[EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws

Stefan Hügel sh at fiff.de
Thu May 10 03:19:32 EDT 2007


Dear Nick, dear colleagues,

I'd like to suggest the following:

Extend the voting on the number of board members: 5, 7, 9 or 10 (that  
is, all candidates). (In this sense I object to the voting on 5, 7 or  
9.)

I fully agree on a vote amongst the signers of the MoU, if the non- 
signers will be allowed to take part in the election.

One final remark I' like to make: We should vote first on the number  
of seats and the ALSes allowed to take part in the election. Only  
afterwards, the election itself should take place. I think it is  
important to know before voting, who has the right to vote and how  
many candidates will get a seat.

Best
Stefan


Am 09.05.2007 um 20:31 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart:

> Stefan, two questions to make sure I understand where we are:
>
> Since you object to 7, do you object to voting on whether there will
> be 5, 7, or 9 board members?
>
> As to the objection about ALSes: It seems to me that there is no
> option, therefore, but that there must be a vote amongst those who
> have signed the MoU as to whether or not they wish to formally require
> that only those who have signed the MoU may vote in the election.
>
> Since they have signed the MoU, it is up to them to decide whether
> they wish to limit the voting rights in the manner proposed, as
> provided in the relevant clauses of the MoU.
>
> There are at present only three ALSes who have not yet signed the MoU.
>
> We (Susie and myself) will therefore setup a vote to start this
> Friday, when the election would have started, and ending on the same
> date the election would have ended, with this question:
>
> "Shall voting rights in the upcoming elections be limited to those who
> have signed the MoU with ICANN?"
>
> The available options will then be:
>
> YES
> NO
> ABSTAIN
>
> Hopefully this will meet with general understanding.
>
> On 09/05/07, Stefan Hügel <sh at fiff.de> wrote:
>> Dear Nick, dear colleagues,
>>
>> I am not sure if it is a good idea to artificially restrict the  
>> number of
>> board members. As there is a lot of work to do, why exclude  
>> individuals who
>> are willing to do that work?
>>
>> It is also not plausible to me, why Annettes suggestion endangers the
>> progress of the election. We should strive together for the best  
>> possible
>> solution and not build up pressure against alternative opinions.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I have to state that I object to the recommendation  
>> to have a
>> board of seven. Instead, in my opinion, we should at least have a  
>> board of 9
>> elected members. Even better, we should not exclude anyone.
>>
>> Additionally I would object to the recommendation to let only the  
>> signers of
>> the MoU vote. All accredited ALSes should have the right to vote,  
>> as it was
>> discussed earlier.
>>
>> Best
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 09.05.2007 um 17:24 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart:
>>
>> To be clear, does this mean that you are objecting to the
>> recommendation from the teleconference that we have a board of 7?
>>
>> Currently there are not nine, but twelve candidates, since the three
>> ALAC members are included, understanding that the two ALAC
>> representatives elected would not be board members; the ALAC
>> representative who is not elected could become a board member, if
>> (following what was published after the recent teleconference) they
>> were in the top 5, 7, or 9 chosen in the elections to take place
>> starting this Friday.
>>
>> I hope very much Annette that you are not objecting to the vote for
>> the number of directors at least - of choosing between 5, 7, or 9
>> directors. If you are objecting to that, please so state -
>> understanding that if you do you endanger the entire election going
>> forward, and risk throwing everything back to square one again. I  
>> VERY
>> much hope you will agree that doing that would be highly undesirable.
>>
>> On 09/05/07, Annette Muehlberg <Annette.Muehlberg at web.de> wrote:
>> It is the whole procedure of the last weeks I do not want "to live  
>> with".
>>
>> Below I tried to reunite all ALSes and volunteers for functions so  
>> that we
>> could focus on constructive work. It implicated that we accept all  
>> those who
>> were nominated for the board without any further voting. (Thank  
>> you Stefan,
>> for your support.)
>> If instead voting does take place my proposal implies that for  
>> this first
>> phase we should have a board of ten plus the three non-voting ALAC  
>> members.
>>
>> Apart from that, there has to be a transparent and democratic  
>> procedure in
>> place if the rights of some ALSes are supposed to be changed.
>>
>> We could get rid of all these discussions if we were implementing my
>> proposal below and follow our own bylaws.
>>
>> Best
>> Annette
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
>> Gesendet: 09.05.07 13:45:15
>> An: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto at icann.org>
>> CC: "Discussion for At-Large Europe"
>> <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>,  "Annette
>> Muehlberg" <annette.muehlberg at web.de>
>> Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It is worth pointing out that every other region managed to take the
>> steps which Roberto mentions in respect of LAC with the same results,
>> and little controversy.
>>
>> I would urge you all, once again, to use maximum flexibility and to
>> give everyone else the benefit of the doubt to the maximum extent
>> possible.
>>
>> I am encouraged to see that, so far, since the strong recommendations
>> of the last teleconference was published, there have been some
>> statements which disagree with one element or another to an extent,
>> but none of you have said "this element I cannot live with".
>>
>> On 09/05/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto at icann.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe we should follow the example of the LAC colleagues.
>> I arrived earlier in Sao Paulo, to participate in their workshop,  
>> pretty
>> much as I arrived earlier in Lisbon, to participate in the EURALO  
>> workshop.
>>
>> It was a very intense experience. In spite of the additional  
>> difficulty to
>> keep documents in two languages synchronized, and the interpretation
>> interface, work proceeded smoothly. At the end, all documents,  
>> including the
>> LACRALO-ICANN MoU, were ready. They were signed on the spot, no  
>> ALS did
>> raise any issue or reservation about the signature, the  
>> representatives were
>> elected (all ALSes who had signed the MoU participated in the  
>> election),
>> there were more candidates than seats but the election process was  
>> concluded
>> without problems, and with the best compliments to the winners  
>> coming from
>> the ones that did not make it that time, but that expressed their
>> willingness to help anyway.
>>
>> We started very well, with the "spirit of Frankfurt", as Annette  
>> mentions,
>> then something started getting wrong. I hoped things were back on  
>> track when
>> I assisted to the very collaborative and energetic meeting, that  
>> ended with
>> the final drafting of the documents, including the EURALO-ICANN  
>> MoU, and the
>> very touching signature ceremony, with all ALSes present and  
>> signing on
>> stage. Then something started again getting wrong: holiday period,  
>> delays in
>> getting the candidate list, "I signed it but I thought it meant  
>> something
>> different", "I am not confortable in signing it", "I don't see why  
>> we should
>> sign it", "I don't understand why we are rushing (?!?) it", "Why  
>> don't we
>> wait some more", "there should be consensus, not a voting (but of  
>> course the
>> consensus must be on what I say, not on something different)", and  
>> so on.
>>
>> Yes, the problem is to find this collaborative spirit again. At  
>> this time we
>> do have an agreed set of documents, including the EURALO-ICANN  
>> MoU, a set of
>> procedures for electing officers, and deadlines. While a  
>> modification of the
>> documents and of the rules is always possible in the future, I  
>> have to note
>> that the European Region lacks a member since December 2006, when  
>> Annette
>> was not replaced because the formation of EURALO was imminent, and  
>> the
>> replacement had better be elected by the new organization, and  
>> that any
>> further delay in making EURALO operational would be  
>> ununderstandable and
>> unacceptable.
>>
>> As I said in a previos message, I am still confident that the MoU  
>> is signed
>> by the few residual ALSes in due time to participate in the  
>> elections, that
>> the elected officers will hold their office in the interest of the  
>> whole
>> community, and that those who do not get elected this time still  
>> contribute
>> and get prepared to provide a good alternative for the next future  
>> election.
>> This is how it works in other parts of the ICANN family (the ASO  
>> has just
>> concluded its voting, and Raimundo Beca has been appointed for a  
>> second term
>> to the Board), how it did work for the LACRALO, and I don't see  
>> why it
>> should not work for EURALO.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Roberto
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ________________________________
>>  From: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On
>> Behalf Of Stefan Hügel
>> Sent: 09 May 2007 12:38
>> To: Annette Muehlberg; EURALO Discussion
>> Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws
>>
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>>
>> first of all, thanks to Annette for your statement I fully agree  
>> with.
>>
>>
>> Having been silent most of the time up to now (I may have to  
>> apologize for
>> that), it is exactly the spirit of working together in a  
>> cooperative manner,
>> which I miss in many of the discussions here.
>>
>>
>> It sometimes seems to me like it is all about legal issues - and  
>> nothing
>> else. How can participation work, if you have to go through pages  
>> of legal
>> arguments to follow any discussion?
>>
>>
>> As Annette said - let us start working together on content, on  
>> outreach, on
>> issues significant for ICANN policies. And let's stop these formal
>> arguments, which do not let us achieve any progress.
>>
>>
>> Best
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 08.05.2007 um 19:12 schrieb Annette Muehlberg:
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>> We started off to build the EURALO in such a good spirit that we  
>> even called
>> our report on our kick off Meeting in Frankfurt May 2006 "The  
>> spirit of
>> Frankfurt".
>>
>>
>> Where are we now? After Lisbon an absurd discussion about  
>> deadlines of
>> nomination periods started which almost lead to the exclusion of  
>> those ALS
>> representatives who were in easter vacation.
>>
>>
>> Now, a legal advice is asked for on a nomination of a candidate as  
>> if it
>> matters if someone became a member of an ALS during nomination  
>> period or at
>> the first day of the period of discussion of the nominations - both
>> definately before the actual decision taking/voting on the  
>> candidates.
>>
>>
>> All this is such a bureaucratic argy-bargy (german: Hickhack).
>>
>>
>> We do not need to love each other but should be able to respect  
>> and work
>> with each other: cooperative, not trying to exclude but to integrate
>> different positions.
>> In short, we should start to follow our own bylaws:
>>
>>
>> - as stated for Board and General assembly we should operate "to  
>> the maximum
>> extent possible via consensus" (9.2.21 and 9.4.17.1)
>>
>>
>> - "The Association shall at all times act in an open, accountable and
>> transparent manner and is committed to cultural and geographic  
>> diversity and
>> gender balance in its work internally and externally." (3.4)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The current state is:
>>
>>
>> - We have one candidate seconded by the european consumer  
>> protection/civil
>> liberties ALSes who are not ISOC members. This candidate comes  
>> from Moldova,
>> is female, comes from a non-EU country with a rather developing
>> IT-infrastructure.
>>
>>
>> We have two candidates from Luxembourg and France, both male, both  
>> EU, both
>> western region, both members of the same umbrella organisation,  
>> seconded by
>> all the members of the very same organisation - ISOC).
>>
>>
>> Let us take our bylaws serious concerning diversity and reaching  
>> consensus
>> among us. In this case the latter means, let us both accept, that  
>> there are
>> more or less two equally strong opinions expressed and try to have  
>> a fair
>> representation of both postions.
>>
>>
>> - We have nine nominees for the board and agreed to have the one  
>> join, who
>> will not make it in the selection for the ALAC (and all three ALAC  
>> members
>> will join as non-voting members).
>>
>>
>> This is great!
>>
>>
>> Instead of trying to put each other down and vote out, we should  
>> be happy
>> that we have these great people who are willing to serve the  
>> EURALO board
>> and stop all this destructive stuff. Let us welcome all to the  
>> EURALO Board!
>>
>>
>> Let us start working together on content, on outreach, on issues  
>> significant
>> for ICANN policies.
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>>
>> Annette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stefan Hügel (sh at fiff.de)
>>
>>
>> FIfF - Forum InformatikerInnen für Frieden und gesellschaftliche
>> Verantwortung e.V.
>> Geschäftsstelle: Goetheplatz 4, D-28203 Bremen
>> Telefon +49 421 33659255 - Fax +49 421 33659256 - http:// 
>> www.fiff.de -
>> fiff at fiff.de
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EURO-Discuss mailing list
>> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro- 
>> discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Nick Ashton-Hart
>> PO Box 32160
>> London N4 2XY
>> United Kingdom
>> UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011
>> USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
>> Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135
>> mobile: +44 (7774) 932798
>> 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
>> PO Box 32160
>> London N4 2XY
>> United Kingdom
>> UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011
>> USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
>> Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135
>> mobile: +44 (7774) 932798
>> Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com /
>> Skype: nashtonhart
>> Online Bio:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EURO-Discuss mailing list
>> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro- 
>> discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stefan Hügel (sh at fiff.de)
>>
>> FIfF - Forum InformatikerInnen für Frieden und gesellschaftliche
>> Verantwortung e.V.
>> Geschäftsstelle: Goetheplatz 4, D-28203 Bremen
>> Telefon +49 421 33659255 - Fax +49 421 33659256 - http:// 
>> www.fiff.de -
>> fiff at fiff.de
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
> Regards,
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart
> PO Box 32160
> London N4 2XY
> United Kingdom
> UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011
> USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
> Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135
> mobile: +44 (7774) 932798
> Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com /
> Skype: nashtonhart
> Online Bio:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
>

--
Stefan Hügel (sh at fiff.de)

FIfF - Forum InformatikerInnen für Frieden und gesellschaftliche  
Verantwortung e.V.
Geschäftsstelle: Goetheplatz 4, D-28203 Bremen
Telefon +49 421 33659255 - Fax +49 421 33659256 - http://www.fiff.de  
- fiff at fiff.de


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070510/0f0abdc1/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list