[EURO-Discuss] FW: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: alac review]] by Jeanette Hofmann

[At-Large Staff]

Mail by Jeanette Hofmann for the EURALO discuss list, forwarded by Staff.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review]
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:06:16 +0100
From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
To: Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>


Hi, I agree with Heike. It would be good to have a statement that
challenges the report on methodological grounds. A second part of a
statement could list a few goals we would like to see achieved in the
context of the JPA termination.
jeanette

Heike Jensen wrote:
> Thanks for posting the notes, Bill, but is that really the latest version? I
> thought that you had reworked the text to make it more coherent? The below,
> I think, is hard to understand for people who were not present at the
> meeting.
>
> A point that I would like to reiterate in terms of our approach to the
> review is that I think it would be important to distinguish between content
> (are they suggesting what we would like them to suggest?) and methodology
> (does their review make sense, and do they arrive at their conclusions in a
> logical manner?). I think our criticism is most credible when concerned with
> the latter. As for the former, I think we need to discuss whether we would
> like to reiterate our suggestions, but in any case they should be clearly
> set apart from our methodological critique.
>
> Heike
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> To: "Discussion for At-Large Europe" <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Wolf Ludwig
> <wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Vittorio that it would be much easier - especially for those
>> who haven't
>> been in Paris - to have some starting points already (otherwise it would
>> habe been
>> rather useless to sit together in Paris for almost two hours). We could
>> use the "starting
>> points" as a basis for further considerations and suggestions on the list.
>
> Ok then, by popular demand, below are the notes I received on the
> initial discussion.  I've left them in their raw state---there are
> some general cross-cutting points about overall thrust and balance and
> the target audience (believe we settled on the board wg) followed by
> issue-specific points grouped under the section headings of the draft
> summary report.  Perhaps as a first step people could read the full
> draft report and then provide any comments using these headings for
> easy identification.  After everything's on the table a few of us
> could form a drafting group to massage the inputs into an integrated
> text.  I'll volunteer to be part of that group.
>
>> I suggest that afterwards we give about 10-14 days for discussion
>> to come up with a consolidated and final EURALO Statement
>> around 15 July.
>
> Some time is needed between discussion/inputs and production of a
> statement, so unless there's some urgency relating to the board
> wg/Westlake production schedule I'd suggest we think in terms of the
> week of the 21st for the latter.  If others will be in Meissen for
> Wolfgang's Internet governance summer school, we could even finalize
> in person.  And of course the resulting text should be cleared through
> list before sending it off.  In any event, since this will be Euralo's
> first substantive output we should ensure we get the process right and
> help set a foundation for future work.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
> ------------
>
> Express concerns:
> Staff ­ several layers of indirectness
> Budget independence
> Positive, points we agree with
> What should have been looked at
> Giving some recommendations
> Individual memberships
> Participation of users
> Voting rights on supporting organizations (gnso) and boardŠ
> Surprise about statements the range is not wide ­ ahistoricalŠ
>
> Who to address:
> The Westlake group?
> The Board?
>
>
> Process:
> Conflict of interests the very staff who is responsible
>
> You did not examine the role of staff:
>
> The procedure of the selection of the reviewer was not transparent.
>
> Although the review was mandated by the bylaws, the date of reviewing
> was unlucky because it reviewed the interim alac.
>
> 1. The way the contract was done.
> 2. Allocation in management of the contract
> 3. Timing of the report (mandated by bylaws)
> 4. Relationship to staff ­ dependency conflict of interests
> 5. Not everyone has been interviewed
> 6. Skope: Terms of reference
>
> Assessment of key factors affecting alac s effectiveness:
> Staff,
> History, individual membership
> Constitutional question of role of alac
> At-Large structure participation
> Democratizing icann
> Budget
> Focus on the committee itself
> The skope is weak in terms analyzing of the relationship of the
> committee board and constituent membership at-large
>
> Promote web
> Did they not get it by accident or did they not get it because they
> were instructed to not get it.
>
> Introduction:
> Procedural points:
>
> History of the ALAC starts in 1999. That means you cannot look at the
> ALAC without looking at the At-Large.
>
> Purpose of alac
> The good part of the review is they mention ­ accountability of icann
> Give representation of the users in icann
> Terms of referenceŠ
>
> Structural options:
> The range of options considered where at some place excentric, and
> other options promoting the bottom up involvement of users (which make
> more sense were not mentioned.)
> They should be transparent about the options chosen from the data they
> collected. As it is clear that other options have been mentioned.
>
>
> Geography:
> Positive, that they looked at the population and to find a way of good
> user´s representation.
> It would be adv
> Problem of pure numeric representation should be mentioned.
> Different cultures, languages, political structures.
> A very non-scientific approach. Methodologically unsophisticated.
> Resolution premature, and it would be best to take that issue up in
> icanns larger regional represantation.
> No reference had been made to former studies on geographic regional
> representation (sub-organisations).
>
> Future developments of growing number of ALSes were not taken into account.
>
>
> ALAC influence:
> Ok
>
> Board liaison:
> Voting: We find that the logic is amusing/ flawed. If having a vote
> hampers consensus building on the board than all of the stakeholders
> shouldŠ
> All board members should be treated equally
> A vote on the board
> While we understand the concern that giving a vote to a committee that
> might change its status of the ALAC this will not change the procedure
> of consensus building.
> The gac was offered voting rights, they did not want.
> (Later: maybe a clear statement: We would like to have it.)
>
> The quote: "`to act in what [directors] reasonably believe ar the best
> interests of ICANN and not asŠ.`"
>
> Secondly we find the conclusion that giving alac a vote would dilute
> rather than increase its influence because of the duty to serve the
> interest of Icann
> Is based on a false dichotomy.
> Alac members are fully invested in ICANN's mission and tasks. There is
> no contradiction between serving ICANN's interests and representing At
> Large interests.
> We support the suggestion to allocate staff support on a regional
> basis. The effectiveness of staff support is more depend on quality
> than quantity. In addition, we have further observations.
> 1. The consultant should review the processes of appointing staff for
> ALAC and RALOs to see whether those processes are in line with the
> goal to create a supporting structure for ALAC and REALOS.
> 2. The consultant should look into the matter of budget allocation and
> particularly review the procedure of decision making to allocate the
> budget and investigate whether those structures allows ALAC and RALOs
> to fulfill their function.
>
> Due to the late delivery of the report, there was no time to consult
> with all of our members. For this reason, we reserve the right to
> prepare further statements in the next few days.
>
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann
.org
>
> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann
.org
>
> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org




------ End of Forwarded Message