[EURO-Discuss] Follow up on today's teleconference

Wolf Ludwig wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net
Wed Jan 23 01:30:46 UTC 2013

Dear Roberto,

thanks a lot for your spontaneous comments on our today's telconf. what is much appreciated. Please allow me to insert my remarks in your text below.

Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:21:
>A few comments.
>Comments on the statements/consultation
>I do appreciate the exhaustive report by Olivier, but I have the impression
>that we all are not contributing enough to the development of these
>Can we make an effort and comment on the consultations that are currently

(WL) Yes, you are right. it would be wishful and helpful for ALAC, if there would be more inputs from our ALSes (or ALSes in general) to current ICANN issues and ALAC consultations. This was - and still is - the basic idea behind the RALO and regional bottom-up structure to get ideas and advice from the representatives of the much-cited "end user". But to me, it was somehow clear from the beginning that good or even best ideas won't work the next day or in a short term. IMO, this is an empowering process (like in democratic societies) where people need encouragements, more than formal opportunities, enabling factors and environments to make use of their rights ... After five years at EURALO I have learned that this is a reciprocal process where both sides (let's say ICANN at the top, ALSes at the bottom line) have to match promises and expectations. And both is learning and work in process.

>Participation of ALSes
>Would it help to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes?
>Oksana already indicated that she would contact a couple of organizations,
>maybe we can all help in this direction.
>I think that I have heard at some point in time the name of Vittorio. I can
>check with him if the absence is due to a contingent situation or a loss of
>interest by ISOC Italy.
>We can all make a few calls or emails, it would be good to use the GA as a
>chance to give new life to our RALO.

(WL) For reasons of politeness and discretion, I prefer not "to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes" via this list but to contact these people directly. In my 2nd GA reminder by the end of month these members who have not responded to repeated invitations may be listed. And YES, for the Lisbon F2F GA mobilization all of us are needed and can be supportive! If you have a direct contact to one of our ALS reps., please contact them directly (in the case of ISOC Italy perhaps Sébastien and you -- Make assurance double sure). And you are right, the next GA is a great chance "to give new life to our RALO"!

>Participation of individuals
>(Disclaimer: I am an individual that does not belong to an ALS, so I may be
>in conflict of interest)
>I agree that to have one ALS for all loose individuals is a suboptimal
>solution. However, can we start from here and secure at least this result?
>We can move forward when we have this operational.
>I have always supported the importance of participation and ability to speak
>over ability to vote. Some other folks disagree. However, while we continue
>disagreeing on the need to revise the voting mechanism, can we agree on
>going forward with the "generic ALS" proposal that is on the table?

(WL) As discussed tonight (there was an amazing exchange in the AC chat!), the current solution via the creation of a "home ALS" for floating individuals is "suboptimal" and won't be the end of discussion but just a next pragmatic step to improve EURALO's involvement and participation of individuals. Therefore, please move forward into this direction! And let's discuss improved options at the Lisbon GA. What I simply would like to avoid is the pre-EURALO hardcore dispute on *procedures* (2006-07) than on *substance and content* -- I guess, this may ring a bell to you ;-) But I think it's not so much about "ability to vote" and more about *equal opportunities* for people contributing on a regular and reliable level (either formal ALS reps or individuals).

>Travel to Lisbon and invitation of guest speakers
>Following up to the discussion on the chat about Olivier participating to
>the EURALO GA, while I could share the astonishment of Oksana about the ALAC
>Chair not been funded for the trip, I have to admit that the rules are
>fairly clear: only delegates from the ALSes will be funded. This is
>connected to the participation of guest speakers: this requires additional

(WL) I always said, Olivier's participation as ALAC Chair at our GA is *indispensable" and I thought this question was solved tonight (as I am funded for Lisbon by EuroDIG, I offered "my" travel slot to Olivier to ensure his participation). Whether such funding rules could be improved is another question but can't be changed until next summer for sure.

>The problem arises exclusively from the fact that we chose to have the GA as
>a separate venue from an ICANN meeting. We discussed this in the past, I am
>not criticizing the choice of privileging an event that would give us more
>possibility of outreach like EuroDIG, I am only noting that this advantage
>has also a drawback. On one hand we can contact people that would not
>participate to an ICANN meeting, and do outreach. On the other hand, we have
>difficulties (or additional costs) for having people that would have been
>available without problems at an ICANN meeting.

(WL) Well, this is the same old story again (what I think I have noted before already): After we always and repeatedly applied for F2F GAs in line with ICANN meetings in Europe (Brussels in 2010, Prague in 2012) and our proposals were not approved by ICANN, we decided to organize our (unfunded) GAs in line with other major IG events in Europe -- such as the global IGF 2010 in Vilnius, EuroDIG 2011 in Belgrade and 2012 in Stockholm. What was a sort of "stopgap" at the beginning showed some advantages for EURALO's outreach over these years -- enhanced by the fact that EURALO became a key driver for the EuroDIG process. I agree, both options (ICANN or EuroDIG) have advantages and disadvantages (to be further discussed).

>Incidentally, as I commented on the chat, Francisco da Silva, TLG Liaison to
>the ICANN Board, is based in Lisbon. Besides having another Board member as
>keynote speaker, we could invite Francisco as well, at zero cost, and maybe
>dedicate some time of our AGM to the communication between ALAC and the
>technical community, of which the TLG is a component.

(WL) I am much in favor of inviting a "guest speaker" to our GA (Sébastien wouldn't be a guest at EURALO but a founding member ;-) and let's reflect about and suggest wishful candidates. But what I really would like to avoid is a "row of eminences" (like at other RALO GAs in the past) or the usual "show cases" where NO space and time is left for our own community discussions and interaction -- what is a top priority to me at the moment!

>ICANN Regions
>The main reason why ICANN has regions is for Board elections. And the ICANN
>Board will never use an arbitrary designation of regions, to avoid problems.
>So, it will stick as much as possible with the UN Statistics definition,
>with minor adjustments only in the case of some powerful voice yelling loud.
>If this happens, we find ourselves with things like some Pacific Islands
>being in Europe.
>This said, other components of the ICANN community have some flexibility. In
>the chat we discussed the status of Armenia. Well, if you go to the site of
>the Armenian NIC (https://www.amnic.net/) you see that it is a member of
>RIPE (as Armenian addressing organization) and a member of CENTR (as
>Armenian TLD). Why cannot ALAC have the same flexibility in the allocation
>of an ALS to a RALO? This is a fight worth fighting, IMHO.
>Of course, there are limitations. If you look carefully at the ccNSO and
>ASO, you discover that the composition of the Councils and the election of
>the ICANN Board members do indeed respect rigorously the geographical
>distribution. Moreover, the ccNSO site shows the national ccTLD members as
>belonging to the ICANN Region (see
>http://ccnso.icann.org/about/members.htm), even if then they have the
>flexibility to join a regional organization that is not the one to which
>they belong geographically.
>I have always insisted on the fact that we have great potential for outreach
>and collaboration with ccTLDs: the regional organization is one example
>where this communication can be extremely useful.

(WL) The rubbery and unrewarding discussion on ICANN's regional model is always reaffirming where the model comes from and why it's stupid and inflexible as it is ... and when nothing changes, it's getting boring. In fact, we drafted a EURALO statement on the regions (what was in vain again -- see attachment) where we highlighted other European perceptions (like CoE and other models) and special cases like Armenia etc. IMO, it would bring NO harm to the ICANN model to provide a certain flexibility for special cases to choose and decide about their regional affiliation ...

>As a side note, I will most probably be in the Caucasus area around the
>second half of May, I will be ready to spend some time in visiting the ALSes
>and ccTLDs in the region. I believe we have an ALS in Armenia and one in
>Azerbaijan, but none in Georgia.

(WL) Your support is always welcome, Roberto!

Thanks again and kind regards,

EuroDIG Secretariat
mobile +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig

EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation

Profile on LinkedIn
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EURALO-input_GeoRegions.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35003 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss/attachments/20130123/aacc75e2/EURALO-input_GeoRegions-0001.pdf 

More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list