[EURO-Discuss] FW: alac review mail from jeanette

[Annette Muehlberg]

hi, jeanetteŽs mail did not get through to the list, so i forward it to you. maybe mathias could check and try to get jeanette on the list again.

greetings annette


> Hi all,
> 
> 
> Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> 
> > 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; 
> 
> 
> I agree with Dominic and Wolfgang. I think it is exactly the right
> 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, 
> 
> I am not sure you understand what ALAC wants, Vittorio. This is not a
> matter of 100% or even 50%, the portray of ALAC as such is flawed.
> 
> My impression at yesterday's meeting was that the consultant hasn't
> understood enough of ICANN's overall structure to see and evaluate ALAC
> and relation to that structure.
> 
> I support a statement that rejects the report and asks for a new one.
> jeanette
> 
> 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,
> 

--