[EURO-Discuss] Regional advice on France at Large application needed

Tue Apr 29 08:53:04 EDT 2008

Dear Jefsey,

JFC Morfin wrote:
>First point, I do not want to create a contentious issue between us 
>and ICANN while we have _many_ other priorities preparing the World 
>Internet Week de Paris (http://wiw.de-paris.info). So, these mails 
>will not be copied immediately on our general list which has now 23 
>members, nor to the 700 Members (including ICANN Board Member) FGI 
>list. However, your mails did leaked and the first questions are >coming in.

Thanks, Jefsey, nor do I.

>For seven years I am used to explain people round the world and in 
>France that ICANN does not disregard the @large, just ingnores them. 
>Do not be afraid, I will manage to explain them that ALAC does 
>better. But I cannot know what people will do with it.

I have heard that you are involved in ICANN issues since many years and much longer than I am. And therefore it’s difficult for newcomers like me to „judge“ on old-hands like you; with the questions I raised I was not questioning your merits.

(...)
>Let me first ask you what is your job in this case, what is the role 
>of the people in copy. You are not on the published ALAC lists. (...)

My job in this and other application cases is the one of an acting chair of EURALO at the moment. In this function all the applications regarding our geographic region are transferred to us to be verified by the board and to come up with an opinion and recommendation before ALAC takes a decision on approval or disapproval. Our verification is based on the Application and Due Diligence form submitted by the staff. Besides this we do consult the Website of the applicant and collect further infos from people who may know the organisation or people involved etc. When we get contradictory infos on an applicant – as it was the case here – the issue always becomes difficult for the RALO and board involved to come up with a unanimous recommendation for ALAC.

>(...) to understand who (except Cheryl) are the people you involve in Cc, who are the four decision makers and the three members of the Staff you discuss.

Until yesterday we tried to keep this discussion as internal as possible; to my knowledge there were ALAC and EURALO board members and the Staff involved.

>This may explain me some of the oddities I do not understand. May be, 
>could you please explain what is exactly the internal procedure you >follow.

As I mentioned before and as Nick stated: „... the ALS Application Evaluation process in the document previously attached“.

(...)
>Let me clarify. I revived france at large after so many years of ICANN 
>disinterest in what we consider @larges are. This is only to try to 
>help ICANN stabilize better in the societal and cultural changes we 
>are involved in. france at larege being an ALS is of interest to ICANN 
>only if we welcome ICANN in Paris as an ALS. (...)

If I understand you right the questions and options I raised cannot contribute to a constructive solution in this matter – and I would never dare „pulling (your) leg“ BTW. 

>Please do not call "inconsistent" or "controversial" what only 
>reflect lacks in the Staff review of our registration. (...)

It was not only the Staff review showing “inconsistencies” and what made the application "controversial".

Bref: Pour le moment je me sens mal-placé à proposer une solution valable ou vivable, Jefsey. The only thing I know at the moment is that we need a way out and a valid solution in this matter.

Best regards,
Wolf

JFC Morfin Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:43:
>Dear Wolf,
>First point, I do not want to create a contentious issue between us 
>and ICANN while we have _many_ other priorities preparing the World 
>Internet Week de Paris (http://wiw.de-paris.info). So, these mails 
>will not be copied immediately on our general list which has now 23 
>members, nor to the 700 Members (including ICANN Board Member) FGI 
>list. However, your mails did leaked and the first questions are coming in.
>
>For seven years I am used to explain people round the world and in 
>France that ICANN does not disregard the @large, just ingnores them. 
>Do not be afraid, I will manage to explain them that ALAC does 
>better. But I cannot know what people will do with it.
>
>At 01:26 29/04/2008, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
>>Dear Jefsey,
>>as I mentioned before in (one of) my mails to Vittorio, I don't want 
>>to make my opinion regarding your application to a personal affair. 
>>As I mentioned before as well, there were several people  mostly 
>>independent and unbiased - looking at your application and showing 
>>up with almost the same questions again. This is anything else but a 
>>conspiracy, perhaps a surprising coincidence.
>>
>>As it seems to me after today's discussion, we cannot come up with 
>>an unanimous position from the EURALO board and membership at the 
>>very moment and until April 30 (deadline of the ALAC decision after 
>>consultation with the RALO concerned). Therefore let me ask you the 
>>following questions â€" what you partly suggested (if I understood 
>>it well) in your response:
>
>Before answering this, I need to understand better an organisation we 
>are just joining.
>
>Let me first ask you what is your job in this case, what is the role 
>of the people in copy. You are not on the published ALAC lists. I 
>went to the ICANN site and looked for a few names to understand who 
>(except Cheryl) are the people you involve in Cc, who are the four 
>decision makers and the three members of the Staff you discuss. All 
>this sounds pure rigmarole to me, when you probably try to follow one 
>of the many bureaucratic ICANN procedures.
>
>- Ludwig Wolf = one (your application)
>- france at large = four (not ours yet)
>- Langdon-Orr = nineteen.
>- Massimilino Minisci = None.
>- Jefsey, Jefsey Morfin or JFC = 1743.
>
>This may explain me some of the oddities I do not understand. May be, 
>could you please explain what is exactly the internal procedure you follow.
>
>>1- Could you, given the fact that your application is controversial, 
>>accept a prolongation of the ALAC approval deadline by  let's say  
>>two months or the end of the 32nd ICANN Public Meeting in Paris? 
>>This would give us a chance to sit together in Paris and to 
>>re-discuss all the open and unclear questions and inconsistencies 
>>regarding your application.
>
>Let me clarify. I revived france at large after so many years of ICANN 
>disinterest in what we consider @larges are. This is only to try to 
>help ICANN stabilize better in the societal and cultural changes we 
>are involved in. france at larege being an ALS is of interest to ICANN 
>only if we welcome ICANN in Paris as an ALS. We registered for that 
>in due time. We _do_not_understand_ all this fuss. I must say that I 
>only take it as personal, what I am used to. I am also used to 
>politically win. But I do not see the reasons of the fight.
>
>>2- Could you, in the meantime, forward all supplementary information 
>>needed to the ICANN staff in charge or the EURALO board to better 
>>answer the existing questions and clarify inconsistencies?
>
>Let me kindly ask you if you are pulling my leg? At the present time 
>I know no question. I just learned today about a circulated document 
>which is purely absurd. It only shows that author does not know about 
>mailman, nor about the law.
>
>>3- Could we sort out controversial points regarding France at Large's 
>>application, in the time frame mentioned, before referring to other 
>>instances (such as Ombudsman or media)?
>
>Please do not call "inconsistent" or "controversial" what only 
>reflect lacks in the Staff review of our registration. I have no 
>intent, if we can avoid it, on such a trivial issue, to bother Frank 
>Fowlie and the Board. But you have to realise that france at large is 
>known to journalists in France as the odd people who want to help the 
>ICANN transition. And I am also known. We have started the 
>http://wikicann.org site to document this help and inform the press, 
>media and public independently. It was very recently started : you 
>can go and check that it was already accessed 2300 times. These are 
>not things prepared at the last minute. I am not the master of what 
>will be published when people discover your mails.
>
>>As you may know, the RALO concerned can only express its opinion and 
>>recommendation on an application and ALAC will take the decision. 
>>Therefore itâ€™s on ALAC to decide on any prolongation in this 
>>matter but I wanted to sort out the options of a potential solution 
>>in the interest of the RALO concerned.
>
>As france at large, I am only concerned by the interest of ICANN and of 
>our members. This necessarily demands a war/cooperation decision of 
>ICANN to be reached before two weeks. I am certainly ready to provide 
>answers to professional questions, but I have difficulties 
>understanding what I have not provided yet in our file and on the phone.
>
>I certainly understand how it is embrassing. All this seems to be new 
>both to us and to ICANN/ALAC. Let just address it professionnally. It 
>should only be smooth. (Just for your information I am moving my 
>office and I have most of my stuff packed).
>
>Cheers!
>jfc
>

comunica-ch
phone +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
www.comunica-ch.net

http://blog.allmend.ch -
Digitale Allmend