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090803/82856317/ATT00959.txt From sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr Mon Aug 3 11:42:24 2009 From: sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr (=?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Bachollet?=) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:42:24 +0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC] Draft ALAC Statement on the IIC - The Way Forward In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00b201ca142f$78778e40$6966aac0$@bachollet@isoc.fr> Hello Adam, See my comments in your text bellow. Thanks for your proposal. All the best S?bastien Bachollet Pr?sident d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr ? > -----Message d'origine----- > De?: icann-future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:icann- > future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake > Envoy??: jeudi 30 juillet 2009 17:05 > ??: ICANN AtLarge Staff; icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org > Objet?: Re: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC] Draft ALAC Statement on the IIC - > The Way Forward > > Hi, my comments on the document. > > Section 1.10 > > Delete after "At Large members expressed the view > that ICANN should make a greater effort to > [achieve] geographically diversity its organs, > staff and activities." The recommendation to > apply geographic diversity rules to senior staff > and SO/AC chairs is impractical and ill advised. [SBT] It is the position express by the working group during the Summit in Mexico and endorse by ALAC since. And to acknowledge your concern the WG add " The splitting of functions and responsibility, however, should not be done in a way that would result in inefficiencies or duplication of effort. ICANN must also remain vigilant concerning the efficient use of its resources." > > Section 1.13.4 > > Delete (see 1.10 above) "At the same time > At-Large (ALAC) supports the position that the > elected seats in each SO/AC/Board should be > easier to follow and be populated with different > individuals." [SBT] There is no link between this point and the 1.10. The question here is about the voting possibilities in different SO/AC. No one should be elected in more than one structure. > > Section 2.7 > > Delete "At-Large (ALAC) believes that ALAC would > be well suited to offer ICANN this type of > advice." ALAC does not have competency. Stronger > independent review is needed. [SBT] It is the position express by the working group during the Summit in Mexico and endorse by ALAC since. > > Section 2.8 > > If we are questioning the use of IRT/Independent > Review Tribunal, when IRT is already used in > ICANN then just say so. > > Section 3.4 > > Delete recommendation to hold at least 2 regional > meetings. We don't need more meetings! [SBT] I am not sure that our ALS we support that. And those meeting are already organize by ICANN but just open to contractual stakeholders. We want At-large and other non contractual parties to be allow to participate to such meetings. > > Section 3.6 > > Delete (refers to recommendation on section 1.10) > > > About "Proposal to Establish a Special ICANN > Community Vote Requesting a Board Re-Examination > of a Board Decision" We shouldn't include > "maybes" in recommendations. [SBT] OK > > I disagree about the Independent Review Tribunal, > think further accountability mechanisms a good > idea. [SBT] It needs to be develop and maybe (;)) it is a good time to do some work on that. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > >Dear All, > > > >As per S?bastien Bachollet's request please find > >attached the Draft ALAC Statement on the > >document entitled "Improving Institutional > >Confidence - The Way Forward" which was > >published by the President's Strategy Committee > >on May 31st. > > > >This Draft Statement should have sent to you on > >July 1st but S?bastien was on holidays during > >the last couple of days and experienced problems > >when he tried to access his files remotely. > > > >A revised version of the Draft Statement > >incorporating all comments received on the > >attached version by the members of the ALAC and > >the Working Group on the Future Structure of > >ICANN ill be posted in early August for full > >community feedback. Please comment on the > >current version by responding to this email. > > > >-- > >Regards, > > > >Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber- > White > >ICANN At-Large Staff > >email: staff at atlarge.icann.org > > > > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh > >HD:AL-ALAC-ST-0609-4 Re#8B67E2.doc (TEMP/CSOm) > >(007C85F1) > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- > lists.icann.org > > > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > > _______________________________________________ > Icann-future-wg mailing list > Icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future- > wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org From staff at atlarge.icann.org Wed Aug 5 14:52:38 2009 From: staff at atlarge.icann.org (At-Large Staff) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:52:38 +0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] Letter from the US Congress to the US Department of Commmerce regarding post-JPA arrangements Message-ID: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> Dear working group and ALAC members: We attach hereto a letter from the US Congress' Committee on Energy and Commerce, transmitted to the US Department of Commerce, recommending what arrangements the Committee believes should be made at the ending of the JPA between the US Department of Commerce on 30th September 2009. We hope this is of interest. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DOC044.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 180128 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090805/b560f53f/DOC044.pdf From sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr Wed Aug 5 15:02:46 2009 From: sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr (=?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Bachollet?=) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:02:46 +0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] Letter from the US Congress to the US Department of Commmerce regarding post-JPA arrangements In-Reply-To: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> Message-ID: <00d701ca15dd$cad828c0$60887a40$@bachollet@isoc.fr> Thanks for this document. I believe that it could be very useful for At-Large to have a translation of this letter to allow a full participation of ALS members. All the best S?bastien Bachollet Pr?sident d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr ? > -----Message d'origine----- > De?: icann-future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:icann- > future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de At-Large Staff > Envoy??: mercredi 5 ao?t 2009 16:53 > ??: icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org; ALAC Internal List; trans- > account-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org > Objet?: [Icann-future-wg] Letter from the US Congress to the US > Department of Commmerce regarding post-JPA arrangements > > Dear working group and ALAC members: > > We attach hereto a letter from the US Congress' Committee on Energy and > Commerce, transmitted to the US Department of Commerce, recommending > what arrangements the Committee believes should be made at the ending > of the JPA between the US Department of Commerce on 30th September > 2009. > > We hope this is of interest. From nick.ashton-hart at icann.org Sat Aug 8 07:40:11 2009 From: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 09:40:11 +0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A7D2BDB.4050207@icann.org> Dear All: I draw your attention to the policy advice schedule on this matter, which has a final draft being ready yesterday, and a vote beginning today :) There is one other thing you may wish to add. The ALAC has at various times in official statements endorsed the concept of more regional meetings, in specific suggesting that the current gatherings each year for the contracted parties in each region should be opened up to equal participation by all other ICANN communities. In that vein, you may wish to make note of that fact in a sentence or two. The text below is also missing a few bits gramatically. How would you like to proceed to get a finalised statement so the voting can begin? The consultation closes on 14th August, fyi, though I can notify the responsible staff person that an ALAC comment will come in a couple of days later if you like. Adam Peake wrote: > Hi. > > Looking over the proposed dates > I have a > couple of comments: > > > Seems to be a very short period between meeting #39, 5-10 December > 2010 (Latin America) and meeting #40, 13-18 March 2011, North > America. Can expect little will be done for the month immediately > after the December 2010 meeting, leaving a very compressed policy > development period before the next meeting in March. Can expect this > to have a rolling effect through the year, particularly as meeting #42 > 9-14 October is scheduled a month or more earlier than usual. Suggest > staff attempt to move meeting #40 to early April 2011 (avoiding the > major holidays/celebrations) and meeting #42 to late November 2011. > The third meeting should anyway be scheduled later in the year (see > next para.) > > Meeting #45, 14-19 October 2012 is also too early. Adequate time is > needed for policy development and many decisions, particularly by the > board, are made at the face to face meetings. Holding the third > meeting of the year in October will most likely cause significant > board decisions to move to special meetings of the board (telephonic > or other) in November/December, not good for transparency, and also > placing an additional burden on already over worked board members. > Suggest moving #45 to Mid/late November 2012. > > - - - > > > Any comments, thoughts? > > Best, > > Adam > > > > >> Dear Working Group on the Future Structure of ICANN, >> >> Please be advised that a public comment period has been opened on an >> issue related to the remit of your working group. In keeping with the >> 'bottom up' nature of ICANN, your working group's attention is kindly >> drawn to this comment period, which ends on August 14th. >> >> The consultation information may be found at >> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#meeting-dates. The >> announcement of the same follows immediately hereafter. >> >> ________________________________ >> Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 >> >> Explanation: While ICANN continues to examine the overall structure >> of its meeting dates and geographic rotation, it is important to move >> forward with future planning. In an effort to secure the dates for >> ICANN meetings through 2013, Staff recommendations have been >> developed for Public review and comment. Approving the meeting dates >> is important to prevent conflicts with other community events and to >> allow all participants sufficient time to plan their travel and >> attendance. >> >> The proposed dates below have been selected based on careful >> avoidance of important holidays, celebrations, and observances around >> the globe. Similarly, every effort was made to identify and prevent >> scheduling conflicts with other community events. >> >> ICANN will not be able to accommodate every request for a date >> change. However, in an effort to be fully cognizant of holidays and >> occasions from countries and religions around the world, we'd like to >> provide an opportunity for comment so the ICANN Public Participation >> Committee of the Board can move forward with approving the dates. >> >> Deadline and How to Submit Comments: The Staff is opening a 30-day >> public comment forum, from 13 July 2009 through 14 August 2009, and >> invites community comments on this topic. >> >> To submit comments: Comments are welcome via email to >> proposed-meeting-dates at icann.org. This public forum will be open >> through 14 August 2009. >> >> To view comments: An archive of all comments received will be >> publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/proposed-meeting-dates. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella >> Gruber-White >> ICANN At-Large Staff >> email: staff at atlarge.icann.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC-Announce mailing list >> ALAC-Announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Icann-future-wg mailing list > Icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090808/6bbbbb3d/attachment.html From nick.ashton-hart at icann.org Sat Aug 8 07:44:55 2009 From: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 09:44:55 +0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 In-Reply-To: <4A7D2BDB.4050207@icann.org> References: <4A7D2BDB.4050207@icann.org> Message-ID: <4A7D2CF7.6030203@icann.org> One more thing on the subject: In NARALO, there has been a dicussion of the advisability of swapping meeting 40 and 41, as at present they will both take place in the winter in their respective region. As regards meeting 40, as many of us know from personal experience, winter in North America brings with it routine air travel delays, often quite significant, due to inclement weather, so moving this meeting into the summer is advisable on that basis. Apologies for forgetting this point in my immediately-previous message. Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear All: > > I draw your attention to the policy advice schedule on this matter, > which has a final draft being ready yesterday, and a vote beginning > today :) > > There is one other thing you may wish to add. The ALAC has at various > times in official statements endorsed the concept of more regional > meetings, in specific suggesting that the current gatherings each year > for the contracted parties in each region should be opened up to equal > participation by all other ICANN communities. > > In that vein, you may wish to make note of that fact in a sentence or > two. The text below is also missing a few bits gramatically. > > How would you like to proceed to get a finalised statement so the > voting can begin? The consultation closes on 14th August, fyi, though > I can notify the responsible staff person that an ALAC comment will > come in a couple of days later if you like. > > Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi. >> >> Looking over the proposed dates >> I have a >> couple of comments: >> >> >> Seems to be a very short period between meeting #39, 5-10 December >> 2010 (Latin America) and meeting #40, 13-18 March 2011, North >> America. Can expect little will be done for the month immediately >> after the December 2010 meeting, leaving a very compressed policy >> development period before the next meeting in March. Can expect this >> to have a rolling effect through the year, particularly as meeting >> #42 9-14 October is scheduled a month or more earlier than usual. >> Suggest staff attempt to move meeting #40 to early April 2011 >> (avoiding the major holidays/celebrations) and meeting #42 to late >> November 2011. The third meeting should anyway be scheduled later in >> the year (see next para.) >> >> Meeting #45, 14-19 October 2012 is also too early. Adequate time is >> needed for policy development and many decisions, particularly by the >> board, are made at the face to face meetings. Holding the third >> meeting of the year in October will most likely cause significant >> board decisions to move to special meetings of the board (telephonic >> or other) in November/December, not good for transparency, and also >> placing an additional burden on already over worked board members. >> Suggest moving #45 to Mid/late November 2012. >> >> - - - >> >> >> Any comments, thoughts? >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >>> Dear Working Group on the Future Structure of ICANN, >>> >>> Please be advised that a public comment period has been opened on >>> an issue related to the remit of your working group. In keeping with >>> the 'bottom up' nature of ICANN, your working group's attention is >>> kindly >>> drawn to this comment period, which ends on August 14th. >>> >>> The consultation information may be found at >>> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#meeting-dates. The >>> announcement of the same follows immediately hereafter. >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 >>> >>> Explanation: While ICANN continues to examine the overall structure >>> of its meeting dates and geographic rotation, it is important to >>> move forward with future planning. In an effort to secure the dates >>> for ICANN meetings through 2013, Staff recommendations have been >>> developed for Public review and comment. Approving the meeting dates >>> is important to prevent conflicts with other community events and to >>> allow all participants sufficient time to plan their travel and >>> attendance. >>> >>> The proposed dates below have been selected based on careful >>> avoidance of important holidays, celebrations, and observances >>> around the globe. Similarly, every effort was made to identify and >>> prevent scheduling conflicts with other community events. >>> >>> ICANN will not be able to accommodate every request for a date >>> change. However, in an effort to be fully cognizant of holidays and >>> occasions from countries and religions around the world, we'd like >>> to provide an opportunity for comment so the ICANN Public >>> Participation Committee of the Board can move forward with approving >>> the dates. >>> >>> Deadline and How to Submit Comments: The Staff is opening a 30-day >>> public comment forum, from 13 July 2009 through 14 August 2009, and >>> invites community comments on this topic. >>> >>> To submit comments: Comments are welcome via email to >>> proposed-meeting-dates at icann.org. This public forum will be open >>> through 14 August 2009. >>> >>> To view comments: An archive of all comments received will be >>> publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/proposed-meeting-dates. >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella >>> Gruber-White >>> ICANN At-Large Staff >>> email: staff at atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC-Announce mailing list >>> ALAC-Announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> >>> >>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Icann-future-wg mailing list >> Icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > > -- > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > Director for At-Large > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 > > USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 > > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > > Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 > > 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 > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090808/5bc60909/attachment.html From evan at telly.org Sat Aug 8 12:58:24 2009 From: evan at telly.org (Evan Leibovitch) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 08:58:24 -0400 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 In-Reply-To: <4A7D2CF7.6030203@icann.org> References: <4A7D2BDB.4050207@icann.org> <4A7D2CF7.6030203@icann.org> Message-ID: <4A7D7670.1090209@telly.org> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > In NARALO, there has been a dicussion of the advisability of swapping > meeting 40 and 41, as at present they will both take place in the > winter in their respective region. As regards meeting 40, as many of > us know from personal experience, winter in North America brings with > it routine air travel delays, often quite significant, due to > inclement weather, so moving this meeting into the summer is > advisable on that basis. Many worthy sites in Canada and northern USA would simply be unsuitable for meetings in February/March, for reasons that go well beyond the air travel disruption. I'm quite certain that many ICANN delegates do not possess the clothing necessary to handle potential February weather in Qu?bec City, Boston, Calgary or Chicago. - Evan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090808/2f90f39c/attachment.html From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Aug 9 14:41:06 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 23:41:06 +0900 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 In-Reply-To: <4A7D7670.1090209@telly.org> References: <4A7D2BDB.4050207@icann.org> <4A7D2CF7.6030203@icann.org> <4A7D7670.1090209@telly.org> Message-ID: Evan, hi. For most of the Asia/Australia/Pacific, June is either high summer or just hot, only southern hemisphere Australia/New Zealand would be winter and both are pretty OK (it can rain a lot on New Zealand :-)) But the point is the same, much of northern hemisphere Asia can be less pleasant at the end of June: hot and humid. How would everyone be with the following: The ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on "ICANN Meeting Dates / Geographic Rotation 2011 - 2012 - 2013". 1. We recognize the dates have been selected to avoid "important holidays, celebrations, and observances around the globe", and note the difficultly of long term planning when many such events are based on the lunar calendar. We suggest reference to a calendar of events published by an independent and authoritative body, for example the United Nations, be adopted and made available to the community, however the problem of planning to the lunar calendar may be difficult to resolve and we encourage flexibility. 2. Globally significant events must of course be avoided, we also ask that national holidays, celebrations, and observances of the host country be taken into consideration. This may mean flexibility in the dates when considering the best candidate country. 3. Please ensure there is ample time for policy development between meetings. For example, meeting #39, 5-10 December 2010 (Latin America) and meeting #40, 13-18 March 2011 (North America). Typically there is a quiet period after meetings while staff and volunteers recover, which in this case will run into the end of year celebrations and long holidays, leaving too little time to respond to policy processes and ample public comment before the meeting in the spring. Holding the third meeting of the year early, i.e. October, should be avoided. This compresses the time available for policy development during the year, and in the past it has been necessary to hold additional meetings of the board to complete work. This is a burden for the board, already overworked, and the rest of the community. 4. The North American RALO recommends swapping meetings #40 (North America) and #41 (Asia), the climate is likely to be generally more favorable in both regions if a swap can be made. As regards meeting #40, winter in North America brings with it routine air travel delays, often quite significant, due to inclement weather, and the swap would also move this meeting away from the clash with March local holidays as noted in other comments. ENDs Is this OK? Thanks, Adam At 8:58 AM -0400 8/8/09, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >>In NARALO, there has been a dicussion of the >>advisability of swapping meeting 40 and 41, as >>at present they will both take place in the >>winter in their respective region. As regards >>meeting 40, as many of us know from personal >>experience, winter in North America brings with >>it routine air travel delays, often quite >>significant, due to inclement weather, so >>moving this meeting into the summer is >>advisable on that basis. >> >Many worthy sites in Canada and northern USA >would simply be unsuitable for meetings in >February/March, for reasons that go well beyond >the air travel disruption. I'm quite certain >that many ICANN delegates do not possess the >clothing necessary to handle potential February >weather in Qu?bec City, Boston, Calgary or >Chicago. > >- Evan From evan at telly.org Sun Aug 9 14:53:24 2009 From: evan at telly.org (Evan Leibovitch) Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 10:53:24 -0400 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <4A7D2BDB.4050207@icann.org> <4A7D2CF7.6030203@icann.org> <4A7D7670.1090209@telly.org> Message-ID: <4A7EE2E4.4050402@telly.org> Adam Peake wrote: > Evan, hi. > > For most of the Asia/Australia/Pacific, June is either high summer or > just hot, only southern hemisphere Australia/New Zealand would be > winter and both are pretty OK (it can rain a lot on New Zealand :-)) > > But the point is the same, much of northern hemisphere Asia can be > less pleasant at the end of June: hot and humid. > > How would everyone be with the following: > > > > The ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on "ICANN Meeting Dates / > Geographic Rotation 2011 - 2012 - 2013". > > 1. We recognize the dates have been selected to avoid "important > holidays, celebrations, and observances around the globe", and note > the difficultly of long term planning when many such events are based > on the lunar calendar. We suggest reference to a calendar of events > published by an independent and authoritative body, for example the > United Nations, be adopted and made available to the community, > however the problem of planning to the lunar calendar may be difficult > to resolve and we encourage flexibility. > > 2. Globally significant events must of course be avoided, we also ask > that national holidays, celebrations, and observances of the host > country be taken into consideration. This may mean flexibility in the > dates when considering the best candidate country. > > 3. Please ensure there is ample time for policy development between > meetings. For example, meeting #39, 5-10 December 2010 (Latin > America) and meeting #40, 13-18 March 2011 (North America). Typically > there is a quiet period after meetings while staff and volunteers > recover, which in this case will run into the end of year celebrations > and long holidays, leaving too little time to respond to policy > processes and ample public comment before the meeting in the spring. > Holding the third meeting of the year early, i.e. October, should be > avoided. This compresses the time available for policy development > during the year, and in the past it has been necessary to hold > additional meetings of the board to complete work. This is a burden > for the board, already overworked, and the rest of the community. > > 4. The North American RALO recommends swapping meetings #40 (North > America) and #41 (Asia), the climate is likely to be generally more > favorable in both regions if a swap can be made. As regards meeting > #40, winter in North America brings with it routine air travel delays, > often quite significant, due to inclement weather, and the swap would > also move this meeting away from the clash with March local holidays > as noted in other comments. > > ENDs > > Is this OK? This is fine with me. We'll discuss it in tomorrow's (Monday) NARALO meeting but I think that wording is fine. Thanks for doing this. - Evan From sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr Sun Aug 9 18:27:35 2009 From: sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr (=?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Bachollet?=) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 20:27:35 +0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <4A7D2BDB.4050207@icann.org> <4A7D2CF7.6030203@icann.org> <4A7D7670.1090209@telly.org> Message-ID: <015f01ca191f$113cac70$33b60550$@bachollet@isoc.fr> I would like to suggest to add the following idea (as suggest by Nick and taking into account the At-Large position already express). "At-Large (ALAC) thinks that in addition to the 3 yearly general meetings, at-least 2 regional meeting should be organized by ICANN each year one in each of the (2) remaining of ICANN?s five geographic regions. All the regional meetings (the current gatherings each year for the contracted parties in each region) must be open on equal footing to all constituencies and support must be provided for these additional regional meetings, as it is for the 3 yearly general meetings." All the best S?bastien Bachollet Pr?sident d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr ? > -----Message d'origine----- > De?: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Envoy??: dimanche 9 ao?t 2009 16:41 > ??: Evan Leibovitch; Nick Ashton-Hart > Cc?: Adam Peake; icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org; Cheryl > Langdon-Orr; Vanda Scartezini UOL; S?bastien Bachollet; Alan Greenberg; > Thompson, Darlene > Objet?: Re: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on > Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 > > Evan, hi. > > For most of the Asia/Australia/Pacific, June is > either high summer or just hot, only southern > hemisphere Australia/New Zealand would be winter > and both are pretty OK (it can rain a lot on New > Zealand :-)) > > But the point is the same, much of northern > hemisphere Asia can be less pleasant at the end > of June: hot and humid. > > How would everyone be with the following: > > > > The ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on > "ICANN Meeting Dates / Geographic Rotation 2011 - > 2012 - 2013". > > 1. We recognize the dates have been selected to > avoid "important holidays, celebrations, and > observances around the globe", and note the > difficultly of long term planning when many such > events are based on the lunar calendar. We > suggest reference to a calendar of events > published by an independent and authoritative > body, for example the United Nations, be adopted > and made available to the community, however the > problem of planning to the lunar calendar may be > difficult to resolve and we encourage flexibility. > > 2. Globally significant events must of course be > avoided, we also ask that national holidays, > celebrations, and observances of the host country > be taken into consideration. This may mean > flexibility in the dates when considering the > best candidate country. > > 3. Please ensure there is ample time for policy > development between meetings. For example, > meeting #39, 5-10 December 2010 (Latin America) > and meeting #40, 13-18 March 2011 (North > America). Typically there is a quiet period > after meetings while staff and volunteers > recover, which in this case will run into the end > of year celebrations and long holidays, leaving > too little time to respond to policy processes > and ample public comment before the meeting in > the spring. Holding the third meeting of the > year early, i.e. October, should be avoided. > This compresses the time available for policy > development during the year, and in the past it > has been necessary to hold additional meetings of > the board to complete work. This is a burden for > the board, already overworked, and the rest of > the community. > > 4. The North American RALO recommends swapping > meetings #40 (North America) and #41 (Asia), the > climate is likely to be generally more favorable > in both regions if a swap can be made. As > regards meeting #40, winter in North America > brings with it routine air travel delays, often > quite significant, due to inclement weather, and > the swap would also move this meeting away from > the clash with March local holidays as noted in > other comments. > > ENDs > > Is this OK? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > At 8:58 AM -0400 8/8/09, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > >>In NARALO, there has been a dicussion of the > >>advisability of swapping meeting 40 and 41, as > >>at present they will both take place in the > >>winter in their respective region. As regards > >>meeting 40, as many of us know from personal > >>experience, winter in North America brings with > >>it routine air travel delays, often quite > >>significant, due to inclement weather, so > >>moving this meeting into the summer is > >>advisable on that basis. > >> > >Many worthy sites in Canada and northern USA > >would simply be unsuitable for meetings in > >February/March, for reasons that go well beyond > >the air travel disruption. I'm quite certain > >that many ICANN delegates do not possess the > >clothing necessary to handle potential February > >weather in Qu?bec City, Boston, Calgary or > >Chicago. > > > >- Evan From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Aug 10 02:31:22 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:31:22 +0900 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 In-Reply-To: <015f01ca191f$113cac70$33b60550$@bachollet@isoc.fr> References: <4A7D2BDB.4050207@icann.org> <4A7D2CF7.6030203@icann.org> <4A7D7670.1090209@telly.org> <015f01ca191f$113cac70$33b60550$@bachollet@isoc.fr> Message-ID: I disagree. Not the subject of the public comment. Could we discuss this further through our policy development process, and if necessary make a separate contribution as a recommendation to board. Thanks, Adam At 8:27 PM +0200 8/9/09, S?bastien Bachollet wrote: >I would like to suggest to add the following idea (as suggest by Nick and >taking into account the At-Large position already express). >"At-Large (ALAC) thinks that in addition to the 3 yearly general meetings, >at-least 2 regional meeting should be organized by ICANN each year one in >each of the (2) remaining of ICANN?s five geographic regions. All the >regional meetings (the current gatherings each year for the contracted >parties in each region) must be open on equal footing to all constituencies >and support must be provided for these additional regional meetings, as it >is for the 3 yearly general meetings." > >All the best >S?bastien Bachollet >Pr?sident d'honneur - Isoc France >sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >www.egeni.org >www.isoc.fr > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De?: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Envoy??: dimanche 9 ao?t 2009 16:41 >> ??: Evan Leibovitch; Nick Ashton-Hart >> Cc?: Adam Peake; icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org; Cheryl >> Langdon-Orr; Vanda Scartezini UOL; S?bastien Bachollet; Alan Greenberg; >> Thompson, Darlene >> Objet?: Re: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on >> Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 >> >> Evan, hi. >> >> For most of the Asia/Australia/Pacific, June is >> either high summer or just hot, only southern >> hemisphere Australia/New Zealand would be winter >> and both are pretty OK (it can rain a lot on New >> Zealand :-)) >> >> But the point is the same, much of northern >> hemisphere Asia can be less pleasant at the end >> of June: hot and humid. >> >> How would everyone be with the following: >> >> >> >> The ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on >> "ICANN Meeting Dates / Geographic Rotation 2011 - >> 2012 - 2013". >> >> 1. We recognize the dates have been selected to >> avoid "important holidays, celebrations, and >> observances around the globe", and note the >> difficultly of long term planning when many such >> events are based on the lunar calendar. We >> suggest reference to a calendar of events >> published by an independent and authoritative >> body, for example the United Nations, be adopted >> and made available to the community, however the >> problem of planning to the lunar calendar may be >> difficult to resolve and we encourage flexibility. >> >> 2. Globally significant events must of course be >> avoided, we also ask that national holidays, >> celebrations, and observances of the host country >> be taken into consideration. This may mean >> flexibility in the dates when considering the >> best candidate country. >> >> 3. Please ensure there is ample time for policy >> development between meetings. For example, >> meeting #39, 5-10 December 2010 (Latin America) >> and meeting #40, 13-18 March 2011 (North >> America). Typically there is a quiet period >> after meetings while staff and volunteers >> recover, which in this case will run into the end >> of year celebrations and long holidays, leaving >> too little time to respond to policy processes >> and ample public comment before the meeting in > > the spring. Holding the third meeting of the >> year early, i.e. October, should be avoided. >> This compresses the time available for policy >> development during the year, and in the past it >> has been necessary to hold additional meetings of >> the board to complete work. This is a burden for > > the board, already overworked, and the rest of >> the community. >> >> 4. The North American RALO recommends swapping >> meetings #40 (North America) and #41 (Asia), the >> climate is likely to be generally more favorable >> in both regions if a swap can be made. As >> regards meeting #40, winter in North America >> brings with it routine air travel delays, often >> quite significant, due to inclement weather, and >> the swap would also move this meeting away from >> the clash with March local holidays as noted in >> other comments. >> >> ENDs >> >> Is this OK? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> At 8:58 AM -0400 8/8/09, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> >Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> > >> >>In NARALO, there has been a dicussion of the >> >>advisability of swapping meeting 40 and 41, as >> >>at present they will both take place in the >> >>winter in their respective region. As regards >> >>meeting 40, as many of us know from personal >> >>experience, winter in North America brings with >> >>it routine air travel delays, often quite >> >>significant, due to inclement weather, so >> >>moving this meeting into the summer is >> >>advisable on that basis. >> >> >> >Many worthy sites in Canada and northern USA >> >would simply be unsuitable for meetings in >> >February/March, for reasons that go well beyond >> >the air travel disruption. I'm quite certain >> >that many ICANN delegates do not possess the >> >clothing necessary to handle potential February >> >weather in Qu?bec City, Boston, Calgary or >> >Chicago. >> > >> >- Evan From evan at telly.org Mon Aug 10 03:21:10 2009 From: evan at telly.org (Evan Leibovitch) Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:21:10 -0400 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <4A7D2BDB.4050207@icann.org> <4A7D2CF7.6030203@icann.org> <4A7D7670.1090209@telly.org> <015f01ca191f$113cac70$33b60550$@bachollet@isoc.fr> Message-ID: <4A7F9226.2090107@telly.org> Adam Peake wrote: > I disagree. Not the subject of the public comment. Could we discuss > this further through our policy development process, and if necessary > make a separate contribution as a recommendation to board. Yes, these are two separate items. One is a budgetary need by ALAC regarding its ALS's participation in meetings, the other has to do with the timing of the ICANN general meetings. - Evan From alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca Mon Aug 10 18:23:18 2009 From: alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca (Alan Greenberg) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:23:18 -0400 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <4A7D2BDB.4050207@icann.org> <4A7D2CF7.6030203@icann.org> <4A7D7670.1090209@telly.org> Message-ID: <20090810182336.CJNS7787.tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip4.srvr.bell.ca> See embedded comments. Alan At 09/08/2009 10:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >How would everyone be with the following: > > > >The ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on >"ICANN Meeting Dates / Geographic Rotation 2011 - >2012 - 2013". > >1. We recognize the dates have been selected to >avoid "important holidays, celebrations, and >observances around the globe", and note the >difficultly of long term planning when many such >events are based on the lunar calendar. Perhaps I am missing something here, but I really don't see what the relevance is of discussing lunar-calendar driven events. The quoted statements says that important events are taken into account. Why does it matter that some of them have their dates set by lunar timing - yes, it makes remembering when they are more difficult, but is that an issue here? > We >suggest reference to a calendar of events >published by an independent and authoritative >body, for example the United Nations, be adopted >and made available to the community, however the >problem of planning to the lunar calendar may be >difficult to resolve and we encourage flexibility. This may be a way to help identify events, but is that really what was being addressed in the call for comments. Perhaps it would identify something the planners missed, but hopefully 10 year sof experieeince will have allowed us to catch most events. >2. Globally significant events must of course be >avoided, we also ask that national holidays, >celebrations, and observances of the host country >be taken into consideration. This may mean >flexibility in the dates when considering the >best candidate country. Again, perhaps I have missed something, but is there a strong feeling that we have not honoured these in the past when we really should have?? >3. Please ensure there is ample time for policy >development between meetings. For example, >meeting #39, 5-10 December 2010 (Latin America) >and meeting #40, 13-18 March 2011 (North >America). Typically there is a quiet period >after meetings while staff and volunteers >recover, which in this case will run into the end >of year celebrations and long holidays, leaving >too little time to respond to policy processes >and ample public comment before the meeting in >the spring. Holding the third meeting of the >year early, i.e. October, should be avoided. >This compresses the time available for policy >development during the year, and in the past it >has been necessary to hold additional meetings of >the board to complete work. This is a burden for >the board, already overworked, and the rest of >the community. I *think* i agree with the sentiment, but the example seems backwards. Having a meeting in early December, followed by "down time" followed by holidays leaves little time for real work if the next meeting is in March. Is the recommendation to not hold a meeting in October a solution to this (which seems backwards) or a second caution to not hold the 3rd meeting TOO early. Also, not sure why the reference specifically to the Board. >4. The North American RALO recommends swapping >meetings #40 (North America) and #41 (Asia), the >climate is likely to be generally more favorable >in both regions if a swap can be made. As >regards meeting #40, winter in North America >brings with it routine air travel delays, often >quite significant, due to inclement weather, and >the swap would also move this meeting away from >the clash with March local holidays as noted in >other comments. > > ENDs > >Is this OK? > >Thanks, > >Adam > > >At 8:58 AM -0400 8/8/09, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > >>In NARALO, there has been a dicussion of the > >>advisability of swapping meeting 40 and 41, as > >>at present they will both take place in the > >>winter in their respective region. As regards > >>meeting 40, as many of us know from personal > >>experience, winter in North America brings with > >>it routine air travel delays, often quite > >>significant, due to inclement weather, so > >>moving this meeting into the summer is > >>advisable on that basis. > >> > >Many worthy sites in Canada and northern USA > >would simply be unsuitable for meetings in > >February/March, for reasons that go well beyond > >the air travel disruption. I'm quite certain > >that many ICANN delegates do not possess the > >clothing necessary to handle potential February > >weather in Qu?bec City, Boston, Calgary or > >Chicago. > > > >- Evan From DThompson at GOV.NU.CA Mon Aug 10 14:47:03 2009 From: DThompson at GOV.NU.CA (Thompson, Darlene) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:47:03 -0400 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 References: <4A7D2BDB.4050207@icann.org> <4A7D2CF7.6030203@icann.org> <4A7D7670.1090209@telly.org> Message-ID: Looks great, Adam! Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson at gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Sun 8/9/2009 10:41 AM To: Evan Leibovitch; Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: Adam Peake; icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Vanda Scartezini UOL; S?bastien Bachollet; Alan Greenberg; Thompson, Darlene Subject: Re: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 Evan, hi. For most of the Asia/Australia/Pacific, June is either high summer or just hot, only southern hemisphere Australia/New Zealand would be winter and both are pretty OK (it can rain a lot on New Zealand :-)) But the point is the same, much of northern hemisphere Asia can be less pleasant at the end of June: hot and humid. How would everyone be with the following: The ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on "ICANN Meeting Dates / Geographic Rotation 2011 - 2012 - 2013". 1. We recognize the dates have been selected to avoid "important holidays, celebrations, and observances around the globe", and note the difficultly of long term planning when many such events are based on the lunar calendar. We suggest reference to a calendar of events published by an independent and authoritative body, for example the United Nations, be adopted and made available to the community, however the problem of planning to the lunar calendar may be difficult to resolve and we encourage flexibility. 2. Globally significant events must of course be avoided, we also ask that national holidays, celebrations, and observances of the host country be taken into consideration. This may mean flexibility in the dates when considering the best candidate country. 3. Please ensure there is ample time for policy development between meetings. For example, meeting #39, 5-10 December 2010 (Latin America) and meeting #40, 13-18 March 2011 (North America). Typically there is a quiet period after meetings while staff and volunteers recover, which in this case will run into the end of year celebrations and long holidays, leaving too little time to respond to policy processes and ample public comment before the meeting in the spring. Holding the third meeting of the year early, i.e. October, should be avoided. This compresses the time available for policy development during the year, and in the past it has been necessary to hold additional meetings of the board to complete work. This is a burden for the board, already overworked, and the rest of the community. 4. The North American RALO recommends swapping meetings #40 (North America) and #41 (Asia), the climate is likely to be generally more favorable in both regions if a swap can be made. As regards meeting #40, winter in North America brings with it routine air travel delays, often quite significant, due to inclement weather, and the swap would also move this meeting away from the clash with March local holidays as noted in other comments. ENDs Is this OK? Thanks, Adam At 8:58 AM -0400 8/8/09, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >>In NARALO, there has been a dicussion of the >>advisability of swapping meeting 40 and 41, as >>at present they will both take place in the >>winter in their respective region. As regards >>meeting 40, as many of us know from personal >>experience, winter in North America brings with >>it routine air travel delays, often quite >>significant, due to inclement weather, so >>moving this meeting into the summer is >>advisable on that basis. >> >Many worthy sites in Canada and northern USA >would simply be unsuitable for meetings in >February/March, for reasons that go well beyond >the air travel disruption. I'm quite certain >that many ICANN delegates do not possess the >clothing necessary to handle potential February >weather in Qu?bec City, Boston, Calgary or >Chicago. > >- Evan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090810/07d86932/attachment.html From DThompson at GOV.NU.CA Mon Aug 10 14:56:43 2009 From: DThompson at GOV.NU.CA (Thompson, Darlene) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:56:43 -0400 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 References: <4A7D2BDB.4050207@icann.org> <4A7D2CF7.6030203@icann.org> <4A7D7670.1090209@telly.org> <015f01ca191f$113cac70$33b60550$@bachollet@isoc.fr> <4A7F9226.2090107@telly.org> Message-ID: I agree with Adam/Evan. This will just muddy the waters and is not on topic. Although, it IS a subject we need to pursue - just not in this statement. D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson at gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan at telly.org] Sent: Sun 8/9/2009 11:21 PM To: Adam Peake Cc: sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr; 'Nick Ashton-Hart'; icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org; 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr'; 'Vanda Scartezini UOL'; 'Alan Greenberg'; Thompson, Darlene Subject: Re: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 Adam Peake wrote: > I disagree. Not the subject of the public comment. Could we discuss > this further through our policy development process, and if necessary > make a separate contribution as a recommendation to board. Yes, these are