May 2007 - EURO-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [EURO-Discuss] transparency on changes of rules
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 9, 2007

May 9, 2007

That's easy - just because something isn't meant to be enforceable in a court doesn't mean that the parties aren't bound to honour it. They are; it is an agreement made in good faith, and the parties agree to operate in good faith. On 08/05/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> wrote: > On 2007-05-08 23:36:29 +0100, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > >> On the one hand, there still isn't a clear indication what the > >> status of the MoU really is -- is it binding, on whom, and so > >> on. That would have been a set of questions that should have > >> been resolved before the MoU was formally signed. > > > I'm afraid the above isn't a correct statement. The MoU is binding > > upon those who signed it. It is not binding upon those who have not. > > In that case, I'm awaiting your explanation what the word "binding" > means when it comes to an agreement that is "not intended as a > contract for enforcement". > > (Your words, 28 March, archived at [1].) > > 1. http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.o… > > -- > Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

3 2

Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 9, 2007

May 9, 2007

To be clear, does this mean that you are objecting to the recommendation from the teleconference that we have a board of 7? Currently there are not nine, but twelve candidates, since the three ALAC members are included, understanding that the two ALAC representatives elected would not be board members; the ALAC representative who is not elected could become a board member, if (following what was published after the recent teleconference) they were in the top 5, 7, or 9 chosen in the elections to take place starting this Friday. I hope very much Annette that you are not objecting to the vote for the number of directors at least - of choosing between 5, 7, or 9 directors. If you are objecting to that, please so state - understanding that if you do you endanger the entire election going forward, and risk throwing everything back to square one again. I VERY much hope you will agree that doing that would be highly undesirable. On 09/05/07, Annette Muehlberg <Annette.Muehlberg(a)web.de> wrote: > It is the whole procedure of the last weeks I do not want "to live with". > > Below I tried to reunite all ALSes and volunteers for functions so that we could focus on constructive work. It implicated that we accept all those who were nominated for the board without any further voting. (Thank you Stefan, for your support.) > If instead voting does take place my proposal implies that for this first phase we should have a board of ten plus the three non-voting ALAC members. > > Apart from that, there has to be a transparent and democratic procedure in place if the rights of some ALSes are supposed to be changed. > > We could get rid of all these discussions if we were implementing my proposal below and follow our own bylaws. > > Best > Annette > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org > > Gesendet: 09.05.07 13:45:15 > > An: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto(a)icann.org> > > CC: "Discussion for At-Large Europe" <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Annette Muehlberg" <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de> > > Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws > > > > > > It is worth pointing out that every other region managed to take the > > steps which Roberto mentions in respect of LAC with the same results, > > and little controversy. > > > > I would urge you all, once again, to use maximum flexibility and to > > give everyone else the benefit of the doubt to the maximum extent > > possible. > > > > I am encouraged to see that, so far, since the strong recommendations > > of the last teleconference was published, there have been some > > statements which disagree with one element or another to an extent, > > but none of you have said "this element I cannot live with". > > > > On 09/05/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Maybe we should follow the example of the LAC colleagues. > > > I arrived earlier in Sao Paulo, to participate in their workshop, pretty > > > much as I arrived earlier in Lisbon, to participate in the EURALO workshop. > > > > > > It was a very intense experience. In spite of the additional difficulty to > > > keep documents in two languages synchronized, and the interpretation > > > interface, work proceeded smoothly. At the end, all documents, including the > > > LACRALO-ICANN MoU, were ready. They were signed on the spot, no ALS did > > > raise any issue or reservation about the signature, the representatives were > > > elected (all ALSes who had signed the MoU participated in the election), > > > there were more candidates than seats but the election process was concluded > > > without problems, and with the best compliments to the winners coming from > > > the ones that did not make it that time, but that expressed their > > > willingness to help anyway. > > > > > > We started very well, with the "spirit of Frankfurt", as Annette mentions, > > > then something started getting wrong. I hoped things were back on track when > > > I assisted to the very collaborative and energetic meeting, that ended with > > > the final drafting of the documents, including the EURALO-ICANN MoU, and the > > > very touching signature ceremony, with all ALSes present and signing on > > > stage. Then something started again getting wrong: holiday period, delays in > > > getting the candidate list, "I signed it but I thought it meant something > > > different", "I am not confortable in signing it", "I don't see why we should > > > sign it", "I don't understand why we are rushing (?!?) it", "Why don't we > > > wait some more", "there should be consensus, not a voting (but of course the > > > consensus must be on what I say, not on something different)", and so on. > > > > > > Yes, the problem is to find this collaborative spirit again. At this time we > > > do have an agreed set of documents, including the EURALO-ICANN MoU, a set of > > > procedures for electing officers, and deadlines. While a modification of the > > > documents and