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

Wed May 22 19:50:49 UTC 2013

Hi Oksana,

please see my comments inserted below.

EMP wroteTue, 21 May 2013 21:35:
>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.

(WL) Since 2008 it became a sort of habit that the Chair provided a first draft of a "Board report", sent it to Board members and the list for review, comments, modifications etc. weeks before the GA. And every comment was considered. After this prior review period, the Chair's draft was seen as "consolidated version" to be submitted to the GA as "Board report". And so far, this procedure and "Board reports" were adopted by the previous GAs. Anyone - you (Secretariat) or Board member - can step in and draft an alternate report or say "this is NOT a Board but a Chair's report" -- Then we can rename it accordingly ("Chair report" or whatever you suggest). To me, it's not so much the naming that counts but the content or substance of such draft reports, and again, you are free to suggest inputs.

>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.

(WL) When I read your arguments carefully, you are contradicting yourself: "To include more and more people" or "to favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC" is just a reconfirmation of the current ALAC rule (and Olivier's and my argument): Once people could *represent more than one ALS*, as you suggest, we would hamper this diversity of people and representations. The current rule enforces your demand "to include more" or other people (than always the same suspects)!

><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.

(WL) You are mixing up two IMO different issues: ONE is the ICANN regional model and the special case of Armenia what we contested some years ago already by demanding readjustments etc. (see the attached EURALO input to the on-going ICANN consultation process on the Interim Report of the Geographic Regions Review WG from January 2011). The OTHER one is the ALAC rule on ALS representation what is trying to prevent certain abuses like captioning or usurpation by certain people or groups -- what is a well considered rule (what you may not like).

>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?)))

(WL) Over many years I learned to live with "frustrations" or "obstinacies" but in the given case I still insist that Visa issues are usually NOT in the ICANN remit -- with exceptional cases like "Toronto" when EURALO contested the over-restrictive Canadian consular procedures preventing several NomCom reps. to join the Toronto meeting in time. But this is AGAIN a mere event org. and consular issue or problem and NOT an ICANN and Internet Governance concern (and not on the ICANN agenda, as you wrongly claim).

Just my 2 cents,

Best regards,
Wolf

>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
>_______________________________________________
>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
>

EuroDIG Secretariat
http://www.eurodig.org/
mobile +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig

EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
http://euralo.org

Profile on LinkedIn
http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
-------------- 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/20130522/99221d67/EURALO-input_GeoRegions-0001.pdf 