[EURO-Discuss] R: Follow up on today's teleconference

Thu Jan 24 00:42:26 UTC 2013

Thanks, Roberto, I have reflected on the points and concerns you raised already. And due to the fact and probability that certain destinations inside Europe are still difficult, troublesome (or PITA), we considered already not to begin with our GA before 17.00 PM -- to allow people even coming from edge points to arrive in time. Fortunately, we can count on the support from ICANN Constituency Travel (proven experts) for arrangements of flights (there may be some difficult cases, like Vienna or Eastern Europ. destination but many are less complicate and may be cheaper as well).

If we calculate (as I do so far) 3 hours for our GA plus an option for an Outreach party (= 4.5 to 5 hours), this provides some useful time for our GA and members already. And the GA invitation covers the subsequent two days of EuroDIG as well, offering an interesting topic related event and plenty of opportunities for discussions, networking etc. ...

That's why we calculated in our budget: flights, two nights (19 and 20 June) and per diems for three days -- what I think is fair. 

As I said before (announcement and 1st reminder), we have to deal with a limited budget but let's try to make the best out of it!

I believe, the very fact to have another F2F meeting (like Paris and Mexico-City) and participating at EuroDIG offers good opportunities to promote EURALO's "community spirit", as Wolfgang said today, in a promising way.

We dealt with various limitations over the past years, I would like to concentrate on the opportunities at our front door now and invite everybody to make the best out of it! About further improvements we can always discuss -- preferably under the summer sun in Lisbon :-)

Best,
Wolf

Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:10:
>Oh no, not again the structural and procedural problems!   ;>) 
>I believe that we only have to trim the details, going forward in the
>direction that we all agreed years ago, i.e. to be open to more
>participation.
>Your point on F2F meetings as being very important is extremely well taken.
>I believe that we have to make the maximum out of this event.
>Going in this direction, I observe that Lisbon is not Frankfurt. I mean by
>this that travelling might take quite some time.
>I did a quick check, the earlier flight combination (there's no direct one)
>from Vienna arrives at 13:15. And it is not the cheapest flight. To this you
>have to add the time to get to the meeting place.
>I checked another couple of possible origin points that I could guess would
>cause problems, and the result is, if I am not mistaken, that the earliest
>arrival from Kiev is at 14:35 and from Helsinki even at 15:25.
>None of those are direct flights, nor are the cheapest solutions. I would
>guess that other north or eastern European cities might have similar
>problems.
>So, it seems to me that we are squeezing the time for EURALO plenary
>discussion a bit thin: a large number of people will not be in the meeting
>room before 15:00, some arriving as late as 17:00.
>Considering that by having wider choices for airlines people might very well
>have less expensive flights, wouldn't it be better to spend more on hotels,
>allowing people to arrive in the evening of the 18th?
>Maybe staff could do a quick check on whether my quick estimate is right or
>wrong.
>If we do this, we can have a full day of meeting, and not just a couple of
>hours with moreover some folks with a reduced span of attention because they
>had to wake up very early to take a red-eye flight at 6:00 AM?
>It just seems not to make a lot of sense to me to invest a high amount of
>money if we do not have an adequate time for discussion.
>Cheers,
>Roberto
>
>
>
>-----Messaggio originale-----
>Da: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>[mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di
>"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>Inviato: mercoledì 23 gennaio 2013 17:09
>A: Discussion for At-Large Europe; Discussion for At-Large Europe
>Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Follow up on today's teleconference
>
>Thanks Wolf & Roberto for the very inspiring Q&A. Good questions, good
>answers. It is - as Bill Clinton has said - stumbling forward and EURALO us
>still struggling with the structural and procedural problems which were
>created in the 2002 reform and its follow up. 
> 
>My experiences tell me that to create a "sporot" of a group like EURALO you
>have to have regular F2F meetings and an agenda with issues (research
>papers, conferences, actions) and clear specified responsibilities. And I
>agree with Wolf: Some of the issue and problems are linked to the simple
>fact, that without funding it is difficult to build bottom up an
>organisation of volunteers and to form such a "EUERALO spirit" among all
>members.
> 
>My hope is that Losbion will move us one step foreward and thatz ICANN will
>recognoze that it makes sense to give EURALO a regular budget to organoze an
>annual emeting either in connection with the annual EURODIG or an ICANN
>meeting if the regular ICANN meeting is held in Europe (this would be for
>2014 eiother Berlin/EURODIG or London). 
> 
>wolfgang  
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Wolf Ludwig
>Gesendet: Mi 23.01.2013 02:30
>An: Discussion for At-Large Europe
>Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Follow up on today's teleconference
>
>
>
>Dear Roberto,
>
>thanks a lot for your spontaneous comments on our today's telconf. what is
>much appreciated. Please allow me to insert my remarks in your text below.
>
>Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:21:
>>A few comments.
>>
>>Comments on the statements/consultation
>>
>>I do appreciate the exhaustive report by Olivier, but I have the 
>>impression that we all are not contributing enough to the development 
>>of these statements.
>>
>>Can we make an effort and comment on the consultations that are 
>>currently open?
>
>(WL) Yes, you are right. it would be wishful and helpful for ALAC, if there
>would be more inputs from our ALSes (or ALSes in general) to current ICANN
>issues and ALAC consultations. This was - and still is - the basic idea
>behind the RALO and regional bottom-up structure to get ideas and advice
>from the representatives of the much-cited "end user". But to me, it was
>somehow clear from the beginning that good or even best ideas won't work the
>next day or in a short term. IMO, this is an empowering process (like in
>democratic societies) where people need encouragements, more than formal
>opportunities, enabling factors and environments to make use of their rights
>... After five years at EURALO I have learned that this is a reciprocal
>process where both sides (let's say ICANN at the top, ALSes at the bottom
>line) have to match promises and expectations. And both is learning and work
>in process.
>
>>Participation of ALSes
>>
>>Would it help to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes?
>>
>>Oksana already indicated that she would contact a couple of 
>>organizations, maybe we can all help in this direction.
>>
>>I think that I have heard at some point in time the name of Vittorio. I 
>>can check with him if the absence is due to a contingent situation or a 
>>loss of interest by ISOC Italy.
>>
>>We can all make a few calls or emails, it would be good to use the GA 
>>as a chance to give new life to our RALO.
>
>(WL) For reasons of politeness and discretion, I prefer not "to circulate
>the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes" via this list but to contact
>these people directly. In my 2nd GA reminder by the end of month these
>members who have not responded to repeated invitations may be listed. And
>YES, for the Lisbon F2F GA mobilization all of us are needed and can be
>supportive! If you have a direct contact to one of our ALS reps., please
>contact them directly (in the case of ISOC Italy perhaps Sébastien and you
>-- Make assurance double sure). And you are right, the next GA is a great
>chance "to give new life to our RALO"!
>
>>Participation of individuals
>>
>>(Disclaimer: I am an individual that does not belong to an ALS, so I 
>>may be in conflict of interest)
>>
>>I agree that to have one ALS for all loose individuals is a suboptimal 
>>solution. However, can we start from here and secure at least this result?
>>We can move forward when we have this operational.
>>
>>I have always supported the importance of participation and ability to 
>>speak over ability to vote. Some other folks disagree. However, while 
>>we continue disagreeing on the need to revise the voting mechanism, can 
>>we agree on going forward with the "generic ALS" proposal that is on the
