[EURO-Discuss] FW: alac review mail from jeanette

[William Drake]

I agree with Jeanette et al.  While I'm sensitive to the issue of tone
when dealing with government types, I think this is less of a problem
vis the audiences in question here.

Bill

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Annette Muehlberg
<Annette.Muehlberg at web.de> wrote:
> hi, jeanetteŽs mail did not get through to the list, so i forward it to you. maybe mathias could check and try to get jeanette on the list again.
>
> greetings annette
>
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>>
>> > 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;
>>
>>
>> I agree with Dominic and Wolfgang. I think it is exactly the right
>> 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,
>>
>> I am not sure you understand what ALAC wants, Vittorio. This is not a
>> matter of 100% or even 50%, the portray of ALAC as such is flawed.
>>
>> My impression at yesterday's meeting was that the consultant hasn't
>> understood enough of ICANN's overall structure to see and evaluate ALAC
>> and relation to that structure.
>>
>> I support a statement that rejects the report and asks for a new one.
>> jeanette
>>
>> 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,
>>
>
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Director, Project on the Information
 Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
 Graduate Institute for International Studies
 Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
http://tinyurl.com/38dcxf
***********************************************************