of the rules is always possible in the future, I have to note > > > that the European Region lacks a member since December 2006, when Annette > > > was not replaced because the formation of EURALO was imminent, and the > > > replacement had better be elected by the new organization, and that any > > > further delay in making EURALO operational would be ununderstandable and > > > unacceptable. > > > > > > As I said in a previos message, I am still confident that the MoU is signed > > > by the few residual ALSes in due time to participate in the elections, that > > > the elected officers will hold their office in the interest of the whole > > > community, and that those who do not get elected this time still contribute > > > and get prepared to provide a good alternative for the next future election. > > > This is how it works in other parts of the ICANN family (the ASO has just > > > concluded its voting, and Raimundo Beca has been appointed for a second term > > > to the Board), how it did work for the LACRALO, and I don't see why it > > > should not work for EURALO. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Roberto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: euro-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On > > > Behalf Of Stefan Hügel > > > Sent: 09 May 2007 12:38 > > > To: Annette Muehlberg; EURALO Discussion > > > Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws > > > > > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > > > > > > first of all, thanks to Annette for your statement I fully agree with. > > > > > > > > > Having been silent most of the time up to now (I may have to apologize for > > > that), it is exactly the spirit of working together in a cooperative manner, > > > which I miss in many of the discussions here. > > > > > > > > > It sometimes seems to me like it is all about legal issues - and nothing > > > else. How can participation work, if you have to go through pages of legal > > > arguments to follow any discussion? > > > > > > > > > As Annette said - let us start working together on content, on outreach, on > > > issues significant for ICANN policies. And let's stop these formal > > > arguments, which do not let us achieve any progress. > > > > > > > > > Best > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 08.05.2007 um 19:12 schrieb Annette Muehlberg: > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > We started off to build the EURALO in such a good spirit that we even called > > > our report on our kick off Meeting in Frankfurt May 2006 "The spirit of > > > Frankfurt". > > > > > > > > > Where are we now? After Lisbon an absurd discussion about deadlines of > > > nomination periods started which almost lead to the exclusion of those ALS > > > representatives who were in easter vacation. > > > > > > > > > Now, a legal advice is asked for on a nomination of a candidate as if it > > > matters if someone became a member of an ALS during nomination period or at > > > the first day of the period of discussion of the nominations - both > > > definately before the actual decision taking/voting on the candidates. > > > > > > > > > All this is such a bureaucratic argy-bargy (german: Hickhack). > > > > > > > > > We do not need to love each other but should be able to respect and work > > > with each other: cooperative, not trying to exclude but to integrate > > > different positions. > > > In short, we should start to follow our own bylaws: > > > > > > > > > - as stated for Board and General assembly we should operate "to the maximum > > > extent possible via consensus" (9.2.21 and 9.4.17.1) > > > > > > > > > - "The Association shall at all times act in an open, accountable and > > > transparent manner and is committed to cultural and geographic diversity and > > > gender balance in its work internally and externally." (3.4) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The current state is: > > > > > > > > > - We have one candidate seconded by the european consumer protection/civil > > > liberties ALSes who are not ISOC members. This candidate comes from Moldova, > > > is female, comes from a non-EU country with a rather developing > > > IT-infrastructure. > > > > > > > > > We have two candidates from Luxembourg and France, both male, both EU, both > > > western region, both members of the same umbrella organisation, seconded by > > > all the members of the very same organisation - ISOC). > > > > > > > > > Let us take our bylaws serious concerning diversity and reaching consensus > > > among us. In this case the latter means, let us both accept, that there are > > > more or less two equally strong opinions expressed and try to have a fair > > > representation of both postions. > > > > > > > > > - We have nine nominees for the board and agreed to have the one join, who > > > will not make it in the selection for the ALAC (and all three ALAC members > > > will join as non-voting members). > > > > > > > > > This is great! > > > > > > > > > Instead of trying to put each other down and vote out, we should be happy > > > that we have these great people who are willing to serve the EURALO board > > > and stop all this destructive stuff. Let us welcome all to the EURALO Board! > > > > > > > > > Let us start working together on content, on outreach, on issues significant > > > for ICANN policies. > > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > > > > Annette > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Stefan Hügel (sh(a)fiff.de) > > > > > > > > > FIfF - Forum InformatikerInnen für Frieden und gesellschaftliche > > > Verantwortung e.V. > > > Geschäftsstelle: Goetheplatz 4, D-28203 Bremen > > > Telefon +49 421 33659255 - Fax +49 421 33659256 - http://www.fiff.de - > > > fiff(a)fiff.de > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > EURO-Discuss mailing list > > > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > PO Box 32160 > > London N4 2XY > > United Kingdom > > UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 > > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > > Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > > mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 > > Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / > > Skype: nashtonhart > > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > > > > -- > > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

3 2

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Legal situation with respect to ALAC candidatures
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 9, 2007

May 9, 2007

Dear Stefan: It is important for you to understand that the diversity requirements for ALAC members who are elected are a part of the ICANN Bylaws. They are therefore not optional in any way, shape or form. They require that the minimum diversity requirements are: That the elected ALAC members should be residents or nationals of different countries That they should be members of different ALSes. These requirements are echoed - and additional diversity provisions added to them - in the EURALO Bylaws. I wanted these points to be entirely clear to everyone: there are diversity requirements which are not optional - and as regards the EURALO bylaws and MoU, those requirements cannot be disregarded because one person or another takes a view as to their importance; they have to be respected unless and until they are amended. On 09/05/07, Stefan Hügel <sh(a)fiff.de> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > there is one remark, I would like to make. > > > Am 09.05.2007 um 08:20 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: > > 1) As you all know, the diversity requirements for all the officers was an > important matter for many ALSes. They are also important to ICANN as a > whole, else there would not be a diversity element to the ICANN Bylaws in > respect of ALAC members. As a consequence, it is strongly recommended that > Ms. Cretu join an ALS which is different from any other ALAC member, or ALAC > candidate in this election, as that would clearly enhance the diversity of > the ALAC members if she were to be elected. It was clearly not the intent of > the diversity provisions that one ALS should have two ALAC members as > members; this would not be in keeping with the spirit of these provisions. > > I fully agree that we should go for diversity - more, I'd like to stress it. > In my opinion, the candidature of Veronica Cretu does not contradict > diversity, but enhances it, as she represents groups not represented by the > other candidate for ALAC. The more formal aspect of ALS-membership seems a > less important point to me in this case. > > I appreciate that the open questions to the candidature are clarified now. > > Best > Stefan > > -- > Stefan Hügel (sh(a)fiff.de) > > FIfF - Forum InformatikerInnen für Frieden und gesellschaftliche > Verantwortung e.V. > Geschäftsstelle: Goetheplatz 4, D-28203 Bremen > Telefon +49 421 33659255 - Fax +49 421 33659256 - http://www.fiff.de - > fiff(a)fiff.de > > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Current MoU signatories / Non-Signatories
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 9, 2007

May 9, 2007

As of today: Current ALS parties to the MoU of ICANN, signed 29th March 2007 in person, or who have signed electronically afterwards: Suomen Internet-yhdistys ry. (ISOC Finland) Internet Society - Bulgaria Medienstadt Leipzig e.V. Internet Society Belgium Internet Society Luxembourg Chapitre français de l’Internet Society – ISOC France Società Internet ISOC CAT (CATALAN CHAPTER) Humanistische Union e.V. (German Civil Liberties Union) Netzwerk Neue Medien (nnm) Komitee Fur Eine Demokratische UNO (Committee For A Democratic United Nations) Deutsche Vereinigung für Datenschutz (DVD) e.V. Forum InformatikerInnen für Frieden und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung (FIfF) FoeBuD e.V List of Accredited ALSes Who Have Not Become a Party to the MoU Terre des Femmes E.v. ISOC NL FITUG

