[EURO-Discuss] alac review

[Dominik Filipp]

Vittorio,

As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and
identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the
actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this
flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the
document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the
status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large
position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack
of basic understanding of what At-Large actually is and what its status
should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt to stay servile to BoD
in order to have gotten their proposal passed.

I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important
points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be
logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered
currently.
That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more
useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I
see no any problem with it.


Dominik


-----Original Message-----
From: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Vittorio Bertola
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM
To: Discussion for At-Large Europe
Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review

Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
> All,
> 
> Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a 
> statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want

> to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a 
> statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings

Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is
being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it
sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it
doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it
is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you
owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that
this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is
unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result
(as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive
mode.

If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the
report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying
where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The
NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers
are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others
are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't
fly very well, and won't get them to change their report.

Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for
the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts
could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate,
but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft
recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any
constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests
about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that
clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and
productive.

Ciao,
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------


_______________________________________________
EURO-Discuss mailing list
EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis
ts.icann.org

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org