[EURO-Discuss] R: Draft Board Report (2012-13) for Lisbon GA

EMP info at euromediaplatform.org
Wed May 22 04:35:19 UTC 2013


Dear all,

We will have today in our governmental agency round table on Cyrillic
domain for Ukraine, so I was going to intervene into this discussion later,
but Roberto's remark forced me to change my mind)

First of all, I have to say, that we are discussing now not "Board" report,
but only "Chair" report - I saw it for the first time few minutes before
teleconference call. This is extremely serious problem for me, and i will
return to this issue later.

But regarding Roberto's comment, I would like to clear the problem just now.

I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the
bylaws on this point.
But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for
such change?
Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people,
and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether
in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We
should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC,
not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes.
So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the
change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction.

<OP> Roberto, you are now in Armenia, and you yourself raised the issue
regarding Armenia allocation to ICANN region. Armenia IS in Europe, and HAS
TO BE in EURALO. I am absolutely sure, that all Armenian representatives
are or will be extremely successful and highly appreciated in APRALO. But
it is EURALO's gap that WE can not use their potential in full capacity.
Yes, Siranush and Narine are nearly the most regular participants of our
teleconference calls (unlike majority of other members of EURALO), but it
is not enough.

So, when I am talking about changes in the rules, I mean such exceptional
cases. I am really ready to raise this issue within ALAC, at least to ask,
if this problem with Armenia is unique, or there are some other similar
cases. If there are, I will insist on broad discussion of this issue.

I am fully understand, how Wolf is frustrated with my obstinacy with this
issue, but I would like to remember, that two years ago, when I tried to
raise visa issues for the first time, I was indisputably said (again by
Wolf), that ICANN is absolutely wrong place to discuss this issue. Now visa
issues are on ICANN agenda. (Of course, I understand, that it's not my
achievement, but rather Canada merit)))). But maybe, this time I will also
receive some otherworldly help?)))

I am not sure that I will be on-line until the late evening, but I will
follow this discussion.

Best regards,
Oksana

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roberto Gaetano <
roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just on 1 point, my comment below:
>
>> >In response to Oksana's suggestion that ALS *representatives* should be
>> >able to be an ALS *representative* in another region, this is forbidden
>> >in the ALAC bylaws for a reason to make sure there might not be a
>> >possibility of manipulation/capture. It is 99.9% sure that this cannot
>> >change because any change to this rule would need approval from the ALAC
>> >and approval from the Board and I don't see this happening ever.
>> >
>> >Of course, there is no rule against being a simple member of several
>> >ALSes. I am a member of 3 ALSes in 3 different regions; some are members
>> >of more than 3, in different or in the same region, it doesn't matter.
>>
>> (WL) I explained this point in length and details already by making clear
> that
>> we can be *simple members* of different ALSes inside and outside a region
>> BUT we can NOT be *representatives* of more than one ALS (inside or
>> outside a region), as you confirmed Olivier. And I repeatedly noted that
> we
>> (at RALO level) cannot change this rule. IF anybody is still unhappy with
> this
>> binding ALAC rule, the person can try to convince ALAC about a respective
>> change of their Bylaws! This was my very last comment on this point.
>
> I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the
> bylaws on this point.
> But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need
for
> such change?
> Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more
people,
> and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes,
whether
> in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We
> should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC,
> not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes.
> So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the
> change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction.
> Cheers,
> R.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
>
> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org


More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list