[EURO-Discuss] My comment on nominations
senges at uno-komitee.de
Fri May 4 05:52:25 EDT 2007
> I would like to see a discussion in first person among the three
> candidates, also in terms of programs and objectives, so that I can
> have something to report to my ALS when we'll have to decide who to
> vote for.
And I understand veronica has just begun this discussion. I know its late
but better late than never and we are, after all pioneering our practices,
so there needs to be some room for bricolage.
Unfortunately i have a pre-scheduled meeting today at 4 UTC. Hence I would
appreciate if the results of the meeting are reported to the list and ALSs
that can not participate in the meeting get the chance to support proposed
solutions or express concerns and disagreement.
> > I just got back from a few days offline, and I did not
> expect to find
> > such a complex situation again :)
> Maybe you should not remain offline ;>)
> > I must say that I am concerned by the fact that often, once
> we agree
> > on processes or documents, after a while people start to complain
> > about having changed their mind, or that they weren't
> really reading
> > what they were signing, and so on. It's a bit difficult to
> go anywhere
> > that way.
> As the Cheshire Cat tols Alice (in Wonderland): "That depends
> a good deal on where you want to get to".
> If you plan to look at the book to see the reference, have a
> look also at the other chapter, starting from the line: "How
> do you know I'm mad?".
> > Now, for the sake of keeping the pieces together, I am
> willing to go
> > over the fact that some nominations were made after the deadline
> > (whichever of the many deadlines one wanted to pick), or about the
> > other debatable points, though that requires everyone's
> good will, and
> > I'm not sure what happened if anyone went to ICANN and complained
> > about the formal irregularities, or whether ICANN is
> willing to live
> > with them.
> The Board would not interfere, unless forced to. However, the
> Ombudsman will not let it go, and you bet that he will raise
> yet another report against how ALAC disregards its own
> procedures. Since I'm in the mood for quotes, here's another
> one: "Those who don't learn from history are bound to live it
> through again".
> To be honest, I don't see the benefit of putting the nearly
> born EURALO in what will be a very difficult, probably
> undefendable position, if a complaint is raised to the
> Ombudsman (or if he starts his own investigation
> - remember that we obviously are on public record with this
> > About the nominations for the ALAC, I do not see much
> desire to come
> > to agreement so I guess that we will have to vote.
> > Specifically, I have no problems with Veronica not being an
> ALS member
> > (as long as we can get away with it with ICANN) or not being
> > experienced, but I have a problem with appointing someone whom I
> > basically don't know, who has not been active in the EURALO
> process up
> > to now, and who is not even advocating for herself on this list. I
> > would like to see a discussion in first person among the three
> > candidates, also in terms of programs and objectives, so that I can
> > have something to report to my ALS when we'll have to decide who to
> > vote for.
> As I have commented a while ago, it's all about participation
> vs. vote. If you can get away with the vote, who cares about
> participation? It's irrelevant detail.
> We have been through this already, don't we?
> > For what regards the EURALO Board, I think that we now have
> too many
> > nominations, and not very well balanced in terms of reflecting the
> > diversity in the constituency (eg geography, ISOC folks vs
> WSIS folks,
> > ALS vs individuals etc). I would suggest that we pick a reasonable
> > size for the Board - I'd suggest seven - and vote for the Board as
> > well.
> What was wrong with the initial proposal of five? Shall we
> widen the Board only because we have more candidates?
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but one of the points we
> discussed in Frankfurt and Berlin was that the Board had to
> be an agile structure.
> Considering the difficulties we have in even organizing a
> teleconference for EURALO (you all have witnessed the recent
> case), the larger the Board the lower the chance it can work properly.
> Incidentally, past experience of ALAC has suggested to adopt
> minimum participation rules. My little finger tells me that
> we will find the need to do the same in EURALO Board. As for
> the EURALO reps to the ALAC, the overall ALAC rules apply.
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
More information about the EURO-Discuss