two separate items. One is a budgetary need by ALAC regarding its ALS's participation in meetings, the other has to do with the timing of the ICANN general meetings. - Evan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090810/3d315ce5/attachment.html From iza at anr.org Tue Aug 11 01:05:33 2009 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:05:33 +0900 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 In-Reply-To: <20090810182336.CJNS7787.tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip4.srvr.bell.ca> References: <4A7D2BDB.4050207@icann.org> <4A7D2CF7.6030203@icann.org> <4A7D7670.1090209@telly.org> <20090810182336.CJNS7787.tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip4.srvr.bell.ca> Message-ID: >From the Far East, We in Japan do not exercise much of Lunar calender, but I have learned, being involved with Internet development in Asia Pacific, many of our colleagues lives are very much in sync with Lunar calenders, with Chinese New Year and Ramadan for Muslims just to mention a few. Wikipedia says: "Most lunar calendars are, in fact, lunisolar; such as the Chinese, Hebrew, and Hindu calendars, and most calendar systems used in antiquity." So I guess it is quite important to consider this. If you add Chinese, Hebrew, Hindu and Muslim population, that's a lot! izumi 2009/8/11 Alan Greenberg : >> >> 1. We recognize the dates have been selected to >> avoid "important holidays, celebrations, and >> observances around the globe", and note the >> difficultly of long term planning when many such >> events are based on the lunar calendar. > > Perhaps I am missing something here, but I really don't see what the > relevance is of discussing lunar-calendar driven events. The quoted > statements says that important events are taken into account. Why does it > matter that some of them have their dates set by lunar timing - yes, it > makes remembering when they are more difficult, but is that an issue here? > From vanda at uol.com.br Tue Aug 11 02:54:42 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:54:42 -0300 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 In-Reply-To: <20090810182336.CJNS7787.tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip4.srvr.bell.ca> References: <4A7D2BDB.4050207@icann.org> <4A7D2CF7.6030203@icann.org> <4A7D7670.1090209@telly.org> <20090810182336.CJNS7787.tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip4.srvr.bell.ca> Message-ID: <000301ca1a2f$1c007ea0$54017be0$@com.br> Hi all What I do agree is : a) to have enough time between second to third meetings( summer and vacation time at north hemisphere) and third to next year first meetings (summer and vacation time at south hemisphere) to allow policy work and input from communities. b)as they already said - avoid important holidays especially related to the region where the meeting will be organized. >From my point of view this cover almost all our concerns. I don?t see need to go into details about it Best, Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 -----Original Message----- From: icann-future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:icann-future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 3:23 PM To: icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: Thompson, Darlene; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Evan Leibovitch Subject: Re: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 See embedded comments. Alan At 09/08/2009 10:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >How would everyone be with the following: > > > >The ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on >"ICANN Meeting Dates / Geographic Rotation 2011 - >2012 - 2013". > >1. We recognize the dates have been selected to >avoid "important holidays, celebrations, and >observances around the globe", and note the >difficultly of long term planning when many such >events are based on the lunar calendar. Perhaps I am missing something here, but I really don't see what the relevance is of discussing lunar-calendar driven events. The quoted statements says that important events are taken into account. Why does it matter that some of them have their dates set by lunar timing - yes, it makes remembering when they are more difficult, but is that an issue here? > We >suggest reference to a calendar of events >published by an independent and authoritative >body, for example the United Nations, be adopted >and made available to the community, however the >problem of planning to the lunar calendar may be >difficult to resolve and we encourage flexibility. This may be a way to help identify events, but is that really what was being addressed in the call for comments. Perhaps it would identify something the planners missed, but hopefully 10 year sof experieeince will have allowed us to catch most events. >2. Globally significant events must of course be >avoided, we also ask that national holidays, >celebrations, and observances of the host country >be taken into consideration. This may mean >flexibility in the dates when considering the >best candidate country. Again, perhaps I have missed something, but is there a strong feeling that we have not honoured these in the past when we really should have?? >3. Please ensure there is ample time for policy >development between meetings. For example, >meeting #39, 5-10 December 2010 (Latin America) >and meeting #40, 13-18 March 2011 (North >America). Typically there is a quiet period >after meetings while staff and volunteers >recover, which in this case will run into the end >of year celebrations and long holidays, leaving >too little time to respond to policy processes >and ample public comment before the meeting in >the spring. Holding the third meeting of the >year early, i.e. October, should be avoided. >This compresses the time available for policy >development during the year, and in the past it >has been necessary to hold additional meetings of >the board to complete work. This is a burden for >the board, already overworked, and the rest of >the community. I *think* i agree with the sentiment, but the example seems backwards. Having a meeting in early December, followed by "down time" followed by holidays leaves little time for real work if the next meeting is in March. Is the recommendation to not hold a meeting in October a solution to this (which seems backwards) or a second caution to not hold the 3rd meeting TOO early. Also, not sure why the reference specifically to the Board. >4. The North American RALO recommends swapping >meetings #40 (North America) and #41 (Asia), the >climate is likely to be generally more favorable >in both regions if a swap can be made. As >regards meeting #40, winter in North America >brings with it routine air travel delays, often >quite significant, due to inclement weather, and >the swap would also move this meeting away from >the clash with March local holidays as noted in >other comments. > > ENDs > >Is this OK? > >Thanks, > >Adam > > >At 8:58 AM -0400 8/8/09, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > >>In NARALO, there has been a dicussion of the > >>advisability of swapping meeting 40 and 41, as > >>at present they will both take place in the > >>winter in their respective region. As regards > >>meeting 40, as many of us know from personal > >>experience, winter in North America brings with > >>it routine air travel delays, often quite > >>significant, due to inclement weather, so > >>moving this meeting into the summer is > >>advisable on that basis. > >> > >Many worthy sites in Canada and northern USA > >would simply be unsuitable for meetings in > >February/March, for reasons that go well beyond > >the air travel disruption. I'm quite certain > >that many ICANN delegates do not possess the > >clothing necessary to handle potential February > >weather in Qu?bec City, Boston, Calgary or > >Chicago. > > > >- Evan _______________________________________________ Icann-future-wg mailing list Icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-list s.icann.org From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Aug 11 09:39:23 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:39:23 +0900 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 In-Reply-To: <20090810182336.CJNS7787.tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip4.srvr.bell.ca> References: <4A7D2BDB.4050207@icann.org> <4A7D2CF7.6030203@icann.org> <4A7D7670.1090209@telly.org> <20090810182336.CJNS7787.tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip4.srvr.bell.ca> Message-ID: >See embedded comments. Alan > >At 09/08/2009 10:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>How would everyone be with the following: >> >> >> >>The ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on >>"ICANN Meeting Dates / Geographic Rotation 2011 - >>2012 - 2013". >> >>1. We recognize the dates have been selected to >>avoid "important holidays, celebrations, and >>observances around the globe", and note the >>difficultly of long term planning when many such >>events are based on the lunar calendar. > >Perhaps I am missing something here, but I >really don't see what the relevance is of >discussing lunar-calendar driven events. The >quoted statements says that important events are >taken into account. Why does it matter that some >of them have their dates set by lunar timing - >yes, it makes remembering when they are more >difficult, but is that an issue here? It's not a matter of remembering, but predicting. My understanding is the date of some events based on the lunar calendar can't be accurately predicted way in advance, there can be as much as a couple of weeks or more difference. Last year the IGF meeting had to be moved a couple of days to accommodate Eid-Ul-Azha, the biggest Muslim festival, which is a strict lunar observance event (not helpful that the UN can also get these things wrong! Perhaps GAC is the natural authority on what events are important to which countries, regions, religions?) The point is really to emphasize that we will all need to be flexible until nearer the date of the meeting. >> We >>suggest reference to a calendar of events >>published by an independent and authoritative >>body, for example the United Nations, be adopted >>and made available to the community, however the >>problem of planning to the lunar calendar may be >>difficult to resolve and we encourage flexibility. > >This may be a way to help identify events, but >is that really what was being addressed in the >call for comments. Perhaps it would identify >something the planners missed, but hopefully 10 >year sof experieeince will have allowed us to >catch most events. Not those that are yet to be predicted. >>2. Globally significant events must of course be >>avoided, we also ask that national holidays, >>celebrations, and observances of the host country >>be taken into consideration. This may mean >>flexibility in the dates when considering the >>best candidate country. > >Again, perhaps I have missed something, but is >there a strong feeling that we have not honoured >these in the past when we really should have?? I was responding to a comment from Cheryl. I think there may have been a specific problem with the Delhi meeting? >>3. Please ensure there is ample time for policy >>development between meetings. For example, >>meeting #39, 5-10 December 2010 (Latin America) >>and meeting #40, 13-18 March 2011 (North >>America). Typically there is a quiet period >>after meetings while staff and volunteers >>recover, which in this case will run into the end >>of year celebrations and long holidays, leaving >>too little time to respond to policy processes >>and ample public comment before the meeting in >>the spring. Holding the third meeting of the >>year early, i.e. October, should be avoided. >>This compresses the time available for policy >>development during the year, and in the past it >>has been necessary to hold additional meetings of >>the board to complete work. This is a burden for >>the board, already overworked, and the rest of >>the community. > > >I *think* i agree with the sentiment, but the >example seems backwards. Having a meeting in >early December, followed by "down time" followed >by holidays leaves little time for real work if >the next meeting is in March. Is the >recommendation to not hold a meeting in October >a solution to this (which seems backwards) or a >second caution