[EURO-Discuss] alac review

Dominik Filipp dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk
Tue Jun 24 11:04:52 EDT 2008


Patrick,

I apologize for a bit manipulative wording in my 3rd point response as regards the 'if you are satisfied' option, which might be felt as a personal offense. The correct wording should have been something like 'If you feel the existing At-Large status fits your expectations then it is ok'.

Dominik
 

-----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, June 24, 2008 4:44 PM
To: patrick at vande-walle.eu
Cc: Discussion for At-Large Europe
Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review

Patrick,

Please see my notes below.

seems like sort of philosophical posts today...

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Vande Walle [mailto:patrick at vande-walle.eu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:40 PM
To: Dominik Filipp
Cc: Discussion for At-Large Europe
Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review

Dominik,

My point is as follows:

> 1. WSIS and its sequels have used the
> "civil society" for cosmetic reasons,
> but are fundamentally government led.
> I personally have no problem with that.
> After all, we have elected these governments to represent us, at least 
> in democratic countries.
> If we do not like the positions they defend, we have the choice of 
> voting for others.

Agree. We, however, are talking about a new structure of the At-Large community, which I guess has more ambitions than just to be here for cosmetic reasons.


> 2. ICANN is an operational body that needs to sort out issues of 
> importance to businesses and their customers. We are not in a 
> philosophical approach. It is real world of bytes and dollars.

Exactly. And to be more exact those are also my dollars as a Registrant. And as somebody who takes care about the invested money I do not want to see my dollars wasted by incompetent and unaccountable individuals with voting right, but rather want to invest to accountable people taking responsibility for their acts and decisions.


> 3. I personally have never found that making any party look a fool is 
> the best way to gain support.
> Rejecting the report as a whole is not constructive way of working. 
> Rather, we need to answer to each proposal and explain why we feel the 
> suggestions are wrong. And BTW, I am not convinced there would be a 
> consensus in Euralo and ALAC to reject the report totally.

A question. Are you satisfied with the current status of At-Large? Without voting power, without real influence on results, in the toothless second-class advisory position and pretending a large community support? If not, it then might happened that it was At-Large itself that was made look a fool by someone. However, if you are satisfied then it is ok, it is your choice.

After all, we'll see what the consensus will look like.

Dominik


Dominik Filipp wrote:
> Patrick,
> 
> Could you please elaborate on your points more in detail?
> I somehow cannot see your point.
> 
> Dominik
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of 
> Patrick Vande Walle
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:18 PM
> To: Discussion for At-Large Europe
> Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
> 
> 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-
>> l
>> is
>> 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-
>> l
>> ists.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-
>> l
>> ists.icann.org
>>
>> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>>
> 
> --
> Patrick Vande Walle
> Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-l
> ists.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-lists.icann.org

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




More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list