[EURO-Discuss] transparency on changes of rules

[Wolf Ludwig]

Dear Nick,

some weeks ago, I think shortly after Lisbon, I expressed my willingness to sign the MoU 
-- but our application is still pending (because we have to do formal modifications in
our bylaws to meet the requirements -- what we can provide already in fact, but bylaw 
modifications are taking time as we only have one general assembly a year!).

As far as I know, there are several confirmed ALS which have internal democratic
consultation and decision-making processes prior to come up with an external 
obligation (such as signing a MoU etc.) Some of those ALS are mere volunteer 
organisations and decent democratic processes are thereby taking time, as we know.

Therefore I find it somehow inappropriate "to punish" those small volunteer orgs. by
restricting their voting rights in this start-up process for creating a first EURALO board.
Even if it may be an option in the MoU, as it was quoted, it doesn't make sense to me
under the given circumstances. We shouldn't start EURALO as a two-classes society
or as a regional structure of different speeds. I think we need other political signals
and encouragements for a vivid EURALO future!

Regards,
Wolf

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote Tue, 8 May 2007 11:45:
>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:
>> "At the present time, NO LIMITATIONS ON NON-SIGNING ALSes HAVE BEEN
>> PROPOSED OR AGREED. Therefore, ALL ALSes IN EUROPE HAVE FULL RIGHTS TO
>> 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
>organisations.
>
>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
>>
>
>
>-- 
>-- 
>Regards,
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>

comunica-ch
phone +41 79 204 83 87
www.comunica-ch.net