[EURO-Discuss] Bylaws Review (was: Re: nomination for EURALO officers)
jjs at dyalog.net
Tue Aug 4 09:06:17 UTC 2015
I fully support Olivier's analysis and suggestions.
----- Mail original -----
De: "Oliver Passek" <oliver.passek at gmx.de>
À: ocl at gih.com
Cc: "Euralo" <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Oksana Prykhodko" <sana.pryhod at gmail.com>
Envoyé: Mardi 4 Août 2015 09:49:34
Objet: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Bylaws Review (was: Re: nomination for EURALO officers)
Thank you Olivier for all the detailed explanations - Being an ALS delegate from the "early" (Berlin, Paris...) days, EURALO has always had some difficulties how to better involve our broader member basis in regular ICANN discussions, but in my opinion our bylaws are not the main obstacle in this respect - policy issues like the ICANN responsibility for the global public interest have to have priority. Therefore - I agree with Olivier - let’s concentrate on more relevant or urgent policy topics like the Next Generation gTLD`s and so on.
Gesendet: Montag, 03. August 2015 um 18:42 Uhr
Von: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com>
An: "Plamena Popova" <plam.popova at gmail.com>, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>
Cc: Euralo <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Oksana Prykhodko" <sana.pryhod at gmail.com>
Betreff: [EURO-Discuss] Bylaws Review (was: Re: nomination for EURALO officers)
I have been following with great interest the thread about examination of Bylaws from its start and I apologise if I have not been active earlier but I was busy in recent weeks.
In my opinion, the very fact that we are having this conversation makes me think that we will indeed need to review the EURALO Bylaws. But we also have to be aware of one thing: whilst Bylaws Review might be interesting for a subset of EURALO members, a discussion about the Bylaws during our EURALO General Assembly in Dublin will bore most people in the room, especially people who are not lawyers.
I therefore suggest the following:
1. A EURALO Bylaws Review group could be formed, with its own mailing list and it should select a Chair to drive the Bylaw Review work forward. It will start its work as soon as its Chair decides to move forward.
2. In Dublin, the EURALO Bylaws Review Working Group will meet face to face to make good use of the ability to meet face to face, to make as much progress as possible on the Bylaws revision. It could spend 90 minutes working face to face (which is the usual length of a full ICANN Session). Staff could arrange for a room/time for the group to meet.
3. In Dublin, the EURALO Bylaws working group will have 10-15 minutes (including question time) during the EURALO General Assembly to explain their progress to the other EURALO members.
I do not expect the work to progress so quickly for the EURALO Bylaws Review to be ready to have a full set of proposed revisions for the whole of EURALO to decide on. Time is just way too short.
I also expect that this working group will not take all of EURALO member time, and thus hope that EURALO members will be able to engage in many other projects.
Indeed, I am especially keen to see EURALO members engage in ICANN Policy Work and am thrilled to note that some of our ALSes have recently commented directly in ICANN policy processes. If only I could convince their representative to hold the pen on some ALAC Statements! :-)
For your kind reminder, you can see all of the work the ALAC does in Policy on: https://community.icann.org/x/bwFO
We have BIG questions that have just opened: The IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal, the ICANN Accountability Proposal (which will open in a few hours) and the Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS preliminary report. All of this is taking place during August (and some closing in early September) so when you are taking a break from work, choose your topic, read the reports, comment.
On 29/07/2015 20:05, Plamena Popova wrote:
It was not my intention to insist on the overcoming (compared to issues as IANA transition etc.) priority of bylaws' review for EURALO nor to include this into the agenda for Dublin' meeting.
On the other hand, it should be noticed that this is not first time when the review of bylaws is asked.
The fact that the bylaws does not correspond to the current situation in EURALO could not be neglected for indefinite period.
As for the meaningful changes - these proposals may be a result of a work on the issue (though I think that some problems were already raised even in the above correspondence).
So I totally agree with Chris that this represents an issue that should be addressed at some point after Dublin (the meeting could however provide opportunity for start thinking on these).
All the best,
2015-07-29 1:26 GMT+03:00 Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com > :
If there is the need to improve the bylaws, of course this needs to be done.
On the other hand, before deciding to dedicate prime time in Dublin to address this point, we need to be sure that we are not unnecessarily postponing more important and/or urgent issues, or even wasting time in pointless discussions.
When this issue was raised a couple of years ago, my question was: “What exactly do we need to change and why?”
I still believe that, before including this item in the agenda for Dublin (or even for other meetings before or after Dublin), we need to have a meaningful answer to this question.
Da: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge- lists.icann.org ] Per conto di Plamena Popova
Inviato: martedì 28 luglio 2015 21:03
A: Chris LaHatte
Cc: Euralo; Oksana Prykhodko
Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] nomination for EURALO officers
Of course, there are issues which are of immediate importance for EURALO.
While the need of reforming the bylaws (as Chris points) is also apparent and should be addressed sooner or later.
So, I believe that Dublin will provide an opportunity to start thinking on the options.
All the best,
2015-07-28 10:53 GMT+03:00 Chris LaHatte < chris.lahatte at icann.org >:
I agree with the priorities Bill. But sooner or later, this does need to be tackled, perhaps after Dublin. It's not very exciting of course, perhaps a project for a keen young newbie?
Sent from my iPad
On 28/07/2015, at 7:30 pm, William Drake < wjdrake at gmail.com > wrote:
It is not entirely evident to me from the discussion thus far that a bylaws revision is the most pressing challenge facing Euralo. I suppose there may well be some ways in which they could be improved, but I doubt these account for e.g. relatively low engagement and productivity in ICANN policy processes. I’d think we would want to see what could be done about that first. Wolf’s good suggestion of focusing the Dublin discussion on European user perspectives on the global public interest would seem to offer the possibility of a vibrant discussion, which could lead to people feeling primed to go further and build some momentum as a community. Concentrating on bylaws or apparent historical interpersonal disputes would probably have the opposite effect. So why not set priorities and then tackle things in sequence?
On Jul 26, 2015, at 11:54 PM, Chris LaHatte < chris.lahatte at icann.org > wrote:
If I may add my views, it may be useful, when members have the time (and I do know this is a frantically busy time for our volunteers with the IANA discussions), to start a bylaw review. Members will be aware that some issues have arisen about interpretation, and perhaps when the WGs have finished the current rounds of talks, someone could initiate this.
All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint
From: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [ mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Plamena Popova
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 4:11 AM
To: Wolf Ludwig < wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net >
Cc: Discussion for At-Large Europe < euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org >; Oksana Prykhodko < sana.pryhod at gmail.com >
Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] nomination for EURALO officers
Thanks a lot for the detailed reply and clarifications :) It is much easier to understand the whole picture now.
Unfortunately, I was not able to take part in these discussions till this moment.
As stated above, the initial intention was to register EURALO in Germany and the Bylaws follow basically the german law' requirements (and this is why the registration is mentioned in the bylaws itself).
So I was thinking - if the initial intention (for registration) is abandoned (due to the following discussions and compromises within the association) may be it would be proper the bylaws to be adapted to the new situation?
Eventual review and adaptation of the bylaws may be a good idea in order these to serve to the current/actual will/perception of the EURALO' members of the processes within the organisation. I keep thinking that (the bylaws) should be in line with the actual intentions of the organisation in question.
By the way, eventual amendments of bylaws are under the competency of GA according to the same bylaws. Anyway - I did not see any specific procedure for review/amendments included in the bylaws.
All the best,
2015-07-24 0:24 GMT+03:00 Wolf Ludwig < wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net >:
thanks for your questions (even if some of them have been discussed and answered before). Allow me to insert my answers below.
Plamena Popova wrote Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:37:
>So a few questions were invoked.
>First I am curious (it may be an ignorant question, but I prefer to receive
>clarity) whether EURALO is indeed registered under any legal system of any
>As Art. 1.1. states "1 The Association bears the name “ICANN European
>Internet Users Forum” (hereinafter referred to as “The Association”) and
>shall be registered as required by law"
(Wolf) EURALO’s Bylaws were drafted between autumn 2006 and spring 2007 by some of the founding members (Annette Mühlberg, Christoph Bruch etc.) and mainly according to German association law standards (which are complex, detailed and strict). That’s the reason why some parts (e. g. Part E, Financial matters, Art. 7 f., parts of Art. 9 or 10) were designed bulky, theoretical and beyond the practical requirements of EURALO. Lighter bylaw standards or versions (such as Belgian or Swiss standards) were unfortunately not considered at the time. After the drafting was accomplished, there was a strong opposition among founding members against an official registration in Germany (what is usually a “eingetragener Verein” or registered association). The compromise was to have a parallel MoU with ICANN what was a basic requirement for EURALO’s recognition by ICANN and its operation afterwards. Consequently, EURALO was created inline with the ICANN meeting in spring 2007 in Lisbon by signing the MoU with ICANN (members who signed at the time were Annette Mühlberg, Sébastien Bachollet, Rudi Vansnick, Vittorio Bertola etc.). Roberto Gaetano was also closely involved at that time, being on the ICANN Board more in an “observer” role.
>So the question invoked is in order to clarify which law is in fact
>applicable or shall be applicable (when and if registered) to the
(Wolf) As mentioned before, as there was no compromise found “under which law” or in which country EURALO should be registered, there was no registration at the time. In various European countries a registration is not mandatory for non-profit associations (unlike business entities).
>As per the current situation (if understand it correctly) - Euralo
>represents an association (if not registered) of organisations (legal
>persons themselves) which activity is followed by norms (bylaws) whose
>legal nature is quite uncertain.
>The Memorandum with ICANN is signed by single organisations, not by EURALO
>as a legal person.
(Wolf) The MoU with ICANN was signed by members / individuals being present in Lisbon at the time on behalf of their organisations (certified ALSes). And not by EURALO, as you assume, “as a legal person”.
>So I think that there is a point to ask clarifications on the legal basis.
(Wolf) As mentioned before, there was no requirement for the founding members to create such a “legal basis” or entity. The operational basis for EURALO is the MoU with ICANN by fulfilling respective requirements and the substance of our Bylaws like organizing one GA per year, presenting and approving an annual report, holding elections of officers and being accountable towards its members (these are basic prescriptions of different European association laws). Over 8 years since its inception these rules were always approved with vast majorities of EURALO’s members.
>As per the other issues raised in the correspondence - I have some thoughts
>on these also: Wolf is referring to 11.5.9. of the Bylaws - so I was
>wondering whether the online voting for Secretariat in 2013 (after the GA
>in Lisbon) represents a GA itself under the meaning of 11.7 of the bylaws
>(pointing out specific requirements for a meeting online or other to be a
>GA) or not.
(Wolf) In my previous mail you refer to, I was pointing to Art. 11.5.9. (“Installation of the Secretariat and review of the working of the same“) what simply confirms the rule and mandate of the GA for selecting the Secretariat. The “online voting for Secretariat in 2013 after the GA in Lisbon” – you mentioned as well – was based and necessary according to Art. 11.20. („For all elections in the General Assembly, candidates shall require an absolute majority of votes of the participating members. If no candidate receives an absolute majority a run-off election shall take place between the two candidates with the greatest number of votes.“). As repeatedly noted before, DUE TO a *non-absolute majority* during the GA the necessity of a run-off election was confirmed in Lisbon by 5 Board members independently checking our bylaw prescription (Art. 11.20.) and consequently mandating At-Large Staff to organize such a subsequent Online voting.
I hope that my answers and deliberations may be helpful.
>2015-07-23 13:12 GMT+03:00 Oksana Prykhodko < sana.pryhod at gmail.com >:
>> Communication in this way can force me to stop discussion here, but can't
>> force me to stop to act.
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Wolf Ludwig < wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net >
>>> If there wouldn't be "any legal basis" like our Bylaws (Chair – see Art.
>>> 9.5 and 9.6 resp. Secretariat – see Art 11.5.9), you couldn't have been
>>> elected for the Secretariat end of May 2011 at the Belgrad GA ;-) The very
>>> fact that you were not reelected in June 2013 (run-off vote -- see Art.
>>> 11.20) doesn't support your sole opinion that there is "no legal basis".
>>> And BTW, you had your chance to complain against me with the Ombudsman
>>> and your complaint was not approved by him. Repeating false assumptions is
>>> not helpful at all.
>>> Oksana Prykhodko wrote Wed, 22 Jul 2015 20:08:
>>> >Dear Wolf,
>>> >Thank you very much for your "explanations". May be we need something
>>> >Any legal basis, for example?
>>> >Best regards,
>>> >On Jul 22, 2015 4:44 PM, "Wolf Ludwig" < wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net >
>>> >> Hello,
>>> >> as clearly explained at yesterday's call, the EURALO leadership or
>>> >> officers comprise two positions:
>>> >> a) the Chair and b) the Secretariat (both two years terms) which need
>>> >> be re-elected at the Dublin GA.
>>> >> The call for nominations will we opened shortly by At-Large Staff.
>>> >> Best,
>>> >> Wolf
>>> >> Oksana Prykhodko wrote Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:20:
>>> >> >Dear all,
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Following our yesterday discussion, I would like to ask to clarify,
>>> >> >which positions we have to nominate?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I am sure that there is no doubt with nomination of Olivier for EURALO
>>> >> >Chair.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >What is the second position?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Best regards,
>>> >> >Oksana
>>> >> >
>>> >> 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
>>> EuroDIG Secretariat
>>> mobile +41 79 204 83 87
>>> Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
>>> EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
>>> Profile on LinkedIn
>> EURO-Discuss mailing list
>> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
mobile +41 79 204 83 87
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
Profile on LinkedIn
EURO-Discuss mailing list
EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
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 --
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ 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
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
More information about the EURO-Discuss