[EURO-Discuss] alac review

Tue Jun 24 06:17:59 EDT 2008

Wolfgang,

I am not sure that the fora you mention are relevant to this discussion. 
They work in another context, on another set of issues. Seeing how 
"civil society" (whatever that means) is being treated in these bodies 
is certainly not an example I would like ICANN to follow.
ICANN is a mostly operational body and should have processes in place 
that help get the job done.

On the NARALO text, I am with Vittorio. We may disagree on the text and 
reply to its suggestions. But it does not seem useful to criticise the 
process as such.

Patrick

Kleinwächter wrote:
> I fully support Dominik,
>  
> Westlake does not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN context and in the broader context of Internet Governacne, which includes developments in WSIS, WGIG, IGF and recently in OECD. There is a need for a more strategically and politically oriented review and not for a review of how the management works and the day to day basis. The management issue is at this stage secondary in particular if you take into consideration that the MoUs with RALOs has just signed and there is no real data available and no best pratices has emerged so far how the various new established bodies work. Here it needs some time to come to real conclusions and then a review makes sense.
>  
> The challenge at this moment would have been to define the role of ALAC in the more overall IG and DNS/IP policy development and decision making in ICANN. And this was totally ignored by Westlake. It is a pity. A lot of money for nothing. The money would have been better invested into enabling RALOs to do work on the gorund: Workshops, studies, outreach.
>  
> Wolfgang
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Dominik Filipp
> Gesendet: Di 24.06.2008 10:47
> An: Discussion for At-Large Europe
> Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
> 
> 
> 
> Vittorio,
> 
> As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and
> identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the
> actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this
> flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the
> document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the
> status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large
> position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack
> of basic understanding of what At-Large actually is and what its status
> should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt to stay servile to BoD
> in order to have gotten their proposal passed.
> 
> I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important
> points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be
> logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered
> currently.
> That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more
> useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I
> see no any problem with it.
> 
> 
> Dominik
> 
> 
> -----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: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM
> To: Discussion for At-Large Europe
> Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
> 
> Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
>> All,
>>
>> Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a
>> statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want
> 
>> to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a
>> statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings
> 
> Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is
> being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it
> sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it
> doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it
> is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you
> owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that
> this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is
> unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result
> (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive
> mode.
> 
> If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the
> report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying
> where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The
> NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers
> are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others
> are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't
> fly very well, and won't get them to change their report.
> 
> Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for
> the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts
> could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate,
> but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft
> recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any
> constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests
> about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that
> clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and
> productive.
> 
> Ciao,
> --
> vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis
> ts.icann.org
> 
> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 
> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 
> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
> 

-- 
Patrick Vande Walle
Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu