[EURO-Discuss] Regional advice on France at Large application needed

[JFC Morfin]

Dear Nick,
I thank you for spending the time to send this mail while you are buzzy.

At 07:21 03/05/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>My apologies for taking so long to reply to this message; as I 
>believe I mentioned all three members of the At-Large staff are 
>present in Marina del Rey for meetings and have been only rarely 
>able to check email.

noted.

>Let me try and provide a bit of extra detail in hopes that this is 
>useful. Firstly, my apologies for choosing the wrong document to 
>attach to you. The one attached has all the same content excepting 
>that the introductory note is different (and correct) and the word 
>'proposed' has been removed from the title. Note that this document 
>is currently being translated into several languages; once it has 
>been checked these will all be made available and posted online.

noted.

>Further, the process is outlined on the website – the best link is 
>that at http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm.

agreed.

>You will note that the application process does not generally 
>involve the applicant very much; the due diligence process is 
>intended to provide a basic verification of the information provided 
>by the applicant.

Correct. This is why we are surprised by the non-basic issues being 
raised upon erroneous DD non verified information.

>It is not customary to publicise the DD form itself, as it often may 
>contain information which the applicant might not prefer to be 
>posted publicly, as I suspect is the case with this form.

It is not, as far as we are concerned. We have nothing exact which 
cannot be published. We strive to be a transparent organisation.

>The Staff can ask questions of the applicant when there does not 
>seem to be any other way to answer the questions on the form – which 
>is the case when an organisation appears to be brand-new, does not 
>have much information posted on the website (or does not have a 
>website at all), or where little information is available by other 
>means such as searching the web.

Hardly the case with the edest @large incorporated organisation, with 
a structured and documented site, plus several related sites, 
probably one of the largest reported google figure.

>These factors did come into play with this application and a member 
>of staff spent three hours over two calls with M Morfin as you have 
>heard from the email correspondence.

I was not aware of any other M. Morfin in the ALS process. I received 
two calls. Hardly 3 hours long, even keeping subjective hours. One to 
tell me that we were engaged in the new UN, that you were not 
interested in knowing who we are, wanting to know where the money we 
do not have come from, and that there was an urgent call to place. 
The second one, to ask if you could call the Bureau Members I listed 
(you say I refused, and I copied you the mail I sent them to welcome 
your call) and again to talk of the source of the money we do not 
have. (When I say "you" I mean your organisation).

>Unfortunately, that call did not produce further clarification in 
>respect of the questions raised by the application and the due 
>diligence process.

Please just quote the mail listing that questions. A part from: where 
comes the money you do not have and do not spend, and: can I call the 
people you said I could, I know none of them. I think I extensively 
answered the questions Wolf rose. I could have done the same for you.

Just in case: time and meaning was not lost in translation. The calls 
were in French. They mostly where about teaching me what our 
organisation is (which is not).

>Other comments can be found inline below.
>
>On 29/04/2008 05:27, "JFC Morfin" <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>
>Dear Nick,
>as a multilinguist (practicalities of diversity in the semiotic area)
>I am always puzzled when I must read English as opposed to American.
>The differences are so great for a non English speaker that I am
>never really sure of the intended meaning :-) .
>
>At 06:54 29/04/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> >Dear All:
> >The france at large application was not discussed in New Delhi
> >actually; applications are not immediately discussed as that
> >short-circuits the application evaluation process. I refer you to
> >the document provided on the email to which you replied.
>
>Difficult for me for example to know who is the "you" and what are
>the documents belonging to this set. It seems - since you spent 900 %
>times more on this application than on others, while I did not spend
>more time than asking if it was proceeding - that the replies where
>not from france at large and questions were not sent to france at large.
>france at large being the oldest ALS in existance, being for the reason
>very innovative  in its structure, evolution and reflexion, asking no
>guidance not even answer from it when not understanding or misreading
>its documentation or biased comments may lead to Guidlines unwilling
>disrespect.

You answered:
>I draw your attention to the clarifications at the top of this reply.

I am sorry, but I do not think so.

> >As to the content of the due dilligence document, and the questions
> >related to it, I refer you again to the ALS Application Evaluation
> >process in the document previously attached.
>
>OK. I was uncertain about what your English implied. We are in
>agreement that the only reference is the "Proposed" Guidelines
>subject to the non-dated Review of the Office of the General Counsel.
>And that the "Due Diligence Form" you refer to is the Part III.2
>document and the untitled form filled by the new commer Massimilino
>Minisci that you have yourself completed. This documente is dated
>March 27, I was not sent a copy in one month and I obtained by chance
>on the public list.

You answered:
>The fact that a member of staff is new does not have a bearing on 
>the due diligence process or the results reached by that process, 
>since that process is based upon basic fact checking using sources 
>including independent online research independent of the applicant's 
>web presence.

Noted. Any one can easily repeat the process.
http://franceatlarge.org
http://google.com

> >As to the speed of the application process, that is also covered in
> >the referenced document. Your application is not being handled in
> >any extraordinary way process-wise. It is not overdue for decision either.
>
>I understand that you are extending your new department and this is
>not an easy task. I make no claim whatsoever. I just note that you
>did not substantiated why france at large due process demanded more
>working time not to be overdue. You obviously understand that these
>mails will be published on our site as we are a transparent
>organisation. All I can do is to delay the publication to be able to
>put a header saying that the Staff and others were disturbed for
>reasons we ignored and do not understand and that has satisfactorily
>clarified.

You answered:
>The At-Large department is not new and the fact that some members of 
>staff are new is also not relevant (and in any case, I myself am not 
>new to ICANN). The due diligence process is administrative, and not 
>subjective. The staff role is limited to trying to verify the 
>statements on the application form as required by the 
>community-developed process.

IMHO this calls for two hours for a non trained person.

>Your application and the information about it has also been reviewed 
>by long-standing members of the community and from their statements 
>they have drawn their own conclusions as you have heard.

This is where the process becomes circumvoluted and subjective. Can 
you document this? You will have to answer the Ombudsman questions.

>In reply to your question about why the application has consumed so 
>much staff time: This was due to online review of sources,

Correct. There are so many of them. I understand that it is faster 
when there not yet a web site. But is the DD not just about checking 
there is a wev presence or not? If you started reading and analysing 
the hundreds of pages we have online over the last 8 years ....

>as well as multiple hours of discussions with you personally,

They did not take much of _my_ time. I cannot appreciate about yours.

>plus the time spent in trying to reach you,

I think I left as many messages returning yours. Nowadays, e-mails 
are very convenient. And are recorded.

>discussions with members of the community about the application and 
>the information on the DD form, and discussions with other members 
>of staff in the regional liaison team.

 From a few leaks, it seems they actually were extensive.

>With respect to publication of email: As this mailing list is itself 
>publicly archived there is of course no issue whatever with further 
>publication of emails. That said, If you were to publish fragments 
>of the email correspondence, for example, rather than the entire 
>text, I believe this would not be reasonable, as that could lead to 
>misunderstandings.

Why not you to prepare the file recording the entirety of our 
exchanges for the Ombudsman. This would save time to all of us. I am 
sure I can trust you. And this way you would feel confident.

>For the recourds, I note that you did not comment on my pretended obstruction.

You answered:
>I am afraid that I do not understand the above statement.

You claimed I refused the people listed on our applications to be 
called if I was not present.

>Don't you think that the best would be you give me a ring as you
>first intended, Or that we have a drink together if you opo in Paris
>in the coming days. All this rigmarole seems really out-of-place. We
>are intented to cooperate, not to squabble that way.

You answered.
>After three hours of dialogue between yourself and the staff which 
>did not lead to the answers to the questions raised by your 
>application, it is hard to imagine how further conversations would 
>be more productive.

I do not know where these three hours come from. But I see where they lead to.

>As I am sure you are aware, there are 100 existing ALSes and I am 
>quite sure that any number of them would like to have telephone 
>conversations with the staff which are even a fraction as long as three hours;

I understand that. I will certainly lobby for more man power for you.
I understand that your task is overwhelming @ 1 new ALS per month.