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 9, 2007

May 9, 2007

It is worth pointing out that every other region managed to take the steps which Roberto mentions in respect of LAC with the same results, and little controversy. I would urge you all, once again, to use maximum flexibility and to give everyone else the benefit of the doubt to the maximum extent possible. I am encouraged to see that, so far, since the strong recommendations of the last teleconference was published, there have been some statements which disagree with one element or another to an extent, but none of you have said "this element I cannot live with". On 09/05/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > Maybe we should follow the example of the LAC colleagues. > I arrived earlier in Sao Paulo, to participate in their workshop, pretty > much as I arrived earlier in Lisbon, to participate in the EURALO workshop. > > It was a very intense experience. In spite of the additional difficulty to > keep documents in two languages synchronized, and the interpretation > interface, work proceeded smoothly. At the end, all documents, including the > LACRALO-ICANN MoU, were ready. They were signed on the spot, no ALS did > raise any issue or reservation about the signature, the representatives were > elected (all ALSes who had signed the MoU participated in the election), > there were more candidates than seats but the election process was concluded > without problems, and with the best compliments to the winners coming from > the ones that did not make it that time, but that expressed their > willingness to help anyway. > > We started very well, with the "spirit of Frankfurt", as Annette mentions, > then something started getting wrong. I hoped things were back on track when > I assisted to the very collaborative and energetic meeting, that ended with > the final drafting of the documents, including the EURALO-ICANN MoU, and the > very touching signature ceremony, with all ALSes present and signing on > stage. Then something started again getting wrong: holiday period, delays in > getting the candidate list, "I signed it but I thought it meant something > different", "I am not confortable in signing it", "I don't see why we should > sign it", "I don't understand why we are rushing (?!?) it", "Why don't we > wait some more", "there should be consensus, not a voting (but of course the > consensus must be on what I say, not on something different)", and so on. > > Yes, the problem is to find this collaborative spirit again. At this time we > do have an agreed set of documents, including the EURALO-ICANN MoU, a set of > procedures for electing officers, and deadlines. While a modification of the > documents and of the rules is always possible in the future, I have to note > that the European Region lacks a member since December 2006, when Annette > was not replaced because the formation of EURALO was imminent, and the > replacement had better be elected by the new organization, and that any > further delay in making EURALO operational would be ununderstandable and > unacceptable. > > As I said in a previos message, I am still confident that the MoU is signed > by the few residual ALSes in due time to participate in the elections, that > the elected officers will hold their office in the interest of the whole > community, and that those who do not get elected this time still contribute > and get prepared to provide a good alternative for the next future election. > This is how it works in other parts of the ICANN family (the ASO has just > concluded its voting, and Raimundo Beca has been appointed for a second term > to the Board), how it did work for the LACRALO, and I don't see why it > should not work for EURALO. > > Cheers, > Roberto > > > > > ________________________________ > From: euro-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Stefan Hügel > Sent: 09 May 2007 12:38 > To: Annette Muehlberg; EURALO Discussion > Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws > > > Dear colleagues, > > > first of all, thanks to Annette for your statement I fully agree with. > > > Having been silent most of the time up to now (I may have to apologize for > that), it is exactly the spirit of working together in a cooperative manner, > which I miss in many of the discussions here. > > > It sometimes seems to me like it is all about legal issues - and nothing > else. How can participation work, if you have to go through pages of legal > arguments to follow any discussion? > > > As Annette said - let us start working together on content, on outreach, on > issues significant for ICANN policies. And let's stop these formal > arguments, which do not let us achieve any progress. > > > Best > Stefan > > > > > > Am 08.05.2007 um 19:12 schrieb Annette Muehlberg: > > > Dear all, > > > We started off to build the EURALO in such a good spirit that we even called > our report on our kick off Meeting in Frankfurt May 2006 "The spirit of > Frankfurt". > > > Where are we now? After Lisbon an absurd discussion about deadlines of > nomination periods started which almost lead to the exclusion of those ALS > representatives who were in easter vacation. > > > Now, a legal advice is asked for on a nomination of a candidate as if it > matters if someone became a member of an ALS during nomination period or at > the first day of the period of discussion of the nominations - both > definately before the actual decision taking/voting on the candidates. > > > All this is such a bureaucratic argy-bargy (german: Hickhack). > > > We do not need to love each other but should be able to respect and work > with each other: cooperative, not trying to exclude but to integrate > different positions. > In short, we should start to follow our own bylaws: > > > - as stated for Board and General assembly we should operate "to the maximum > extent possible via consensus" (9.2.21 and 9.4.17.1) > > > - "The Association shall at all times act in an open, accountable and > transparent manner and is committed to cultural and geographic diversity and > gender balance in its work internally and externally." (3.4) > > > > > The current state is: > > > - We have one candidate seconded by the european consumer protection/civil > liberties ALSes who are not ISOC members. This candidate comes from Moldova, > is female, comes from a non-EU country with a rather developing > IT-infrastructure. > > > We have two candidates from Luxembourg and France, both male, both EU, both > western region, both members of the same umbrella organisation, seconded by > all the members of the very same organisation - ISOC). > > > Let us take our bylaws serious concerning diversity and reaching consensus > among us. In this case the latter means, let us both accept, that there are > more or less two equally strong opinions expressed and try to have a fair > representation of both postions. > > > - We have nine nominees for the board and agreed to have the one join, who > will not make it in the selection for the ALAC (and all three ALAC members > will join as non-voting members). > > > This is great! > > > Instead of trying to put each other down and vote out, we should be happy > that we have these great people who are willing to serve the EURALO board > and stop all this destructive stuff. Let us welcome all to the EURALO Board! > > > Let us start working together on content, on outreach, on issues significant > for ICANN policies. > > > Best > > > Annette > > > > > > > -- > Stefan Hügel (sh(a)fiff.de) > > > FIfF - Forum InformatikerInnen für Frieden und gesellschaftliche > Verantwortung e.V. > Geschäftsstelle: Goetheplatz 4, D-28203 Bremen > Telefon +49 421 33659255 - Fax +49 421 33659256 - http://www.fiff.de - > fiff(a)fiff.de > > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

