[EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws

Nick Ashton-Hart nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
Thu May 10 08:11:31 EDT 2007


See below.

On 10/05/07, Annette Muehlberg <Annette.Muehlberg at web.de> wrote:
> Dear Nick,
>
> I am confused, what exactly do you mean by the following?
> > Secondly: Since we have 11 candidates including the two ALAC who
> > remain interested in serving as a board member if they do not get
> > elected,
> As we have two persons to select for the ALAC either the two who also volunteered for the board in case of not being elected (veronica and sebastian) get elected for the ALAC than we have only 9 nominees for the board. everything is fine, no further election needed - if we agree on 9 voting seats.
> If Patrick and either S. or V. are selected for the ALAC, the one left  (S. or V.) will be available for the board seat. that would mean we had 10 voting members on the board. fine with me too.

Since Patrick has declined to be seated as a board member if he is not
elected to the ALAC in order to help move things forward, we have a
few possible scenarios:

1) Veronica and Patrick are elected: Possible number of Board members: 9+1=10
2) Veronica and Sebastian are elected: Possible number of board members: 9+0=9
3) Sebastian and Patrick are elected: Possible number of board members: 9+1=10

> I would rather not have an odd number than start voting out one person. God, all this trouble for one person more or less. I would just elect the ALAC and those who volunteered for  board become board members. Is that a proposal everyone can live with?
>

Unless minds have changed in the last 12 hours, I believe the answer is No.

> Or did  I count wrong? all this is not easy to keep track and understand.

No, it isn't ;)

> It really would be much easier if we agreed that every current ALS can vote, than we start voting for the ALAC tomorrow and that is it. The board is equal to all other volunteers. easy, efficient, no hassle and we can start to work on relevant policy issues.
>

Very strong objections to that course of action have been expressed.
If the last two ALSes do not sign the MoU before noon tomorrow, then
we will have to have a vote on who can vote, followed by a vote on the
other questions.

> best
> annette
>
> and since one person cannot hold both a board and an ALAC
> > seat, the maximum number of board members we could have with the
> > current nominations is 9.
> >
> > Therefore, I would suggest that we do not need to have the option of
> > 10 board members, since there are only 9 possible directors in any
> > case.
> >
> > I hope you would agree?
> >
> > I am hopeful that today I can speak directly to Heike Jensen. If the
> > representatives of FITUG could consult each other as well in
> > connection with whether they could sign the MoU, if the remaining two
> > ALSes who have not signed were to sign, that would mean we could
> > manage with just one vote, instead of needing two votes.
> >
> > If we need two votes, then of course we shall have them.
> >
> > On 10/05/07, Stefan Hügel <sh at fiff.de> wrote:
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
> --
>
>


-- 
-- 
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



More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list