RE: [alac] A request to us from Edward Hasbrouck

[Izumi AIZU <aizu@xxxxxxx>]

Thank you Roberto and John (and others),

I am also not in favor of submitting this straight from ALAC,
but ALAC is responsible at least to consider this request, was
my idea. Having found it at the last minute, I thought it just
needs your attention.

But according to Vint this morning, he found ways to send his
comment to this meeting and hence his request was read.

Public Forum on the ICANN web is hard to keep track, and I myself
have no extra time doing that. Is there any ways to still
keep watching the forum collectively, or could we ask some
staff/assistant to do that, something like that?

izumi

At 02:36 06/03/29 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Even if it would be on time, I would *strongly* oppose to add it to the 
> ALAC report.
> It can be raised by any of us, if you feel so, as an individual 
> contribution to the "open mike".
>
>
> Roberto GAETANO
> ALAC
> ICANN BoD Liaison
>
>
>
> > From: Izumi AIZU <aizu@xxxxxxx>
> > To: alac@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [alac] A request to us from Edward Hasbrouck
> > Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:54:30 +0900
> >
> > It may be too late to include in Annette's presentation,
> > but I think it is worth to consider.
> >
> > izumi
> >
> > request to ALAC for public forum
> >
> >
> > To: committee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: request to ALAC for public forum
> > From: "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:56:39 -0800
> >
> > The ICANN "public forum" is scheduled to start in less than 3 hours, and 
> > the Board of Directors is scheduled to meet on Friday, in less than 2 days.
> >
> > ICANN's Bylaws require that the agenda for each Board meeting be posted 
> > 7 days in advance. No agenda for the Board meeting Friday has been 
> > posted. And no reason has been given why it would not have been possible 
> > to post at least a partial and/or tentative agenda.
> >
> > For previous face-to-face Board meetings, ICANN has provided an e-mail 
> > address like "argentina@xxxxxxxxx" or "rio@xxxxxxxxx" for remote 
> > submissions to the public forum and the Board. No such address, and no 
> > other means of remote participation, has been provided for the "public 
> > forum" today and tomorrow. There is a Webcast, but that is a passive, 
> > one-way means of broadcasting, and does not provide any channel for 
> > "participation".
> >
> > The logical point of contact for questions about public participation 
> > would be ICANN's "Manager of Public Participation", which is required by 
> > the Bylaws. So far as I can tell from the ICANN Web site, this position 
> > is vacant. There is no person or e-mail address designated on the ICANN 
> > Web site for issues related to public participation.
> >
> > In my capacity as a journalist, I wanted to ask about this at ICANN's 
> > press conference yesterday, so that I could inform my readers how they 
> > could participate in the public forum, and what issues would be discussed 
> > by the Board.
> >
> > But despite written promises from both ICANN staff responding to the 
> > "press@xxxxxxxxx" e-mail address, and ICANN's public relations contractor 
> > in Wellington, I was not told when the press conference would be held 
> > until several hours after it had ended, and I was not given the remote 
> > participation information.
> >
> > So it is impossible for the public to know what issues the Board is 
> > going to consider on Friday. And even if we did know, it is impossible 
> > for us to comment on them unless we are in Wellington.
> >
> > Even if an agenda were to be posted instantly, and even if cost were no 
> > object, it would be too late for me to get to Wellington before the end 
> > of the public forum tomorrow.
> >
> > This is not a valid "public forum" within the meaning of the Bylaws, 
> > and any "meeting" of the Board of the Board on Friday -- with neither an 
> > agenda posted 7 days in advance, nor a public forum on the issues to be 
> > discussed -- will not be a valid meeting.
> >
> > Since there is no means for me to participate remotely in the "public 
> > forum", I request that the ALAC raise this issue with the Board, 
> > publicly, during the "public forum", so that the Board and other 
> > observers in Wellington are aware that members of the community who 
> > aren't physically present in Wellington are being excluded from the 
> > "public forum", and have questioned the legitimacy of the "public forum" 
> > today and tomorrow and the scheduled Board meeting on Friday.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee☞
> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963