[EURO-Discuss] Keep the documentation

[Roberto Gaetano]

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> If there's anything that this discussion shows, then it's a 
> total lack of willingness to build a compromise solution in 
> the face of differences of opinion,

Absolutely agree, was also one of my points in the original message.


 and some worrying lack of 
> neutrality on the staff side.

On this we disagree. Staff only intervened pointing out the decisions
already taken in previous meetings, and acted thinking that a decision
should be treated as a decision, and acted upon.
However, maybe I missed something. If you have specific examples, please let
me know, and I will be happy to stand corrected.


> 
> The fact that you have nothing better to do than pull the 
> Jeff Williams card speaks more (and quite disappointingly 
> so!) to your ability to be objective, show leadership, and 
> respect different opinions, than it speaks to the RALO's 
> functioning overall.

Wow! I might have hit a nerve.
But again, it would help me to know specific cases in which I showed lack of
objectivity or disrespect of opinions (as for leadership, I have pointed out
multiple times that I am here as an European individual user, nothing more,
nothing less, therefore I have no claim to any leadership role, quite the
contrary, I am extremely happy to be able to express opinions freely).
Probably we have a different view on what is an opinion, and what is an
attempt to derail an established process. For instance, when Annette, former
ALAC Chair, sends the message (attached for your reference), given also the
tone of the message and the changed title my assessment is that she is not
expressing an opinion, that I would respect, but attempts to force an action
that differs from the already taken decisions. And I have very little
respect for this.

> 
> (Though I'll admit that one conclusion that one might draw 
> from this entire debacle is that the RALO structure as such 
> is neither functional, nor robust.  One of the underlying 
> reasons for the hesitation to sign the MoU on FITUG's behalf 
> is that I was struggling whether I should recommend returning 
> the ALS accreditation right away.)

And how would things like extending MoU rights to those who do not assume
MoU obligations, or enlarging the Board to whoever wants to join, make it
more functional, or robust?

Cheers,
Roberto
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Annette Muehlberg" <Annette.Muehlberg at web.de>
Subject: [EURO-Discuss] Vote on changing of voting rules starts today
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 12:21:40 +0200
Size: 6770
Url: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070516/afae1a41/attachment.mht