to not hold the 3rd meeting TOO >early. I think it would help to include something like: "On the other hand, holding the third meeting of the year early... " and end with "November would be the ideal month for the third meeting." (November need to avoid thanksgiving. But no need to say that I think.) >Also, not sure why the reference specifically to the Board. > The AGM. The bylaws have cycles ending and starting at the AGM (example, seating of many positions), and policy processes often come to conclusion at the AGM. There have been times in the past when the third meeting of the year has been held early and the AGM has had to move to a later board teleconference (or special meeting.) This isn't good for transparency, for wrapping policy processes, for appointments (and the process of appointments through the year etc). Thanks, Adam >>4. The North American RALO recommends swapping >>meetings #40 (North America) and #41 (Asia), the >>climate is likely to be generally more favorable >>in both regions if a swap can be made. As >>regards meeting #40, winter in North America >>brings with it routine air travel delays, often >>quite significant, due to inclement weather, and >>the swap would also move this meeting away from >>the clash with March local holidays as noted in >>other comments. >> >> ENDs >> >>Is this OK? >> >>Thanks, >> >>Adam >> >> >>At 8:58 AM -0400 8/8/09, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>>Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> > >>>>In NARALO, there has been a dicussion of the >>>>advisability of swapping meeting 40 and 41, as >>>>at present they will both take place in the >>>>winter in their respective region. As regards >>>>meeting 40, as many of us know from personal >>>>experience, winter in North America brings with >>>>it routine air travel delays, often quite >>>>significant, due to inclement weather, so >>>>moving this meeting into the summer is >>>>advisable on that basis. >>>> >>>Many worthy sites in Canada and northern USA >>>would simply be unsuitable for meetings in >>>February/March, for reasons that go well beyond >>>the air travel disruption. I'm quite certain >>>that many ICANN delegates do not possess the >>>clothing necessary to handle potential February >>>weather in Qu?bec City, Boston, Calgary or >>>Chicago. >>> >>>- Evan > > > >_______________________________________________ >Icann-future-wg mailing list >Icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Aug 17 09:27:54 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:27:54 +0900 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 Message-ID: Did anything happen with these comments? Thanks, Adam >See embedded comments. Alan > >At 09/08/2009 10:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>How would everyone be with the following: >> >> >> >>The ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on >>"ICANN Meeting Dates / Geographic Rotation 2011 - >>2012 - 2013". >> >>1. We recognize the dates have been selected to >>avoid "important holidays, celebrations, and >>observances around the globe", and note the >>difficultly of long term planning when many such >>events are based on the lunar calendar. > >Perhaps I am missing something here, but I >really don't see what the relevance is of >discussing lunar-calendar driven events. The >quoted statements says that important events are >taken into account. Why does it matter that some >of them have their dates set by lunar timing - >yes, it makes remembering when they are more >difficult, but is that an issue here? It's not a matter of remembering, but predicting. My understanding is the date of some events based on the lunar calendar can't be accurately predicted way in advance, there can be as much as a couple of weeks or more difference. Last year the IGF meeting had to be moved a couple of days to accommodate Eid-Ul-Azha, the biggest Muslim festival, which is a strict lunar observance event (not helpful that the UN can also get these things wrong! Perhaps GAC is the natural authority on what events are important to which countries, regions, religions?) The point is really to emphasize that we will all need to be flexible until nearer the date of the meeting. >> We >>suggest reference to a calendar of events >>published by an independent and authoritative >>body, for example the United Nations, be adopted >>and made available to the community, however the >>problem of planning to the lunar calendar may be >>difficult to resolve and we encourage flexibility. > >This may be a way to help identify events, but >is that really what was being addressed in the >call for comments. Perhaps it would identify >something the planners missed, but hopefully 10 >year sof experieeince will have allowed us to >catch most events. Not those that are yet to be predicted. >>2. Globally significant events must of course be >>avoided, we also ask that national holidays, >>celebrations, and observances of the host country >>be taken into consideration. This may mean >>flexibility in the dates when considering the >>best candidate country. > >Again, perhaps I have missed something, but is >there a strong feeling that we have not honoured >these in the past when we really should have?? I was responding to a comment from Cheryl. I think there may have been a specific problem with the Delhi meeting? >>3. Please ensure there is ample time for policy >>development between meetings. For example, >>meeting #39, 5-10 December 2010 (Latin America) >>and meeting #40, 13-18 March 2011 (North >>America). Typically there is a quiet period >>after meetings while staff and volunteers >>recover, which in this case will run into the end >>of year celebrations and long holidays, leaving >>too little time to respond to policy processes >>and ample public comment before the meeting in >>the spring. Holding the third meeting of the >>year early, i.e. October, should be avoided. >>This compresses the time available for policy >>development during the year, and in the past it >>has been necessary to hold additional meetings of >>the board to complete work. This is a burden for >>the board, already overworked, and the rest of >>the community. > > >I *think* i agree with the sentiment, but the >example seems backwards. Having a meeting in >early December, followed by "down time" followed >by holidays leaves little time for real work if >the next meeting is in March. Is the >recommendation to not hold a meeting in October >a solution to this (which seems backwards) or a >second caution to not hold the 3rd meeting TOO >early. I think it would help to include something like: "On the other hand, holding the third meeting of the year early... " and end with "November would be the ideal month for the third meeting." (November need to avoid thanksgiving. But no need to say that I think.) >Also, not sure why the reference specifically to the Board. > The AGM. The bylaws have cycles ending and starting at the AGM (example, seating of many positions), and policy processes often come to conclusion at the AGM. There have been times in the past when the third meeting of the year has been held early and the AGM has had to move to a later board teleconference (or special meeting.) This isn't good for transparency, for wrapping policy processes, for appointments (and the process of appointments through the year etc). Thanks, Adam >>4. The North American RALO recommends swapping >>meetings #40 (North America) and #41 (Asia), the >>climate is likely to be generally more favorable >>in both regions if a swap can be made. As >>regards meeting #40, winter in North America >>brings with it routine air travel delays, often >>quite significant, due to inclement weather, and >>the swap would also move this meeting away from >>the clash with March local holidays as noted in >>other comments. >> >> ENDs >> >>Is this OK? >> >>Thanks, >> >>Adam >> >> >>At 8:58 AM -0400 8/8/09, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>>Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> > >>>>In NARALO, there has been a dicussion of the >>>>advisability of swapping meeting 40 and 41, as >>>>at present they will both take place in the >>>>winter in their respective region. As regards >>>>meeting 40, as many of us know from personal >>>>experience, winter in North America brings with >>>>it routine air travel delays, often quite >>>>significant, due to inclement weather, so >>>>moving this meeting into the summer is >>>>advisable on that basis. >>>> >>>Many worthy sites in Canada and northern USA >>>would simply be unsuitable for meetings in >>>February/March, for reasons that go well beyond >>>the air travel disruption. I'm quite certain >>>that many ICANN delegates do not possess the >>>clothing necessary to handle potential February >>>weather in Qu?bec City, Boston, Calgary or >>>Chicago. >>> >>>- Evan > > > >_______________________________________________ >Icann-future-wg mailing list >Icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org From nick.ashton-hart at icann.org Mon Aug 17 09:31:18 2009 From: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:31:18 +0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A892366.5070803@icann.org> I have seen a continuing conversation, but no penultimate version has been drafted. It can be voted on at the point a final text is available. Adam Peake wrote: > Did anything happen with these comments? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >> See embedded comments. Alan >> >> At 09/08/2009 10:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> How would everyone be with the following: >>> >>> >>> >>> The ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on >>> "ICANN Meeting Dates / Geographic Rotation 2011 - >>> 2012 - 2013". >>> >>> 1. We recognize the dates have been selected to >>> avoid "important holidays, celebrations, and >>> observances around the globe", and note the >>> difficultly of long term planning when many such >>> events are based on the lunar calendar. >> >> Perhaps I am missing something here, but I really don't see what the >> relevance is of discussing lunar-calendar driven events. The quoted >> statements says that important events are taken into account. Why >> does it matter that some of them have their dates set by lunar timing >> - yes, it makes remembering when they are more difficult, but is that >> an issue here? > > > It's not a matter of remembering, but predicting. My understanding is > the date of some events based on the lunar calendar can't be > accurately predicted way in advance, there can be as much as a couple > of weeks or more difference. Last year the IGF meeting had to be > moved a couple of days to accommodate Eid-Ul-Azha, the biggest Muslim > festival, which is a strict lunar observance event (not helpful that > the UN can also get these things wrong! Perhaps GAC is the natural > authority on what events are important to which countries, regions, > religions?) > > The point is really to emphasize that we will all need to be flexible > until nearer the date of the meeting. > > >>> We >>> suggest reference to a calendar of events >>> published by an independent and authoritative >>> body, for example the United Nations, be adopted >>> and made available to the community, however the >>> problem of planning to the lunar calendar may be >>> difficult to resolve and we encourage flexibility. >> >> This may be a way to help identify events, but is that really what >> was being addressed in the call for comments. Perhaps it would >> identify something the planners missed, but hopefully 10 year sof >> experieeince will have allowed us to catch most events. > > > Not those that are yet to be predicted. > > >>> 2. Globally significant events must of course be >>> avoided, we also ask that national holidays, >>> celebrations, and observances of the host country >>> be taken into consideration. This may mean >>> flexibility in the dates when considering the >>> best candidate country. >> >> Again, perhaps I have missed something, but is there a strong feeling >> that we have not honoured these in the past when we really should have?? > > > I was responding to a comment from Cheryl. I think there may have > been a specific problem with the Delhi meeting? > > >>> 3. Please ensure there is ample time for policy >>> development between meetings. For example, >>> meeting #39, 5-10 December 2010 (Latin America) >>> and meeting #40, 13-18 March 2011 (North >>> America). Typically there is a quiet period >>> after meetings while staff and volunteers >>> recover, which in this case will run into the end >>> of year celebrations and long holidays, leaving >>> too little time to respond to policy processes >>> and ample public comment before the meeting in >>> the spring. Holding the third meeting of the >>> year early, i.e. October, should be avoided. >>> This compresses the time available for policy >>> development during the year, and in the past it >>> has been necessary to hold additional meetings of >>> the board to complete work. This is a burden for >>> the board, already overworked, and the rest of >>> the community. >> >> >> I *think* i agree with the sentiment, but the example seems >> backwards. Having a meeting in early December, followed by "down >> time" followed by holidays leaves little time for real work if the >> next meeting is in March. Is the recommendation to not hold a meeting >> in October a solution to this (which seems backwards) or a second >> caution to not hold the 3rd meeting TOO early. > > > I think it would help to include something like: > > "On the other hand, holding the third meeting of the year early... " > and end with "November would be the ideal month for the third meeting." > > (November need to avoid thanksgiving. But no need to say that I think.) > > >> Also, not sure why the reference specifically to the Board. >> > > > The AGM. The bylaws have cycles ending and starting at the AGM > (example, seating of many positions), and policy processes often come > to conclusion at the AGM. There have been times in the past when the > third meeting of the year has been held early and the AGM has had to > move to a later board teleconference (or special meeting.) This isn't > good for transparency, for wrapping policy processes, for appointments > (and the process of appointments through the year etc). > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >>> 4. The North American RALO recommends swapping >>> meetings #40 (North America) and #41 (Asia), the >>> climate is likely to be generally more favorable >>> in both regions if a swap can be made. As >>> regards meeting #40, winter in North America >>> brings with it routine air travel delays, often >>> quite significant, due to inclement weather, and >>> the swap would also move this meeting away from >>> the clash with March local holidays as noted in >>> other comments. >>> >>> ENDs >>> >>> Is this OK? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> At 8:58 AM -0400 8/8/09, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>>> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> > >>>>> In NARALO, there has been a dicussion of the >>>>> advisability of swapping meeting 40 and 41, as >>>>> at present they will both take place in the >>>>> winter in their respective region. As regards >>>>> meeting 40, as many of us know from personal >>>>> experience, winter in North America brings with >>>>> it routine air travel delays, often quite >>>>> significant, due to inclement weather, so >>>>> moving this meeting into the summer is >>>>> advisable on that basis. >>>>> >>>> Many worthy sites in Canada and northern USA >>>> would simply be unsuitable for meetings in >>>> February/March, for reasons that go well beyond >>>> the air travel disruption. I'm quite certain >>>> that many ICANN delegates do not possess the >>>> clothing necessary to handle potential February >>>> weather in Qu?bec City, Boston, Calgary or >>>> Chicago. >>>> >>>> - Evan >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Icann-future-wg mailing list >> Icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090817/2209b10b/attachment.html From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Aug 18 06:42:20 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:42:20 +0900 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 In-Reply-To: <4A892366.5070803@icann.org> References: <4A892366.5070803@icann.org> Message-ID: At 11:31 AM +0200 8/17/09, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >I have seen a continuing conversation, but no >penultimate version has been drafted. It can be >voted on at the point a final text is available. True. Alan, any reply? We've missed the deadline, but it would be nice to get a comment in. Best, Adam >Adam Peake wrote: > >>Did anything happen with these comments? >> >>Thanks, >> >>Adam >> >> >>>See embedded comments. Alan >>> >>>At 09/08/2009 10:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>>How would everyone be with the following: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>The ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on >>>>"ICANN Meeting Dates / Geographic Rotation 2011 - >>>>2012 - 2013". >>>> >>>>1. We recognize the dates have been selected to >>>>avoid "important holidays, celebrations, and >>>>observances around the globe", and note the >>>>difficultly of long term planning when many such >>>>events are based on the lunar calendar. >>>> >>> >>>Perhaps I am missing something here, but I >>>really don't see what the relevance is of >>>discussing lunar-calendar driven events. The >>>quoted statements says that important events >>>are taken into account. Why does it matter >>>that some of them have their dates set by >>>lunar timing - yes, it makes remembering when >>>they are more difficult, but is that an issue >>>here? >>> >> >> >>It's not a matter of remembering, but >>predicting. My understanding is the date of >>some events based on the lunar calendar can't >>be accurately predicted way in advance, there >>can be as much as a couple of weeks or more >>difference. Last year the IGF meeting had to >>be moved a couple of days to accommodate >>Eid-Ul-Azha, the biggest Muslim festival, which >>is a strict lunar observance event (not helpful >>that the UN can also get these things wrong! >>Perhaps GAC is the natural authority on what >>events are important to which countries, >>regions, religions?) >> >>The point is really to emphasize that we will >>all need to be flexible until nearer the date >>of the meeting. >> >>>> We >>>>suggest reference to a calendar of events >>>>published by an independent and authoritative >>>>body, for example the United Nations, be adopted >>>>and made available to the community, however the >>>>problem of planning to the lunar calendar may be >>>>difficult to resolve and we encourage flexibility. >>>> >>> >>>This may be a way to help identify events, but >>>is that really what was being addressed in the >>>call for comments. Perhaps it would identify >>>something the planners missed, but hopefully >>>10 year sof experieeince will have allowed us >>>to catch most events. >>> >> >> >>Not those that are yet to be predicted. >> >>>>2. Globally significant events must of course be >>>>avoided, we also ask that national holidays, >>>>celebrations, and observances of the host country >>>>be taken into consideration. This may mean >>>>flexibility in the dates when considering the >>>>best candidate country. >>>> >>> >>>Again, perhaps I have missed something, but is >>>there a strong feeling that we have not >>>honoured these in the past when we really >>>should have?? >>> >> >> >>I was responding to a comment from Cheryl. I >>think there may have been a specific problem >>with the Delhi meeting? >> >>>>3. Please ensure there is ample time for policy >>>>development between meetings. For example, >>>>meeting #39, 5-10 December 2010 (Latin America) >>>>and meeting #40, 13-18 March 2011 (North >>>>America). Typically there is a quiet period >>>>after meetings while staff and volunteers >>>>recover, which in this case will run into the end >>>>of year celebrations and long holidays, leaving >>>>too little time to respond to policy processes >>>>and ample public comment before the meeting in >>>>the spring. Holding the third meeting of the >>>>year early, i.e. October, should be avoided. >>>>This compresses the time available for policy >>>>development during the year, and in the past it >>>>has been necessary to hold additional meetings of >>>>the board to complete work. This is a burden for >>>>the board, already overworked, and the rest of >>>>the community. >>>> >>> >>> >>>I *think* i agree with the sentiment, but the >>>example seems backwards. Having a meeting in >>>early December, followed by "down time" >>>followed by holidays leaves little time for >>>real work if the next meeting is in March. Is >>>the recommendation to not hold a meeting in >>>October a solution to this (which seems >>>backwards) or a second caution to not hold the >>>3rd meeting TOO early. >>> >> >> >>I think it would help to include something like: >> >>"On the other hand, holding the third meeting >>of the year early... " and end [ending that >>paragraph] with "November would be the ideal >>month for the third meeting." >> >>(November need to avoid thanksgiving. But no need to say that I think.) >> >>>Also, not sure why the reference specifically to the Board. >>> >> >> >>The AGM. The bylaws have cycles ending and >>starting at the AGM (example, seating of many >>positions), and policy processes often come to >>conclusion at the AGM. There have been times >>in the past when the third meeting of the year >>has been held early and the AGM has had to move >>to a later board teleconference (or special >>meeting.) This isn't good for transparency, for >>wrapping policy processes, for appointments >>(and the process of appointments through the >>year etc). >> >>Thanks, >> >>Adam >> >> >>>>4. The North American RALO recommends swapping >>>>meetings #40 (North America) and #41 (Asia), the >>>>climate is likely to be generally more favorable >>>>in both regions if a swap can be made. As >>>>regards meeting #40, winter in North America >>>>brings with it routine air travel delays, often >>>>quite significant, due to inclement weather, and >>>>the swap would also move this meeting away from >>>>the clash with March local holidays as noted in >>>>other comments. >>>> >>>> ENDs >>>> >>>>Is this OK? >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>> >>>>Adam >>>> >>>> >>>>At 8:58 AM -0400 8/8/09, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>>> >>>>>Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>>>>In NARALO, there has been a dicussion of the >>>>>>advisability of swapping meeting 40 and 41, as >>>>>>at present they will both take place in the >>>>>>winter in their respective region. As regards >>>>>>meeting 40, as many of us know from personal >>>>>>experience, winter in North America brings with >>>>>>it routine air travel delays, often quite >>>>>>significant, due to inclement weather, so >>>>>>moving this meeting into the summer is >>>>>>advisable on that basis. >>>>>> >>>>>Many worthy sites in Canada and northern USA >>>>>would simply be unsuitable for meetings in >>>>>February/March, for reasons that go well beyond >>>>>the air travel disruption. I'm quite certain >>>>>that many ICANN delegates do not possess the >>>>>clothing necessary to handle potential February >>>>>weather in Qu?bec City, Boston, Calgary or >>>>>Chicago. >>>>> >>>>>- Evan >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Icann-future-wg mailing list >>>Icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> >> > >-- >p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: >12.0px Arial} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px >0.0px; font: 12.0px Times; min-height: 14.0px} >p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: >11.0px Arial} p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px >0.0px; font: 9.0px Arial} p.p5 {margin: 0.0px >0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 9.0px Arial; color: >#0000e8} p.p6 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; >font: 9.0px Helvetica} span.s1 {color: #000000} >span.s2 {font: 9.0px Arial} span.s3 {font: 9.0px >Arial; color: #0000e8} span.s4 {font: 12.0px >Helvetica} > >-- > >Regards, > > > >Nick Ashton-Hart > >Director for At-Large > >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > >Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 > >USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 > >Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > >Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 > >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 From staff at atlarge.icann.org Tue Aug 18 13:55:07 2009 From: staff at atlarge.icann.org (At-Large Staff) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:55:07 +0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] =?iso-8859-1?q?Public_Consultation_on_Geographi?