[EURO-Discuss] alac review

Tue Jun 24 05:38:07 EDT 2008

The next step, after delivery of the final version of the report by the
contractor, will be to pass the ball to the WG, who will analyze the
reaction of the community and include the comments that will be made.
The WG is well served, at least I believe so, with people with a wide range
of opinions, including Karl Auerbach, a champion of the direct election of
Board members by the AtLarge. But the WG would be unable to deal with a
"reject the whole thing" proposal or comment, while would be able to make
good use of a "we need voting power" proposal or comment.

Personally, my advice would be to take this into account before deciding the
format and tone of the contribution. It will not guarantee the result, but
will maximise chances.

Cheers,
Roberto

> -----Original Message-----
> From: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Dominik Filipp
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2008 10:48
> To: Discussion for At-Large Europe
> Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
>
> 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_a
tlarge-lis
> ts.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_a
tlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org