follow our own bylaws
by Annette Muehlberg May 9, 2007

May 9, 2007

Dear all, We started off to build the EURALO in such a good spirit that we even called our report on our kick off Meeting in Frankfurt May 2006 "The spirit of Frankfurt". Where are we now? After Lisbon an absurd discussion about deadlines of nomination periods started which almost lead to the exclusion of those ALS representatives who were in easter vacation. Now, a legal advice is asked for on a nomination of a candidate as if it matters if someone became a member of an ALS during nomination period or at the first day of the period of discussion of the nominations - both definately before the actual decision taking/voting on the candidates. All this is such a bureaucratic argy-bargy (german: Hickhack). We do not need to love each other but should be able to respect and work with each other: cooperative, not trying to exclude but to integrate different positions. In short, we should start to follow our own bylaws: - as stated for Board and General assembly we should operate "to the maximum extent possible via consensus" (9.2.21 and 9.4.17.1) - "The Association shall at all times act in an open, accountable and transparent manner and is committed to cultural and geographic diversity and gender balance in its work internally and externally." (3.4) The current state is: - We have one candidate seconded by the european consumer protection/civil liberties ALSes who are not ISOC members. This candidate comes from Moldova, is female, comes from a non-EU country with a rather developing IT-infrastructure. We have two candidates from Luxembourg and France, both male, both EU, both western region, both members of the same umbrella organisation, seconded by all the members of the very same organisation - ISOC). Let us take our bylaws serious concerning diversity and reaching consensus among us. In this case the latter means, let us both accept, that there are more or less two equally strong opinions expressed and try to have a fair representation of both postions. - We have nine nominees for the board and agreed to have the one join, who will not make it in the selection for the ALAC (and all three ALAC members will join as non-voting members). This is great! Instead of trying to put each other down and vote out, we should be happy that we have these great people who are willing to serve the EURALO board and stop all this destructive stuff. Let us welcome all to the EURALO Board! Let us start working together on content, on outreach, on issues significant for ICANN policies. Best Annette

3 2

Re: [EURO-Discuss] transparency on changes of rules
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 9, 2007

May 9, 2007

I suspect that your form of words would have the same effect, however, you can probably appreciate that having a different form of words for one organisation than for all the others may raise unintended questions and the others may query why one group gets to make up a different form of words than those they have used. On 09/05/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> wrote: > In that case, why the formal-sounding language in the signing > statement? > > I'd have much less trouble signing and selling a note that says > FITUG will in good faith perform the duties outlined in the MOU. > > Regards, > -- > Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> > > > > > > On 2007-05-08 23:51:00 +0100, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > > To: Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> > > Cc: Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org>, > > Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 23:51:00 +0100 > > Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] transparency on changes of rules > > Reply-To: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org > > X-Spam-Level: > > X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5 > > > > That's easy - just because something isn't meant to be enforceable in > > a court doesn't mean that the parties aren't bound to honour it. They > > are; it is an agreement made in good faith, and the parties agree to > > operate in good faith. > > > > On 08/05/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> wrote: > >> On 2007-05-08 23:36:29 +0100, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> > >> >> On the one hand, there still isn't a clear indication what the > >> >> status of the MoU really is -- is it binding, on whom, and so > >> >> on. That would have been a set of questions that should have > >> >> been resolved before the MoU was formally signed. > >> > >> > I'm afraid the above isn't a correct statement. The MoU is binding > >> > upon those who signed it. It is not binding upon those who have not. > >> > >> In that case, I'm awaiting your explanation what the word "binding" > >> means when it comes to an agreement that is "not intended as a > >> contract for enforcement". > >> > >> (Your words, 28 March, archived at [1].) > >> > >> 1. > >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.o… > >> > >> -- > >> Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> > >> > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > PO Box 32160 > > London N4 2XY > > United Kingdom > > UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 > > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > > Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > > mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 > > Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / > > Skype: nashtonhart > > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > > > > > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Transcript of teleconference 4 May 2007
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 9, 2007

May 9, 2007

Dear All: The transcript of the teleconference has been posted to: https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?transcript_4_may_2007 The recording of the meeting has also been posted. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] transparency on changes of rules
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 8, 2007

May 8, 2007

See below. On 08/05/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> wrote: > On 2007-05-08 13:05:50 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > > > I don't know what was the past correspondence, and I assume that > > this is a question that ultimately will end, for a change :<(, > > with the lawyers, but my understanding since the beginning was > > that the relationship between ICANN and EURALO, including the > > modus operandi of EURALO within ALAC, was going to be governed by > > the MoU. > > I'm amazed by the role that, supposedly, the lawyers and the rules > are playing here. > > On the one hand, there still isn't a clear indication what the > status of the MoU really is -- is it binding, on whom, and so on. > That would have been a set of questions that should have been > resolved before the MoU was formally signed. > I'm afraid the above isn't a correct statement. The MoU is binding upon those who signed it. It is not binding upon those who have not. > On the other hand, some folks are so in love with the idea that > there is a binding MoU that they now start calling lawyers to > interpret the text that they wrote themselves just a month ago. > > Frankly, this style of discussion speaks badly of the things that > are to come in the European RALO. > > Can't we have the discussion how to best represent the diverse > perspectives that are present here in ICANN -- instead of talking > about what diversity rules are in the MoU and what aren't? > > Can't we talk about how the different perspectives can collaborate > constructively -- instead of having the current style of discussion > which is, quite frankly, divisive to the point that I'm tempted to > write all this off as an exercise in futility? > > -- > Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 1

transparency on changes of rules
by Annette Muehlberg May 8, 2007

May 8, 2007

Dear Nick, You just wrote: "Whilst no impediment to participating in the work of the organisation is otherwise envisaged, it was strongly felt that only ALSes who are a party to the MoU with ICANN should cast votes in the upcoming election." It is hard to understand the deeper significance of this sentence, especially for non-native english speakers. After Lisbon I talked with you on the phone about the rights of ALSes who did not sign the MOU. You said, that there is no difference concerning voting rights in comparison to those who signed it. After our talk you wrote on the list: "At the present time, NO LIMITATIONS ON NON-SIGNING ALSes HAVE BEEN PROPOSED OR AGREED. Therefore, ALL ALSes IN EUROPE HAVE FULL RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN ALL ASPECTS OF THE EURALO. There has been some question about this raised in previous emails. I hope this reinforces that there is nothing to worry about." Based on your mail, all accredited ALSes could expect to have voting rights without limitations. But according to your latest mail it seems that restrictions occured to those who did not sign and voting rights have been limited to MOU signers - except they would sign within the next two days. How can you expect that volunteer representatives of our ALSes can meet such short term deadlines? So, if inbetween your two eMails (mentioned above) limitations on rights of ALSes have been introduced: what changes exactly were made? why? when? by whom? Best Annette

3 2