- EURO-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Reference to an interesting tool for exchange of arguments & reaching decisions online
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 4, 2007

May 4, 2007

Max and others: It may interest you to know we are currently testing a similar online collaboration tool, PleaseReview (www.pleasereview.com) Nick On 04/05/07, Max Senges <senges(a)uno-komitee.de> wrote: > > I guess most of us agree that the online tool (mailing list) and practices > we have to have a share information and opinion are rather good but they are > producing information overload. However compared to traditional discourse's > location and time constrains there is an improvement in inclusiveness. > > Partially as a result of the information overload however, our tool is > rather poor for the important practice to collectively take a decision and > to have a contoversial exchange of arguments. > > Allow me to point your attention to http://grass-arena.net = Group Report > Authoring Support System > > "The purpose of the GRASS project is to develop an arena for credible > societal > discourse. Its aim is to produce concise group reports that give their > readers an upto- > date and credible overview of the positions of various stakeholders on a > particular issue. As such, these reports can play an important role in > consensus > assessment and catalyzing societal conflict resolution." > > The sytem > - gives an index (overview) page including the current state of the decision > in question via pro/contra/neutral positions > - structures the exchange of arguments which significantly improves clarity > and density > - transparently shows the activities of users > > I dont think this system is the short-term solution but it is an indication > as to what we will hopefully have sometime down the road. > > Greetings > Max > > PS: GRASS seems to be discontinued - If anybody knows a similar system i > would be very interested to learn about it! > PPS: I also posted this text on my blog @ > http://maximiliansenges.blogspot.com/2007/05/exchange-of-arguments-reaching. > html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------- > "I am a wanderer and mountain-climber, said he to his heart. I love not the > plains, > and it seemeth I cannot long sit still. > > And whatever may still overtake me as fate and experience- a wandering will > be therein, > and a mountain-climbing: in the end one experienceth only oneself." > > (Friedrich Nietzsche, Also spoke > Zarathustra) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Max Senges > Research Associate > Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3) > Av. Canal Olímpic s/n, Edifici B3 > 08860 CASTELLDEFELS (Barcelona) SPAIN > > PhD Candidate > Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) > Programme on the Information Society > > Tel: > Spain +34-627193395 > Germany +49-17660855358 > @: maxsenges(a)gmail.com > > www.maxsenges.com > http://entrepreneur.jot.com > https://www.openbc.com/hp/Max_Senges/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Reference to an interesting tool for exchange of arguments & reaching decisions online
by Max Senges May 4, 2007

May 4, 2007

I guess most of us agree that the online tool (mailing list) and practices we have to have a share information and opinion are rather good but they are producing information overload. However compared to traditional discourse's location and time constrains there is an improvement in inclusiveness. Partially as a result of the information overload however, our tool is rather poor for the important practice to collectively take a decision and to have a contoversial exchange of arguments. Allow me to point your attention to http://grass-arena.net = Group Report Authoring Support System "The purpose of the GRASS project is to develop an arena for credible societal discourse. Its aim is to produce concise group reports that give their readers an upto- date and credible overview of the positions of various stakeholders on a particular issue. As such, these reports can play an important role in consensus assessment and catalyzing societal conflict resolution." The sytem - gives an index (overview) page including the current state of the decision in question via pro/contra/neutral positions - structures the exchange of arguments which significantly improves clarity and density - transparently shows the activities of users I dont think this system is the short-term solution but it is an indication as to what we will hopefully have sometime down the road. Greetings Max PS: GRASS seems to be discontinued - If anybody knows a similar system i would be very interested to learn about it! PPS: I also posted this text on my blog @ http://maximiliansenges.blogspot.com/2007/05/exchange-of-arguments-reaching. html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- "I am a wanderer and mountain-climber, said he to his heart. I love not the plains, and it seemeth I cannot long sit still. And whatever may still overtake me as fate and experience- a wandering will be therein, and a mountain-climbing: in the end one experienceth only oneself." (Friedrich Nietzsche, Also spoke Zarathustra) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Max Senges Research Associate Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3) Av. Canal Olímpic s/n, Edifici B3 08860 CASTELLDEFELS (Barcelona) SPAIN PhD Candidate Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) Programme on the Information Society Tel: Spain +34-627193395 Germany +49-17660855358 @: maxsenges(a)gmail.com www.maxsenges.com http://entrepreneur.jot.com https://www.openbc.com/hp/Max_Senges/ ------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] PROPOSED TELECONFERENCE
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 4, 2007

May 4, 2007

>From the email replies sent to the list, this time and date were the best - more people could do this time and date than any of the others - which is why we set it that way. If nobody else will propose an agenda, what I would suggest as a draft is: 1) Discuss and agree the list of candidates - including whether or not to include candidates who were proposed after the deadline. 2) Discuss and agree the total number of board seats for this election cycle. 3) Discuss and agree the length of the voting, the start date, and the provisional list of voters and the number of days for ALSes not on the call to provide their authorised voter. We would then bring the results of these items back to the list, not for review, but as decisions. I will put this up on the Wiki as the *DRAFT* agenda which all ALSes may then edit or extend - so we have something to start from. On 03/05/07, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de> wrote: > All, > concerning the tel conf tomorrow: Many people said they cannot take part (myself offered a different time, one and a half hours earlier). Rudi and myself asked what it is about, as no one proposed an agenda yet. I proposed to discuss all issues online. I guess, the best is, that those who actually have the chance in taking part come up with a proposal for procedure which will be presented to all of us online. > best > annette > > > > > Rudi Vansnick schrieb: > > This fits for me ... if at least we will have a clear agenda and no > > discussions about what is NOT written/signed in MoU and Bylaws. > > > > Rudi Vansnick > > Chair ISOC Belgium > > > > > > > -- -- 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

9 10

Giovanni Seppia joins EURid as International Relations Manager
by Patrick Vande Walle May 4, 2007

May 4, 2007

[Since many of you here know Giovanni, I thought this would be of interest to you -Patrick] http://www.eurid.eu/content/view/202/33/lang,en/ Giovanni will take on the role of International Relations Manager of EURid as from May 14, 2007. The position has been newly created and includes being responsible for EURid’s relations with relevant International organizations, such as ICANN (the International body overseeing all top level domains) and CENTR (Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries) as well as other international bodies. Furthermore, he will represent EURid in international fora. In this role he will report to the general manager. “International relations play an important role for any top level domain, and especially for .eu which is transnational in its nature. Therefore, I am very satisfied that we managed to get Giovanni onboard. I am sure that with his long experience and extensive network he will contribute in a significant way to EURid’s further development in this field,” commented Marc Van Wesemael, EURid’s General Manager. Giovanni previously worked at ICANN as European Regional Liaison. Prior to that he was the General Manager at CENTR. He has also served as Head of External Relations of the Italian Registry (ITT CNR) and has three years of experience at the European Commission in various roles.

3 2

Claryfying some concerns
by Veronica Cretu May 4, 2007

May 4, 2007

Dear All! Greetings from Moldova! Let me quickly share my comments vis-a-vis the whole process and my involvement in it. First of all, I have been following all the discussions with great attention, and I would just want to reply to the questions raised here, within the group, related to my presence and my candidature . 1) No, I am not shy at all:), it is that I could not raise up my voice more than introducing myself, because the discussions focused more on procedural aspects rather than on conceptual matters. And I am just so new to the list, and not in the position to express myself vis-a-vis the aspects/rules/procedures that are already in place and that should be respected. But I would be more than happy to provide any views on conceptual ICANN/Internet users/gTLDs/IG, etc. related matters/issues. 2) Yes, I am very confident in using English: it is part of my every day life. 3) I perfectly understand that it is hard to make a decision when it comes to a person we don't know: I would have had the same doubts/I would have needed more information, details, facts, etc/ - and this is a normal phenomena - it's part our human nature! Still, I want to thank very much both Annette and Wolfgang for their recommendation and for proposing my candidature. During the 2 ALAC outreach meetings I attended (Prague and Athens last year) I have shared with both of them my interest in helping getting internet end users - especially of developing countries - involved in ICANN decision making processes, in strengthening civil society in Eastern Europe and considering civil liberties in setting up IT-infrastructure, promoting multilingualism and cultural diversity on the Internet and support competition in Domain market. And there are several facts that can help me accomplish all these: good reputation in Moldova among various stakeholders (International Community, Diplomatic Community, Ministry of Education, National NGOs, LPA, etc.) as the NGO I run has been implementing a series of social projects in Moldova; a 3 years of good collaboration with DiploFoundation, Malta; and now, the most recent experience of the NGO I run ("CMB" Training Center) is being member of the Global Knowledge Partnership - since July 2006. In this context, I would just want to share an example of the program I will coordinate starting with end of May: "Young Leaders for Community Development through Internet Governance", supported by GKP. 4) In spite of all these, I think that the other current candidates are much more qualified and have much more experience in the field and I am sure that the final decision would be based on these important aspects. I thank you all very much for your time and I am sorry for causing/provoking so many procedural type discussions! Good luck everyone, Veronica

2 1

My comment on nominations
by Vittorio Bertola May 4, 2007

May 4, 2007

All, I just got back from a few days offline, and I did not expect to find such a complex situation again :) I must say that I am concerned by the fact that often, once we agree on processes or documents, after a while people start to complain about having changed their mind, or that they weren't really reading what they were signing, and so on. It's a bit difficult to go anywhere that way. Now, for the sake of keeping the pieces together, I am willing to go over the fact that some nominations were made after the deadline (whichever of the many deadlines one wanted to pick), or about the other debatable points, though that requires everyone's good will, and I'm not sure what happened if anyone went to ICANN and complained about the formal irregularities, or whether ICANN is willing to live with them. About the nominations for the ALAC, I do not see much desire to come to agreement so I guess that we will have to vote. Specifically, I have no problems with Veronica not being an ALS member (as long as we can get away with it with ICANN) or not being experienced, but I have a problem with appointing someone whom I basically don't know, who has not been active in the EURALO process up to now, and who is not even advocating for herself on this list. I would like to see a discussion in first person among the three candidates, also in terms of programs and objectives, so that I can have something to report to my ALS when we'll have to decide who to vote for. For what regards the EURALO Board, I think that we now have too many nominations, and not very well balanced in terms of reflecting the diversity in the constituency (eg geography, ISOC folks vs WSIS folks, ALS vs individuals etc). I would suggest that we pick a reasonable size for the Board - I'd suggest seven - and vote for the Board as well. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

3 2

Re: [EURO-Discuss] PROPOSED TELECONFERENCE
by Veni Markovski May 3, 2007

May 3, 2007

Agree with you, Nick. Agree with Rudi that if too much time has been spent, it's time for action. Don't agree with Jeannette. If we are to wait for everyone to state their opinion, then we are facing a situation like the elections in Greece - where by law everyone HAS to cast their vote. Yes, but we are not a state, there are no laws and punishments for not following them. If someone wants to say something, please, do so, but don't stop the train from moving just because you think there should be a stop here. Or because you've missed your station, and you pull the emergency break. As for poisoning the atmosphere - if one is afraid of bears, they don't go to the forest, as we say in Bulgaria. If someone is trying to poison the atmosphere, ignore the attempts. veni At 21:28 5/3/2007 +0100, you wrote: >Jeannette: > >It shouldn't be too difficult, if anyone is unable to attend, for them >to state their preference on the few topics at hand. For example, >nothing is preventing anyone from saying what number of directors they >believe to be optimal. > > > > Rudi Vansnick wrote: > > > As far as I can read in the agenda proposed by Nick, there is no voting > > > tomorrow. > > > There for I see no reason for further delay. We have already been > > > discussing items and topics which were very clear and had enough > > > timespan being read by everyone considering the EURALO kick-off in > > > priority of some other work. > > > > > > I had also to organise myself in order to participate in what I consider > > > being an important item in the agenda of *my daily work for the Internet > > > community, listening to all and any Internet individual user.* > > > > > > rudi > > > > > > Jeanette Hofmann schreef: > > >> Hi, > > >> if it is indeed true that many ALs cannot participate tomorrow, it would > > >> be good to restrain from taking binding decisions. > > >> > > >> As the decisions taken in Lisbon have shown, it can somewhat poison the > > >> atmosphere if those physically present make decisions that don't reflect > > >> the preferences of those absent. For this very reason, IETF working > > >> groups don't vote in physical meetings or teleconferences, they use > > >> mailing lists for polls and the like to ensure that all interested > > >> parties have a chance to participate. > > >>

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] PROPOSED TELECONFERENCE
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 3, 2007

May 3, 2007

Jeannette: It shouldn't be too difficult, if anyone is unable to attend, for them to state their preference on the few topics at hand. For example, nothing is preventing anyone from saying what number of directors they believe to be optimal. Those on the call could also suggest, for example, that one of the items to be voted on in the vote to be held is the number of total board seats. So, using that example, one could have a ballot with: 1) A selection showing numbers between 5 and 9 (for example). The number with the largest number of supporters would be the number of total board seats. 2) A selection for two preferences for the ALAC seats 3) A ranking for each of the candidates, with the top x vote getters ('x' being the number chosen by the ballot in (1), being those chosen for the available board seats. This process has gone considerably over the timeframe agreed in Lisbon. I would ask everyone to show flexibility and understand something very important: The ALAC members need to be chosen with AT LEAST one month to go - and, really, six weeks - before the Lisbon meeting - for airline tickets to be purchased in good time to avoid unnecessary expense. We do not have extra budget funds this year to spend because a decision on selecting two candidates from a field of three candidates took a great amount of time - we've suffered a budget reduction. The other reason that the choice needs to be made - sooner, not later - is so that those chosen can have time to arrange their affairs to attend the Puerto Rico meeting. Others may say what they will - it appears to me that the discussions have reached a point where there are no other candidates, yet, we have too many candidates for the board to be of any reasonable size in comparison to the total size of the ALS community. I hope everyone will not invest too much time and energy in how many board seats there are - the community is quite small enough to actually discuss most important questions directly. I draw everyone's attention to the fact that no other region has more than two officers. EURALO is going to have at least five. So, the question of how many seats needs an answer. Reasonable timeframes for holding the vote also need to be decided. On 03/05/07, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> wrote: > I was asking for abstaining from binding decisions. > > From Nicks's agenda: > > "If nobody else will propose an agenda, what I would suggest as a draft is: > > [...] > > We would then bring the results of these items back to the list, not > for review, but as decisions." > > jeanette > > Rudi Vansnick wrote: > > As far as I can read in the agenda proposed by Nick, there is no voting > > tomorrow. > > There for I see no reason for further delay. We have already been > > discussing items and topics which were very clear and had enough > > timespan being read by everyone considering the EURALO kick-off in > > priority of some other work. > > > > I had also to organise myself in order to participate in what I consider > > being an important item in the agenda of *my daily work for the Internet > > community, listening to all and any Internet individual user.* > > > > rudi > > > > Jeanette Hofmann schreef: > >> Hi, > >> if it is indeed true that many ALs cannot participate tomorrow, it would > >> be good to restrain from taking binding decisions. > >> > >> As the decisions taken in Lisbon have shown, it can somewhat poison the > >> atmosphere if those physically present make decisions that don't reflect > >> the preferences of those absent. For this very reason, IETF working > >> groups don't vote in physical meetings or teleconferences, they use > >> mailing lists for polls and the like to ensure that all interested > >> parties have a chance to participate. > >> > >> jeanette > >> > >> > >> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> > >>> >From the email replies sent to the list, this time and date were the > >>> best - more people could do this time and date than any of the others > >>> - which is why we set it that way. > >>> > >>> If nobody else will propose an agenda, what I would suggest as a draft is: > >>> > >>> 1) Discuss and agree the list of candidates - including whether or not > >>> to include candidates who were proposed after the deadline. > >>> > >>> 2) Discuss and agree the total number of board seats for this election cycle. > >>> > >>> 3) Discuss and agree the length of the voting, the start date, and the > >>> provisional list of voters and the number of days for ALSes not on the > >>> call to provide their authorised voter. > >>> > >>> We would then bring the results of these items back to the list, not > >>> for review, but as decisions. > >>> > >>> I will put this up on the Wiki as the *DRAFT* agenda which all ALSes > >>> may then edit or extend - so we have something to start from. > >>> > >>> On 03/05/07, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de> wrote: > >>> > >>>> All, > >>>> concerning the tel conf tomorrow: Many people said they cannot take part (myself offered a different time, one and a half hours earlier). Rudi and myself asked what it is about, as no one proposed an agenda yet. I proposed to discuss all issues online. I guess, the best is, that those who actually have the chance in taking part come up with a proposal for procedure which will be presented to all of us online. > >>>> best > >>>> annette > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Rudi Vansnick schrieb: > >>>> > >>>>> This fits for me ... if at least we will have a clear agenda and no > >>>>> discussions about what is NOT written/signed in MoU and Bylaws. > >>>>> > >>>>> Rudi Vansnick > >>>>> Chair ISOC Belgium > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> EURO-Discuss mailing list > >> EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > >> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > EURO-Discuss mailing list > > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > _______________________________________________ > 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

[Fwd: hi]
by Patrick Vande Walle May 3, 2007

May 3, 2007

FYI, this is from a Bulgarian citizen, not a member of this list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: hi Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 12:12:28 -0400 From: Veni Markovski <veni(a)veni.com> To: patrick(a)vande-walle.eu, Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> References: <1178199578-395e08826e8dd8588aab4b474f6dcdd3(a)comunica-ch.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D3AC(a)server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4639FEB7.2010502(a)vande-walle.eu> Hi. I agree with Patrick. veni At 17:24 5/3/2007 +0200, you wrote: >KleinwДchter wrote: >> >>But this is not the point. The point is that we >>as a European At Large Organisation should be >>clear in sending political signals both to our >>own European constituencies and the rest of the world. >The clearest signal we can send to the community >is that we stick to the rules we agreed in >writing. Let us be an exemplary RALO. >As Roberto points out, we do not want yet >another Ombudsman report on the Euralo/ALAC >twisting its own rules. Losing our credibility >right from the beginning is not the way to go. > > >-- >Patrick Vande Walle >Check my blog at<http://patrick.vande-walle.eu>http://patrick.vande-walle.eu >_______________________________________________ >EURO-Discuss mailing list >EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… -- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog at http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Jabber me at patrick(a)vande-walle.eu

2 1

Re: [EURO-Discuss] ALAC
by Annette Muehlberg May 3, 2007

May 3, 2007

Dear all, there is a lot of tension coming in the debate the last days which is not leading anywhere. I really would like to support the positive approach of Wolfgang. We agreed to work in consensus and that at least means that in choosing our candidates we should find proportional representation in line with the opinions expressed on our list. Consensus oriented work certainly does not mean to use a tel conf with only a small group of people involved for decision making but it can be good for developing smart proposals for further procedure which will be presented to all of us online. Concerning the sudden questioning of deadlines for nominations - I really do not understand what this is all about. The two mails Wolf quoted were the last two mails on deadlines of nominations not objected by anyone on the list. So one good step forward we made together in consensus ;-) So to be absolutely clear and avoid further confusion, I propose that we now clarify the definition of "a few days" after the 29th for board nominations and set a strict end to the 4th of may. That is the same day we agreed to try to reach consensus for our ALAC candidates, so we can move over to a consensus oriented debate on the board on the basis of the final number of nominations (as not everyone seems to know: we all agreed to have a "minimum" of five seats). all the best annette > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Gesendet: 03.05.07 16:33:43 > An: Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Betreff: [EURO-Discuss] ALAC > > Dear EURALOs, > > > > sorry for being silent for a couple of days. I was travelling (Access to Knowledge Conference at Yale University and Computer Freedom and Privacy Conference in Montreal) and had only frequently access to the net. > > > > Reading the discussion on the ALAC election I am both perplexed and confused. The debate is formal and buerocratic and driven by individual interests. My understanding is that the issue is a political one and should be driven by common interests. > > > > Let me go back to some basic points, reflected in the mission and the value system both of ICANN and ISOC. ISOCs slogan within the WSIS process and elsewhere is "An Internet for All". And it is ICANNs mission to represent the Internet community as a whole. Should it not be the first task of ISOC members working within ICANN to bring people from underpivileged regions, from the edges of the net community, who need help and support, into the broader ICANN community? Should it not be our task to build bridges and to include more constituencies from regions which has not yet been included for a number (mainly economic) reasons into our process? I remember numerous statements from ISOC people in the WSIS process calling for more representation of underprivileged people and groups in the process. Is this serious or hippocarcy? > > > > When I proposed Veronica to represent the European internet users in the ALAC my argument was that it would be improper if the European Internet users would be represented only by three representatives coming from three founding member states of the EU (the small Europe of the Six, now we have an EU of 27 with more than 20 European countries outside the EU). To have a domination of the German and French speaking commuity in the representation of European internet users in ALAC would be a wrong message and violate the principle of geographical diversity which we have agreed in our draft of the MoU. > > > > If we make such a choice what would be the message to the million of Internet users in the Ukraine, in Belarus, in Russia and in the other Non-EU member states (including the Slavic speaking community within the EU)? Could you imagine that they think "they are not interested in us, this is a closed club of friends of friends networks?" > > > > I have grown up behind the iron curtain and I understand probably better than other old EU members how painful it is to live in difficult local circumstances with no financial means and a lot of burocratical problems when leaving the country an going to a meeting. Even if you have the individual potential, the intellectual capacity and if you are dedicated to contribute to the debate, without a helping hand nothing will happen and the potential remains unused and does not become part of the process. > > > > I have no doubt that both Sebastian and Patrick are well qualified for ALAC as well as tghey are qualified for a lot of other positions within and outside ICANN. Patrick has made a great contribution to the community by organizing the wonderful Luxembourg ICANN meeting. Sebastian is, like me, one of the veterans of ICANN, who has participated in nearly all ICANN meetings and has naturally all the knowledge of an insider. > > > > But this is not the point. The point is that we as a European At Large Organisation should be clear in sending political signals both to our own European constituencies and the rest of the world. We take the challenge to bring more people to the Internet community seriously and we are looking for people who can represent also the underprivileged Internet users in our bodies. > > > > If the main driving force for the application from Patrick and Sebastian is to serve the community I think there are numerous opportunities to do this. There is no need to have a formal position to make the voice heard and to contribute to the ICANN process. Insofar I would encourage Sebastian and Patrick to call each other and to find a way out of the situation which would enable us to move forward by consensus. My proposal would be that either Sebastian or Patrick would accept the one year term this year and next year he would be substituted by the other one.for a two year term. This would guarantee a three year representation of the French speaking Internet community in the ALAC and both would have their ALAC membership in their CV. > > > > Hope this will help to move forward, to go back to a positive climate in our discussion and to leave the trouble behind us so that we can concentrate now on substance. > > > > I used the time so far to prepare a workshop on "Consumer Interests and new gTLDs" for San Juan (details later). And I am also working on an Outreach workshop during the forthcoming ICANN Studienkreis meeting in Warsaw, October 2007. More contribution for other members our community are welcome. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Wolfgang > > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > --

2 1