>I'm sure you'll understand that we do have to try and balance the 
>time spent amongst the entire community as fairly and equitably as 
>we can. We have done far more due diligence work on this application 
>than is customary (or required);

The question remains: why did you do more work than _required_?
If the answer can be published, why has this not resulted with 
questions being asked?
If you claim having a communication problem by phone, why did these 
questions have not been raised by mail?
These are the questions I will ask to the Ombudsman.

Let understand. I consider this as pure discrimination hazing. So 
will press. We are quite used to it.  I just want that you are not 
personnally taken for a biaised responsible while everyone guess you 
are acting under orders.

>I'm sorry that it has not led to a result which you would it to have done.

I am sorry but I am not able to make sense from this (nor do the two 
translations programs I tried).

> From our perspective, there is no squabbling at all – I am simply 
> answering your questions about an administrative process.

Form our's the squabbling is in the biaised stonewalling.

You know what? You should just publish the form with the questions 
you have. This would help preparing a better form addressing your 
needs. Conflicts have sources. The best is to use friendly conflicts 
like this one as a source of inspiration to reduce that sources.

Cheers.
jfc



>Cheers !
>jfc
>
> >On 28/04/2008 18:31, "JFC Morfin" <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> >
> >Dear Nick,
> >thank you for you first real mail on the matter.
> >
> >At 02:47 29/04/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> > >Dear All:
> > >In respect of the points below a few clarifications:
> > >
> > >1. The France at large application was received on 13th February 2008,
> > >during the ICANN international meeting.
> >
> >So, it was probably immediately dicussed since everyone was there.
> >
> > >As a result of the hectic nature of being at an ICANN meeting the
> > >application was not acknowledged until the 28th February, which is 8
> > >days longer than it should have taken. We apologised to M Morfin in
> > >that email for the delay and explained the nature of the delay.
> >
> >Correct.
> >
> > >2. The due dilligence form was actually completed by several members
> > >of the ICANN staff – the first version was done by M Minisci, the
> > >Regional Liaison for Europe. The regional liaison for each region
> > >always fills out the due dilligence form in the first instance as
> > >they are most likely to know of new applicant organisations.
> >
> >ICANN archives can help.
> >
> > >Because of the fact that Massimiliano is quite new, and there were
> > >still a number of open questions, I then performed additional due
> > >dilligence. The later due dilligence form you will find has
> > >additional information and elaboration in various respects.
> >
> >Please indicate what this document changes, when it was approved, in
> >what way france at large does not comply with it.
> >
> > >3. Frederic did ask to speak to those persons that the application
> > >identified as being other leaders in france at large. M Morfin was
> > >unwilling to allow this unless he could attend each such call in person.
> >
> >????
> >I was surprised when Frederic asked me the permission to call them
> >(why to ask about them if it is not to call them). I even sent them a
> >mail, copied to Frederic, to introduce Frederic and explain them he
> >was very very new and how to best help him.
> >
> > >It may be worthwhile for everyone to know that this application has
> > >required about 10 times the amount of due dilligence as is the norm
> > >for ALS applications.
> >
> >We are interested to understand why?
> >Our application is online for everyone to see :
> >http://alfrance.info/index.php?title=Proc%C3%A9dure_d%27adh%C3%A9si 
> on_%C3%A0_l%27ALAC
> >
> > >The due dilligence process was performed as required by the ALS
> > >Application Evaluation Guidelines, attached hereto in order for it
> > >to be easily found.
> > >
> > >The applicant is due to receive a decision on the application not
> > >later than 7 May 2008. From my understanding of the intent of ALAC
> > >to vote imminently on this application this deadline should be reached.
> >
> >The first question of Frederic's first short phone call was to know
> >what I though went wrong to explain the delay. Since this mail raises
> >no additional question, I am to consider that the reason for the
> >delay (a very slow, obscure, and odd process) is elsewhere.
> >
> >The question is where this elsewhere is.
> >jfc
> >
>
>
>
>--
>
>Regards,
>
>Nick Ashton-Hart
>Director for At-Large
>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88
>USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
>Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44
>Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68
>email: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
>Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com / 
>Skype: nashtonhart
>Online Bio:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart