[EURO-Discuss] Comments/Questions on Summary of EURALO BoardMeeting in Geneva

Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
Sun Mar 2 11:53:40 EST 2008

My undertanding is that we do have two different sessions in paris:
1. The EURALO GA for all ALS from Europe (funded my ICANN)
2. A preparatyory meeting for the users summit (in Africa) for all present RALO members from all continents. No funds are needed for this because only people who are in  Paris anyhow will participate. We shuld ask Nick to look for opportunities for a remote participation. The purpose of the PrepCom is the agree on the design, programme, budget, drafting procedures for the final documents etc. for the At Large Summit (ATLAS) in the African meeting. 


Lähettäjä: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org puolesta: Sébastien Bachollet
Lähetetty: su 2.3.2008 17:21
Vastaanottaja: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe'
Aihe: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Comments/Questions on Summary of EURALO BoardMeeting in Geneva

Dear all,
Thanks Wolf for your hard work and to Veronica to start this discussion.
I would like to be sure I understand well.
>From the Geneva meeting there are 2 projects for the Paris meeting:
1/ Euralo GA
2/ Users Summit PrepCom
What are the differences?
Why we need to have other funding than Icann one?
Thanks and all the best

Sébastien Bachollet
sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr

-----Message d'origine-----
De : euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Wolf
Envoyé : samedi 1 mars 2008 17:40
À : Discussion for At-Large Europe; euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Objet : Re: [EURO-Discuss] Comments/Questions on Summary of EURALO Board
Meeting in Geneva

Dear Veronica and all,

Here my replies and explanations regarding Veronica's
>>questions/concerns/comments (...) after reading the Summary report per
concrete issues that have been discussed during the meeting. 

Veronica Cretu wrote Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:21:
> (...)
>1.  "There are suggestions to reduce the size of the EURALO board to five
>members to make it more operational and effective" - What are the main
>reasons behind changing the current number of EURALO Board members? (there
>is no enough information from the meeting summary on this).

After the creation of EURALO in Lisbon at March 07 and in the course of the
subsequent board nominations and elections we had severe controversies on
this list. It was therefore decided to have an enlarged board size to be
"inclusive" as much as possible; and I still believe that this enlargement
was reasonable under the prior circumstances. After the board elections in
May 07 we realized however that some of the board members never reacted or
participated on this list. Some of them told me that they are over- charged
by their real jobs and/or live circumstances - what is understandable. But:
A board - by definition - has a certain lead function and responsibility
towards its members/organisations and should try to be as operational and
effective as possible during the election term. Our experiences during the
last months proofed that coordination and cooperation becomes more difficult
according to the size of the board. Therefore I believe, before our first
re-elections at our General Assembly in Paris we should make clear that
nominations of board members demand a certain availability (in terms of
time) of candidates, inputs, participation and commitments during the
election term (for one up to two years). Having a small group of dedicated
people coordination and work division will be easier. And candidates should
announce before what is their special interest or contribution in regard of
coordination, projects or content / follow-up on subjects. This is my
personal reasoning and I don't know whether it's shared by all board members
present in Geneva.

>2. I see that there were discussions about organizing certain events BUT
>"As we cannot count on ICANN funding for such a side event / Users Summit
>PrepCom in Paris" there are ideas about "prepare and submit a project
>proposal for the board to be submitted to different European organizations
>for sponsoring". In this context, I have the following
>If EURALO is an ICANN related/created structure - than it should be able
>to function on support from ICANN.

(Wolf's remark) I agree in principle.

>In case certain proposals are submitted
>to ICANN for funding, they SHOULD NOT BE refused/rejected, but on the
>contrary, improved and developed and finally implemented.

(Wolf's remark) I agree in principle but don't see it as exclusive as you.
If I have to invest more time and energy to convince ICANN (or any mother
structure) to conduct useful meetings, outreach activities or
content-related projects etc. than I prefer a certain autonomy to better
invest my (volunteer) capacities - incl. fundraising for my planed
activities. I would not call it "optimal" but rather more "pragmatic" ;-)

>Otherwise, if we start looking for funding from other organizations, we are

>NOT an ICANN structure any longer. Requesting funding from other donors,
>EUROPEAN ones, does not mean only using money for certain purposes, but
>adjusting our projects/activities/mission/scope, etc. to the priorities of
>the grant giver.

(Wolf's remark) As I said, I don't see it in this "either" - "or" manner. I
conducted several projects in the past when I submitted "my" goals /
priorities / subjects and when I was not directed by grant givers or

>And here:
>EURALO should clarify its working relationship with ICANN;
>If EURALO starts thinking about applying for sponsorship from other
>organizations, then, it should re-think/review its organizational
>mission, etc. - that are not in line with ICANN bylaws, rules, procedures
>any longer.

(Wolf's remark) These questions of principle could be reconsidered at our
next GA!

>Also, in regards to EURALO will submit a new budget proposal for the Fiscal

>Year 2008-09 to ALAC that will include several activities, and my
>questions/comments are:
>- Usually any budget is made based on a Action Plan/s for a certain period
>of time. Where can EURALO's Action Plan for 2008-2009 be accessed? To what
>extent ALSs are involved in identification of certain activities of this
>Action Plan?

(Wolf's remark) It is clear to me that we won't get any financial support
from ICANN in the current Fiscal Year (ending in June 07) any more. To
prepare a side event in Paris (Users Summit PrepCom or whatsoever) needs
external funding, as mentioned before.

The budget proposal we have to submit refers to the FY 2008-09 (post Paris)
and will be based on a minima action plan (f2f board meeting, GA and
outreach activities), as mentioned in the notes from Geneva.

>3. ICANN Internet users declaration and the preparation process of this
>Declaration: Preparing a Declaration of this kind on behalf of ICANN
>Internet Users raises several questions vs. concerns:
> The extent/degree to which ICANN Internet users are aware/informed about
>the current problems and challenges in the field?
>What ARE the current challenges, main problems in the field?
>What are the solutions or/and alternative decisions that are proposed OR
>should be taken?
>What are the PROs and CONs of each solution?
>In order to find answers to the above questions, one needs both human and
>financial recourses. An ideal output would be a research report which would

>be disseminated among ICANN Internet users community and vis-à-vis which
>ICANN Internet Users community would take a certain attitude. This attitude

>is actually something that is reflected in a Declaration, and by this
>Declaration ICANN Internet Users would seek concrete changes/attitude from
>ICANN side. 
>Is this what is meant? Is this the process that is being discussed by
>EURALO? I would appreciate concrete details about it, in order to be able
>come with certain proposal/solutions for how that can be implemented, etc.

(Wolf's remark) The idea of a "Internet users declaration" came up after LA
and IGF 07 among EURALO fellows. In Rio they had a Dynamic Coalition dealing
with this subject already - Vittorio and others were part of it. And nobody
wants "to invent any new circle" again. There were many issue-related
initiatives, discussions, inputs and drafts in different Foras already
(WSIS, OECD, APC, ISOC-Italy, IGF etc.). And the idea is to take into
consideration what was already done before and to link it up to ongoing
ICANN discussions and particular User concerns. I think nobody is planning a
"research report" which requires time and considerable means. The starting
point was a common concern at EURALO and a Users Summit PrepCom in Paris in
summer 07 could be another useful platform for it ...

As mentioned before, these are my pesonal remarks and I hope they may be

Thanks for your response to the Geneva meeting notes, Veronica, and
best regards,


phone +41 79 204 83 87

http://blog.allmend.ch <http://blog.allmend.ch/>  -
Digitale Allmend
EURO-Discuss mailing list
EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org

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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1305 - Release Date: 29/02/2008

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1306 - Release Date: 01/03/2008

EURO-Discuss mailing list
EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org

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

More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list