[EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results

Jeanette Hofmann jeanette at wz-berlin.de
Wed Dec 13 07:09:02 CST 2006



Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Jeannette,
> 
> I am sorry to say, but you are completely off the mark.


What a rude way of addressing somebody on a public list! May I suggest 
that you treat differences in opinion with a bit more respect?
> 
> ICANN has nothing to do in all this. 

There is apparently a misunderstanding. I never said that ICANN should 
make rules for ALAC. What I said is that ICANN and ALAC share a disease. 
   The disease as I see it is a lack of self-binding rules and/or 
sometimes an inclination to stretch existing rules. My recommendation 
was that ALAC should try to be a model in terms of "constitutionalizing" 
ICANN and its sub organizations.
I repeat this just as a matter of clarification. The discussion has 
moved on, and I support both Wolfgang's and Thomas' constributions.

jeanette

ICANN gives some general rules for
> self-organizing of constituencies, committees, and associated bodies. But
> then (and this is what is called "bottom-up" process) it gives some latitude
> in implementing it.
> I would be appalled in seeing ICANN board setting rules for the IP
> constituency. Or the NCUC. Why then for ALAC?
> Why, all of a sudden, we call on ICANN to set rules on how ALAC appoints its
> Boar Liaison?
> 
> The problem is completely a different one. And it has to do with funding. It
> is obvious to whoever would look at things abstracting from names, and
> looking at functions, that all what we are talking about is if ICANN would
> pay for a Board Liaison "on top" of the regular 15 members of the committee.
> It is obvious to whoever has done any one negotiation that if you state the
> problem up front, the answer from the (General Counsel of the) "counterpart"
> is extremely unlikely to be something like "Oh, yes, actually, why not even
> more than just one".
> 
> Anyway, Vittorio has been elected as ALAC Liaison to the Board, by ALAC
> plenary, who is, according to the Bylaws, the body who is responsible for
> the election. He is currently an ALAC member, and this should close the
> question until EURALO is formed. All clear, and compliant to the Bylaws.
> About additional alternate candidates, that are not members of ALAC, I
> personally cannot see how some person from outside the Committee could have
> the trust of ALAC and won an election against two strong and long time
> members like Vittorio and Wendy.
> In simple terms, we should not make confusion between somebody that has long
> membership, and the membership terminates, and a person coming from the
> outside, no matter how involved in other user-related organizations.
> 
> My "no waves approach" is a suggestion to ALAC for the future. Whether you
> take it, and gain results, or you reject it, and stay put, is your choice.
> If Vittorio's term as ALAC ends before his term as Liaison, you have the
> choice. I see three possibilities:
> - insist that he remains Liaison, and get the implicit right of having
> additional funding;
> - declare him ceased, go to new elections, create a precedent and lose
> forever the right of having additional funding;
> - replace him with a different person, also outside ALAC, and claim that if
> the rules allow an outside person, elections should be open to non-member
> candidates (which seems to be your point)
> 
> The question is, how are you going to motivate that you go to option 3,
> instead of 2? ICANN's reply will be, obviously, that you are welcome to go
> to option 2, and you can forget forever about option 3 (and 1, for that
> matter).
> 
> On one thing I agree with you, this is not a perfect world.
> Maybe where we differ is on how to change it.
> 
> Best regards,
> Roberto
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] 
>>Sent: 08 December 2006 11:49
>>To: Discussion for At-Large Europe; roberto at icann.org
>>Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee 
>>Election Results
>>
>>
>>
>>Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
>>
>>>I don't think that this was the situation "by design", but rather a 
>>>side effect on how the bylaws are written.
>>
>>Hi Roberto,
>>
>>this is the problem with ICANN as I see it since I watch its 
>>performance. There are always honorable reasons for 
>>maintaining ambiguous practices or stretching rules. But from 
>>the outside, such practices look somewhat fishy.
>>
>>In order to grow up and to gain the trust ICANN needs to do 
>>its work, it is really, really necessary that ICANN 
>>establishes an equivalent to the rule of law, an equivalent 
>>that provides for reliable procedures and predictable decisions.
>>
>>Your small steps, no big waves approach makes sense from an 
>>insider's perpective but from outside, it looks like more of 
>>the same muddling through approach that seems so 
>>characterstic for many of ICANN's decisions.
>>
>>I know, I am repeating myself, I said the very same thing on 
>>another list a few days ago: ICANN needs to constitutionlize 
>>itself, its actions need to follow self binding rules that 
>>people know and that people can appeal to if they are 
>>supposedly violated. ALAC should not be an exception to this 
>>but rather a model for other constiuencies or groups in ICANN.
>>
>>jeanette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>We are getting there with small steps, not to create too big waves.
>>>We did it with Bret as GTLD Liaison, in the moment when we 
>>
>>were also 
>>
>>>replacing another NA member (John Levine was selected).
>>>We are trying this with Vittorio, as the situation is now that it 
>>>would take an active step by the Board to discontinue him after his 
>>>expiration as ALAC member, and I don't think that the Board 
>>
>>will ever open this can of worms.
>>
>>>Then we will much better off for claiming it as established 
>>
>>practice.
>>
>>>This is, at least, my approach. Sorry for being more 
>>
>>careful than some 
>>
>>>of you would like, but I have the impression that this strategy has 
>>>paid off, up to now. Also, I do believe that one thing is a 
>>
>>proposal 
>>
>>>for candidature that comes from an ALS, and another thing, 
>>
>>with more 
>>
>>>weight, will be a candidature that comes from a established RALO.
>>>Cheers,
>>>Roberto
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>[mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of 
>>>>Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>Sent: 08 December 2006 10:03
>>>>To: Discussion for At-Large Europe
>>>>Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election 
>>>>Results
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>>Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as
>>>>
>>>>Board Liaison
>>>>
>>>>>even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary,
>>>>
>>>>this is an
>>>>
>>>>>advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this
>>>>
>>>>task without
>>>>
>>>>>impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the 
>>>>>regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison.
>>>>
>>>>Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the 
>>>>position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you 
>>
>>might have 
>>
>>>>got a long list of candidates if this had been known to 
>>
>>more people.
>>
>>>>jeanette
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the 
>>>>>internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in 
>>
>>advance and via 
>>
>>>>>their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC.
>>>>
>>>>This, based
>>>>
>>>>>on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison 
>>>>>positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions).
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>Roberto
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>>[mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On 
>>
>>Behalf Of 
>>
>>>>>>Vittorio Bertola
>>>>>>Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19
>>>>>>To: patrick at isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe
>>>>>>Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election 
>>>>>>Results
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the
>>>>
>>>>nomcom chair
>>>>
>>>>>>>would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see
>>>>
>>>>that the ALAC
>>>>
>>>>>>>actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted
>>>>>>
>>>>>>in favour
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>on this change ? who voted against ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that
>>>>
>>>>was sent
>>>>
>>>>>>some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member
>>>>
>>>>representing
>>>>
>>>>>>EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one
>>>>
>>>>of the two
>>>>
>>>>>>EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one 
>>>>>>representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and
>>>>
>>>>the Nomcom
>>>>
>>>>>>picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO
>>>>
>>>>seats, which,
>>>>
>>>>>>until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with
>>>>
>>>>ICANN, is
>>>>
>>>>>>to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that 
>>
>>MoU, the 
>>
>>>>>>ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and 
>>
>>whoever will 
>>
>>>>>>get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks)
>>>>
>>>>will expire,
>>>>
>>>>>>and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before
>>>>
>>>>making the
>>>>
>>>>>>appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived 
>>>>>>appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by 
>>
>>the ICANN 
>>
>>>>>>Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested 
>>
>>that we could 
>>
>>>>>>ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have
>>>>
>>>>allowed the
>>>>
>>>>>>Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the 
>>>>>>appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting.
>>>>
>>>>However,
>>>>
>>>>>>there was another proposal that the three European ALAC
>>>>
>>>>members pick
>>>>
>>>>>>someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I
>>>>
>>>>think that if
>>>>
>>>>>>we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the
>>>>
>>>>ALSes who
>>>>
>>>>>>suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes 
>>>>>>might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March
>>>>
>>>>(though there
>>>>
>>>>>>is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the 
>>>>>>matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European 
>>
>>ALAC members 
>>
>>>>>>agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest 
>>
>>one or more 
>>
>>>>>>names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for 
>>>>>>consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In any case, please all of you start considering and
>>>>
>>>>posting possible
>>>>
>>>>>>nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European 
>>
>>ALAC member, 
>>
>>>>>>even if it might be just for a few months and for one
>>>>
>>>>ICANN meeting
>>>>
>>>>>>in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not
>>>>
>>>>reapply for
>>>>
>>>>>>my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really
>>>>
>>>>want some new
>>>>
>>>>>>people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I
>>>>
>>>>said this
>>>>
>>>>>>in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so
>>>>
>>>>it's not
>>>>
>>>>>>connected to that).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about
>>>>
>>>>the internal
>>>>
>>>>>>ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to 
>>
>>appoint its 
>>
>>>>>>Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to 
>>
>>other bodies.
>>
>>>>>>These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they 
>>>>>>represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this 
>>>>>>specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no 
>>>>>>advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually 
>>>>>>impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided 
>>>>>>yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit 
>>>>>>difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by
>>>>
>>>>a broader
>>>>
>>>>>>group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to 
>>>>>>internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work
>>>>
>>>>together, but
>>>>
>>>>>>I already suggested that the ALAC should have better
>>>>
>>>>procedures for
>>>>
>>>>>>these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a 
>>>>>>consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ciao,
>>>>>>-- 
>>>>>>vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] 
>>>>>>bertola.eu.org]<-----
>>>>>>http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>>>>>>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a
>>>>>>tlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>>>>>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-
>>
>>>>l
>>>>
>>>>>ists.icann.org
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>>>>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a
>>>>tlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>>>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>
>>
>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a
>>tlarge-lists.icann.org
> 
> 



More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list