= =?iso-8859-1?q?c_Regions_WG_Initial_Report_/_Revisi=F3n_de_las_Regiones_G?= =?iso-8859-1?q?eogr=E1ficas_para_Comentario_P=FAblico_/_Rapport_initial_d?= =?iso-8859-1?q?u_groupe_de_travail_sur_les_r=E9gions_pour_commentaires_pu?= =?iso-8859-1?q?blics?= Message-ID: <4A8AB2BB.5070007@atlarge.icann.org> Para Espanol: http://www.icann.org/es/announcements/announcement-31jul09-es.htm Version Francais: http://www.icann.org/fr/announcements/announcement-31jul09-fr.htm Dear Working Group members: We wish to advise both working groups of a public consultation that falls under the remit of your working group - Initial Report of Geographic Regions Review Working Group (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-31jul09-en.htm) Geographic diversity is a fundamental component of the ICANN organization. The ICANN Bylaws (Article VI Section 5) currently define five geographic regions as Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe. As you know, the RALOs of At-Large are based upon these very same geographic regions, and any chance to the regions will change the membership of the RALOs. The Geographic Regions don't just affect At-Large, though - they are a core element of how geographic diversity works across ICANN, from the composition of the ICANN Board, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), and in some respects also the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). Over time, community members have developed concerns about the implementation of the ICANN Geographic Regions and related representational issues. For example, in At-Large, some Eastern European countries are currently a part of the Asia-Pacific region, one EU member state (Malta) is a part of Africa, and various small island territories in the Caribbean are not a part of NARALO, but of EURALO. As a result, the ICANN Board appointed a community-wide working group to further study and review the issues related to the definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions, to consult with all stakeholders and submit proposals to the Board to resolve the issues relating to the current definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions. The working group includes At-Large members Cheryl Langdon-Orr (APRALO) and Carlton Samuels (LACRALO) as members. The consultation closes on 4th September 2009. You are kindly requested to review the report; the staff have been asked to arrange a teleconference to discuss the report, answer questions, and help foster an At-Large comment on the draft. We will circulate more information on this subject shortly. -- Regards, *ICANN At-Large Staff* Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White staff at atlarge.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090818/4c49ffe4/attachment.html From staff at atlarge.icann.org Tue Aug 18 14:50:27 2009 From: staff at atlarge.icann.org (At-Large Staff) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:50:27 +0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] Improving Institutional Confidence - Bylaw Amendments for Public Comment Message-ID: <4A8ABFB3.1050901@atlarge.icann.org> Dear Future Structure and Governance of ICANN WG Members: As you may be aware, staff proposals on how to implement some of the ideas in the report of the President's Strategy Commitee were released for discussion in Sydney. The ALAC noted the importance of the subject at its meetings there, and Sebastien Bachollet took the lead in developing a response to the documents which has been previously circulated to all of you. Subsequently, proposals for amendment of the Bylaws of ICANN to implement some of the ideas in the documents have been posted for public comment. The first bylaw revision is a new mechanism called the "Community Re-Examination Vote". It would allow the ICANN community to request the Board to re-examine a Board decision taken by resolution. The second proposal would revise one of the existing bylaws and replace the independent third-party review process with a more robust process, the "Independent Review Body". The announcement is available at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm. These are available in english-only. The suggestion which has been made is that the existing text produced by Sebastien should be amended to incorporate a response to the proposals. We have been asked to set up a teleconference where these subjects may be discussed by all of you and any other interested members of the community, and further information on this will be forthcoming soon. We have asked the member of staff responsible for this consultation to let us know when non-english versions of the text are expected to be available. We will let you know what we hear by reply. -- Regards, *ICANN At-Large Staff* Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White staff at atlarge.icann.org From staff at atlarge.icann.org Mon Aug 24 17:30:59 2009 From: staff at atlarge.icann.org (At-Large Staff) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:30:59 +0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] =?iso-8859-1?q?Lettre_du_Comit=E9_de_l=27=E9ner?= =?iso-8859-1?q?gie_et_du_commerces_du_Congr=E8s_Am=E9ricain_concernant_l?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=27expiration_du_JPA?= Message-ID: Bonjour, Vous trouvez ci-joint la lettre du Comit? de l??nergie et du commerce du Congr?s am?ricain qui a ?t? transmis aux D?partement du Commerce des Etats-Unis le 4 aout, 2009. La lettre contient les recommandations du Comit? de l??nergie concernant l?expiration prochaine de l?Entente de projet conjoint (JPA) entre le D?partement du Commerce et l?ICANN. Nous esp?rons que ?a vous int?resse. -- Cordialment, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff at atlarge.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090824/e9cfe7ad/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter from US Congress to the US Dept of Commerce-FRENCH.pdf Type: application/msword Size: 78287 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090824/e9cfe7ad/LetterfromUSCongresstotheUSDeptofCommerce-FRENCH.pdf From staff at atlarge.icann.org Mon Aug 24 17:31:25 2009 From: staff at atlarge.icann.org (At-Large Staff) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:31:25 +0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] =?iso-8859-1?q?Carta_de_la_C=E1mara_de_Represen?= =?iso-8859-1?q?tantes_del_comit=E9_de_energ=EDa_y_comercio_del_Congreso_d?= =?iso-8859-1?q?e_los_Estados_Unidos_de_Norteam=E9rica_respecto_a_la_termi?= =?iso-8859-1?q?nacion_del_JPA?= Message-ID: Estimados, En el archivo adjunto encontrar?n una carta de la C?mara de Representantes del comit? de energ?a y comercio del Congreso de los Estados Unidos de Norteam?rica que ha sido transmitido al Departamento de Comercio de los EE.UU el d?a 4 de agosto de 2009. Contiene las recomendaciones del comit? de energ?a respecto a la terminaci?n del Acuerdo de Proyecto Conjunto (JPA) que se concluya el d?a 30 de septiembre de 2009 Esperamos que les resulta interesante. -- Atentamente Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff at atlarge.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090824/18dc9396/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter from US Congress to the US Dept of Commerce ES.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 86755 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090824/18dc9396/LetterfromUSCongresstotheUSDeptofCommerceES.pdf From capdasiege at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 09:13:06 2009 From: capdasiege at gmail.com (CAPDA CAPDA) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:13:06 +0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] =?iso-8859-1?q?Lettre_du_Comit=E9_de_l=27=E9ner?= =?iso-8859-1?q?gie_et_du_commerces_du_Congr=E8s_Am=E9ricain_concer?= =?iso-8859-1?q?nant_l=27expiration_du_JPA?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26bc63ef0908260213j475f5a4dr4808bf453a20c509@mail.gmail.com> Bonjour, Document bien re?u merci beaucoup. Bonne journ?e. Michel -- Forum TIC AFRIQUE : Du 06 au 09 Juillet 2009 au Cameroun Th?me : ?TIC et D?veloppement Durable: quelles perspectives pour la coop?ration et les institutions internationales?? CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le D?veloppement de l'Afrique) BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN T?l.:(237) /7775-39-63 / 3340-46-49 Fax : (237) 3340-46-49 Email : ticafrique at yahoo.fr / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr / capdasiege at gmail.comSite : www.capda.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090826/41ed8e2d/attachment.html From sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr Wed Aug 26 16:45:38 2009 From: sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr (=?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Bachollet?=) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:45:38 +0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] Improving Institutional Confidence - Bylaw Amendments for Public Comment In-Reply-To: <4A8ABFB3.1050901@atlarge.icann.org> References: <4A8ABFB3.1050901@atlarge.icann.org> Message-ID: <01bc01ca266c$a4a60e70$edf22b50$@bachollet@isoc.fr> Please find a proposal comments for the IIC _ I included some of the comments we received - and at the end about the bylaws. All the best S?bastien Bachollet Pr?sident d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr ? > -----Message d'origine----- > De?: icann-future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:icann- > future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de At-Large Staff > Envoy??: mardi 18 ao?t 2009 16:50 > ??: icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org > Objet?: [Icann-future-wg] Improving Institutional Confidence - Bylaw > Amendments for Public Comment > > Dear Future Structure and Governance of ICANN WG Members: > > As you may be aware, staff proposals on how to implement some of the > ideas in the report of the President's Strategy Commitee were released > for discussion in Sydney. > > The ALAC noted the importance of the subject at its meetings there, and > Sebastien Bachollet took the lead in developing a response to the > documents which has been previously circulated to all of you. > > Subsequently, proposals for amendment of the Bylaws of ICANN to > implement some of the ideas in the documents have been posted for > public > comment. > > The first bylaw revision is a new mechanism called the "Community > Re-Examination Vote". It would allow the ICANN community to request the > Board to re-examine a Board decision taken by resolution. > > The second proposal would revise one of the existing bylaws and replace > the independent third-party review process with a more robust process, > the "Independent Review Body". > > The announcement is available at > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm. > These > are available in english-only. > > The suggestion which has been made is that the existing text produced > by > Sebastien should be amended to incorporate a response to the proposals. > We have been asked to set up a teleconference where these subjects may > be discussed by all of you and any other interested members of the > community, and further information on this will be forthcoming soon. > > We have asked the member of staff responsible for this consultation to > let us know when non-english versions of the text are expected to be > available. We will let you know what we hear by reply. > -- > > Regards, > > > > *ICANN At-Large Staff* > > Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber- > White > > staff at atlarge.icann.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ICANN-Future-WG mailing list > ICANN-Future-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future- > wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AL-ALAC-ST-0609-4 Rev1 Statement on IIC - The Way Forward Proposals - EN_sbt.doc Type: application/msword Size: 119808 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20090826/69a59c31/AL-ALAC-ST-0609-4Rev1StatementonIIC-TheWayForwardProposals-EN_sbt.doc