[EURO-Discuss] alac review

Dominik Filipp dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk
Tue Jun 24 07:13:03 EDT 2008


Roberto,

Perhaps, I do not understand your words correctly

"But the WG would be unable to deal with a "reject the whole thing"
proposal or comment, while would be able to make good use of a "we need
voting power" proposal or comment."

Sure, the WG is unable to reject the At-Large reform motion as such as
it is the reason why the WG actually exists.

But if you are suggesting the WG is unable to reject the Westlake's
proposal then I am asking why? Who is mandating what the WG may or may
not reject? Except the WG itself, of course.

Dominik


-----Original Message-----
From: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:38 AM
To: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe'
Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review

The next step, after delivery of the final version of the report by the
contractor, will be to pass the ball to the WG, who will analyze the
reaction of the community and include the comments that will be made.
The WG is well served, at least I believe so, with people with a wide
range of opinions, including Karl Auerbach, a champion of the direct
election of Board members by the AtLarge. But the WG would be unable to
deal with a "reject the whole thing" proposal or comment, while would be
able to make good use of a "we need voting power" proposal or comment.

Personally, my advice would be to take this into account before deciding
the format and tone of the contribution. It will not guarantee the
result, but will maximise chances.

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 
> Dominik Filipp
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2008 10:48
> To: Discussion for At-Large Europe
> Subject: 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_a
tlarge-lis
> ts.icann.org
>
> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.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
>
> Homepage for the region: 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-lis
ts.icann.org

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org



More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list