[EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano
roberto at icann.org
Wed Dec 13 17:03:27 CST 2006
Jeanette,
If there is a misunderstanding, and you did not mean to accuse ICANN of
maintaining ambiguous practices or stretching rules, I offer my deepest
public apologies.
Best regards,
Roberto
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de]
> Sent: 13 December 2006 14:09
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe'
> Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee
> Election Results
>
>
>
> 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