>table?
>
>(WL) As discussed tonight (there was an amazing exchange in the AC chat!),
>the current solution via the creation of a "home ALS" for floating
>individuals is "suboptimal" and won't be the end of discussion but just a
>next pragmatic step to improve EURALO's involvement and participation of
>individuals. Therefore, please move forward into this direction! And let's
>discuss improved options at the Lisbon GA. What I simply would like to avoid
>is the pre-EURALO hardcore dispute on *procedures* (2006-07) than on
>*substance and content* -- I guess, this may ring a bell to you ;-) But I
>think it's not so much about "ability to vote" and more about *equal
>opportunities* for people contributing on a regular and reliable level
>(either formal ALS reps or individuals).
>
>>Travel to Lisbon and invitation of guest speakers
>>
>>Following up to the discussion on the chat about Olivier participating 
>>to the EURALO GA, while I could share the astonishment of Oksana about 
>>the ALAC Chair not been funded for the trip, I have to admit that the 
>>rules are fairly clear: only delegates from the ALSes will be funded. 
>>This is connected to the participation of guest speakers: this requires 
>>additional funding.
>
>(WL) I always said, Olivier's participation as ALAC Chair at our GA is
>*indispensable" and I thought this question was solved tonight (as I am
>funded for Lisbon by EuroDIG, I offered "my" travel slot to Olivier to
>ensure his participation). Whether such funding rules could be improved is
>another question but can't be changed until next summer for sure.
>
>>The problem arises exclusively from the fact that we chose to have the 
>>GA as a separate venue from an ICANN meeting. We discussed this in the 
>>past, I am not criticizing the choice of privileging an event that 
>>would give us more possibility of outreach like EuroDIG, I am only 
>>noting that this advantage has also a drawback. On one hand we can 
>>contact people that would not participate to an ICANN meeting, and do 
>>outreach. On the other hand, we have difficulties (or additional costs) 
>>for having people that would have been available without problems at an
>ICANN meeting.
>
>(WL) Well, this is the same old story again (what I think I have noted
>before already): After we always and repeatedly applied for F2F GAs in line
>with ICANN meetings in Europe (Brussels in 2010, Prague in 2012) and our
>proposals were not approved by ICANN, we decided to organize our (unfunded)
>GAs in line with other major IG events in Europe -- such as the global IGF
>2010 in Vilnius, EuroDIG 2011 in Belgrade and 2012 in Stockholm. What was a
>sort of "stopgap" at the beginning showed some advantages for EURALO's
>outreach over these years -- enhanced by the fact that EURALO became a key
>driver for the EuroDIG process. I agree, both options (ICANN or EuroDIG)
>have advantages and disadvantages (to be further discussed).
>
>>Incidentally, as I commented on the chat, Francisco da Silva, TLG 
>>Liaison to the ICANN Board, is based in Lisbon. Besides having another 
>>Board member as keynote speaker, we could invite Francisco as well, at 
>>zero cost, and maybe dedicate some time of our AGM to the communication 
>>between ALAC and the technical community, of which the TLG is a component.
>
>(WL) I am much in favor of inviting a "guest speaker" to our GA (Sébastien
>wouldn't be a guest at EURALO but a founding member ;-) and let's reflect
>about and suggest wishful candidates. But what I really would like to avoid
>is a "row of eminences" (like at other RALO GAs in the past) or the usual
>"show cases" where NO space and time is left for our own community
>discussions and interaction -- what is a top priority to me at the moment!
>
>>ICANN Regions
>>
>>The main reason why ICANN has regions is for Board elections. And the 
>>ICANN Board will never use an arbitrary designation of regions, to avoid
>problems.
>>So, it will stick as much as possible with the UN Statistics 
>>definition, with minor adjustments only in the case of some powerful voice
>yelling loud.
>>If this happens, we find ourselves with things like some Pacific 
>>Islands being in Europe.
>>
>>This said, other components of the ICANN community have some 
>>flexibility. In the chat we discussed the status of Armenia. Well, if 
>>you go to the site of the Armenian NIC (https://www.amnic.net/) you see 
>>that it is a member of RIPE (as Armenian addressing organization) and a 
>>member of CENTR (as Armenian TLD). Why cannot ALAC have the same 
>>flexibility in the allocation of an ALS to a RALO? This is a fight worth
>fighting, IMHO.
>>
>>Of course, there are limitations. If you look carefully at the ccNSO 
>>and ASO, you discover that the composition of the Councils and the 
>>election of the ICANN Board members do indeed respect rigorously the 
>>geographical distribution. Moreover, the ccNSO site shows the national 
>>ccTLD members as belonging to the ICANN Region (see 
>>http://ccnso.icann.org/about/members.htm), even if then they have the 
>>flexibility to join a regional organization that is not the one to 
>>which they belong geographically.
>>
>>I have always insisted on the fact that we have great potential for 
>>outreach and collaboration with ccTLDs: the regional organization is 
>>one example where this communication can be extremely useful.
>
>(WL) The rubbery and unrewarding discussion on ICANN's regional model is
>always reaffirming where the model comes from and why it's stupid and
>inflexible as it is ... and when nothing changes, it's getting boring. In
>fact, we drafted a EURALO statement on the regions (what was in vain again
>-- see attachment) where we highlighted other European perceptions (like CoE
>and other models) and special cases like Armenia etc. IMO, it would bring NO
>harm to the ICANN model to provide a certain flexibility for special cases
>to choose and decide about their regional affiliation ...
>
>>As a side note, I will most probably be in the Caucasus area around the 
>>second half of May, I will be ready to spend some time in visiting the 
>>ALSes and ccTLDs in the region. I believe we have an ALS in Armenia and 
>>one in Azerbaijan, but none in Georgia.
>
>(WL) Your support is always welcome, Roberto!
>
>Thanks again and kind regards,
>Wolf
>
>EuroDIG Secretariat
>http://www.eurodig.org/
>mobile +41 79 204 83 87
>Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
>
>EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
><http://euralo.org/> 
>
>Profile on LinkedIn
>http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
>
>Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
>
>Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>
>

EuroDIG Secretariat
http://www.eurodig.org/
mobile +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig

EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
http://euralo.org

Profile on LinkedIn
http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig