[EURO-Discuss] transparency on changes of rules

Nick Ashton-Hart nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
Tue May 8 06:45:14 EDT 2007

See below:

On 08/05/07, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg at web.de> wrote:
> Dear Nick,
> You just wrote:
> "Whilst no impediment to participating in the work of the organisation
> is otherwise envisaged, it was strongly felt that only ALSes who are a
> party to the MoU with ICANN should cast votes in the upcoming election."
> It is hard to understand the deeper significance of this sentence,
> especially for non-native english speakers.

A thousand pardons - that is a rather unfortunate sentence.

To clarify:

On the teleconference, it was unanimously expressed that only ALSes
who had signed the MoU prior to the vote should be eligible to vote.

> After Lisbon I talked with you on the phone about the rights of ALSes
> who did not sign the MOU. You said, that there is no difference
> concerning voting rights in comparison to those who signed it.
> After our talk you wrote on the list:
> PARTICIPATE IN ALL ASPECTS OF THE EURALO. There has been some question
> about this raised in previous emails. I hope this reinforces that there
> is nothing to worry about."
> Based on your mail, all accredited ALSes could expect to have voting
> rights without limitations. But according to your latest mail it seems
> that restrictions occured to those who did not sign and voting rights
> have been limited to MOU signers - except they would sign within the
> next two days.
> How can you expect that volunteer representatives of our ALSes can meet
> such short term deadlines?
> So, if inbetween your two eMails (mentioned above) limitations on rights
> of ALSes have been introduced:  what changes exactly were made? why?
> when? by whom?

As mentioned above, this was the unanimous view of those participating
on the teleconference on 4th May.

I remember our call, and also my email on the subject, but please
remember: the MoU always provided for the ability of the signing
organisations to limit certain aspects of participation by non-signing

This was put in not really in relation to the current ALSes but
because in the future, there will be entirely new ALSes, and those who
are a part of the MoU may wish to require them to 'sign up' to the MoU
in order to participate in some ways. Equally, signers may not care to
impose any conditions - it was deliberately left flexible.

As to the timeframe to sign up, it would be incorrect to say that they
have only two days to make this decision. In truth, the MoU has been
signed now for more than a month; those who had not yet indicated
their digital signature could have done so at any time between the
signing ceremony on 30th March to the present date.

Please remember that these decisions are up to you and if you wish to
object, you can object.

That would I think delay the vote on the ALAC members and the board,
which would be unfortunate; the signing organisations would then need
to conduct a separate vote on whether or not non-signers could vote,
and only after that vote could we then conduct the election.

> Best
> Annette


Nick Ashton-Hart
PO Box 32160
London N4 2XY
United Kingdom
UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011
USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135
mobile: +44 (7774) 932798
Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com /
Skype: nashtonhart
Online Bio:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list