[EURO-Discuss] alac review

Tue Jun 24 10:03:55 EDT 2008

Dominik,
The purpose of my comment was only to suggest what in my opinion could bring
better results for the AtLarge. If the AtLarge has a different opinion,
please go ahead with a different course of action.
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 13:13
> To: Discussion for At-Large Europe
> Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
> 
> Roberto,
> 
> Perhaps, I do not understand your words correctly
> 
> "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."
> 
> Sure, the WG is unable to reject the At-Large reform motion 
> as such as it is the reason why the WG actually exists.
> 
> But if you are suggesting the WG is unable to reject the 
> Westlake's proposal then I am asking why? Who is mandating 
> what the WG may or may not reject? Except the WG itself, of course.
> 
> Dominik
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On 
> Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:38 AM
> To: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe'
> Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5130 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20080624/2e75fbf5/attachment-0001.bin 