- EURO-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 10, 2007

May 10, 2007

See below. On 10/05/07, Annette Muehlberg <Annette.Muehlberg(a)web.de> wrote: > Dear Nick, > > I am confused, what exactly do you mean by the following? > > Secondly: Since we have 11 candidates including the two ALAC who > > remain interested in serving as a board member if they do not get > > elected, > As we have two persons to select for the ALAC either the two who also volunteered for the board in case of not being elected (veronica and sebastian) get elected for the ALAC than we have only 9 nominees for the board. everything is fine, no further election needed - if we agree on 9 voting seats. > If Patrick and either S. or V. are selected for the ALAC, the one left (S. or V.) will be available for the board seat. that would mean we had 10 voting members on the board. fine with me too. Since Patrick has declined to be seated as a board member if he is not elected to the ALAC in order to help move things forward, we have a few possible scenarios: 1) Veronica and Patrick are elected: Possible number of Board members: 9+1=10 2) Veronica and Sebastian are elected: Possible number of board members: 9+0=9 3) Sebastian and Patrick are elected: Possible number of board members: 9+1=10 > I would rather not have an odd number than start voting out one person. God, all this trouble for one person more or less. I would just elect the ALAC and those who volunteered for board become board members. Is that a proposal everyone can live with? > Unless minds have changed in the last 12 hours, I believe the answer is No. > Or did I count wrong? all this is not easy to keep track and understand. No, it isn't ;) > It really would be much easier if we agreed that every current ALS can vote, than we start voting for the ALAC tomorrow and that is it. The board is equal to all other volunteers. easy, efficient, no hassle and we can start to work on relevant policy issues. > Very strong objections to that course of action have been expressed. If the last two ALSes do not sign the MoU before noon tomorrow, then we will have to have a vote on who can vote, followed by a vote on the other questions. > best > annette > > and since one person cannot hold both a board and an ALAC > > seat, the maximum number of board members we could have with the > > current nominations is 9. > > > > Therefore, I would suggest that we do not need to have the option of > > 10 board members, since there are only 9 possible directors in any > > case. > > > > I hope you would agree? > > > > I am hopeful that today I can speak directly to Heike Jensen. If the > > representatives of FITUG could consult each other as well in > > connection with whether they could sign the MoU, if the remaining two > > ALSes who have not signed were to sign, that would mean we could > > manage with just one vote, instead of needing two votes. > > > > If we need two votes, then of course we shall have them. > > > > On 10/05/07, Stefan Hügel <sh(a)fiff.de> wrote: > > > Dear Nick, dear colleagues, > > > > > > I'd like to suggest the following: > > > > > > Extend the voting on the number of board members: 5, 7, 9 or 10 (that is, > > > all candidates). (In this sense I object to the voting on 5, 7 or 9.) > > > > > > I fully agree on a vote amongst the signers of the MoU, if the non-signers > > > will be allowed to take part in the election. > > > > > > One final remark I' like to make: We should vote first on the number of > > > seats and the ALSes allowed to take part in the election. Only afterwards, > > > the election itself should take place. I think it is important to know > > > before voting, who has the right to vote and how many candidates will get a > > > seat. > > > > > > Best > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 09.05.2007 um 20:31 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: > > > > > > Stefan, two questions to make sure I understand where we are: > > > > > > Since you object to 7, do you object to voting on whether there will > > > be 5, 7, or 9 board members? > > > > > > As to the objection about ALSes: It seems to me that there is no > > > option, therefore, but that there must be a vote amongst those who > > > have signed the MoU as to whether or not they wish to formally require > > > that only those who have signed the MoU may vote in the election. > > > > > > Since they have signed the MoU, it is up to them to decide whether > > > they wish to limit the voting rights in the manner proposed, as > > > provided in the relevant clauses of the MoU. > > > > > > There are at present only three ALSes who have not yet signed the MoU. > > > > > > We (Susie and myself) will therefore setup a vote to start this > > > Friday, when the election would have started, and ending on the same > > > date the election would have ended, with this question: > > > > > > "Shall voting rights in the upcoming elections be limited to those who > > > have signed the MoU with ICANN?" > > > > > > The available options will then be: > > > > > > YES > > > NO > > > ABSTAIN > > > > > > Hopefully this will meet with general understanding. > > > > > > On 09/05/07, Stefan Hügel <sh(a)fiff.de> wrote: > > > Dear Nick, dear colleagues, > > > > > > I am not sure if it is a good idea to artificially restrict the number of > > > board members. As there is a lot of work to do, why exclude individuals who > > > are willing to do that work? > > > > > > It is also not plausible to me, why Annettes suggestion endangers the > > > progress of the election. We should strive together for the best possible > > > solution and not build up pressure against alternative opinions. > > > > > > Unfortunately, I have to state that I object to the recommendation to have a > > > board of seven. Instead, in my opinion, we should at least have a board of 9 > > > elected members. Even better, we should not exclude anyone. > > > > > > Additionally I would object to the recommendation to let only the signers of > > > the MoU vote. All accredited ALSes should have the right to vote, as it was > > > discussed earlier. > > > > > > Best > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 09.05.2007 um 17:24 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > EURO-Discuss mailing list > > > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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

Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws
by Annette Muehlberg May 10, 2007

May 10, 2007

Dear Nick, I am confused, what exactly do you mean by the following? > Secondly: Since we have 11 candidates including the two ALAC who > remain interested in serving as a board member if they do not get > elected, As we have two persons to select for the ALAC either the two who also volunteered for the board in case of not being elected (veronica and sebastian) get elected for the ALAC than we have only 9 nominees for the board. everything is fine, no further election needed - if we agree on 9 voting seats. If Patrick and either S. or V. are selected for the ALAC, the one left (S. or V.) will be available for the board seat. that would mean we had 10 voting members on the board. fine with me too. I would rather not have an odd number than start voting out one person. God, all this trouble for one person more or less. I would just elect the ALAC and those who volunteered for board become board members. Is that a proposal everyone can live with? Or did I count wrong? all this is not easy to keep track and understand. It really would be much easier if we agreed that every current ALS can vote, than we start voting for the ALAC tomorrow and that is it. The board is equal to all other volunteers. easy, efficient, no hassle and we can start to work on relevant policy issues. best annette and since one person cannot hold both a board and an ALAC > seat, the maximum number of board members we could have with the > current nominations is 9. > > Therefore, I would suggest that we do not need to have the option of > 10 board members, since there are only 9 possible directors in any > case. > > I hope you would agree? > > I am hopeful that today I can speak directly to Heike Jensen. If the > representatives of FITUG could consult each other as well in > connection with whether they could sign the MoU, if the remaining two > ALSes who have not signed were to sign, that would mean we could > manage with just one vote, instead of needing two votes. > > If we need two votes, then of course we shall have them. > > On 10/05/07, Stefan Hügel <sh(a)fiff.de> wrote: > > Dear Nick, dear colleagues, > > > > I'd like to suggest the following: > > > > Extend the voting on the number of board members: 5, 7, 9 or 10 (that is, > > all candidates). (In this sense I object to the voting on 5, 7 or 9.) > > > > I fully agree on a vote amongst the signers of the MoU, if the non-signers > > will be allowed to take part in the election. > > > > One final remark I' like to make: We should vote first on the number of > > seats and the ALSes allowed to take part in the election. Only afterwards, > > the election itself should take place. I think it is important to know > > before voting, who has the right to vote and how many candidates will get a > > seat. > > > > Best > > Stefan > > > > > > > > Am 09.05.2007 um 20:31 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: > > > > Stefan, two questions to make sure I understand where we are: > > > > Since you object to 7, do you object to voting on whether there will > > be 5, 7, or 9 board members? > > > > As to the objection about ALSes: It seems to me that there is no > > option, therefore, but that there must be a vote amongst those who > > have signed the MoU as to whether or not they wish to formally require > > that only those who have signed the MoU may vote in the election. > > > > Since they have signed the MoU, it is up to them to decide whether > > they wish to limit the voting rights in the manner proposed, as > > provided in the relevant clauses of the MoU. > > > > There are at present only three ALSes who have not yet signed the MoU. > > > > We (Susie and myself) will therefore setup a vote to start this > > Friday, when the election would have started, and ending on the same > > date the election would have ended, with this question: > > > > "Shall voting rights in the upcoming elections be limited to those who > > have signed the MoU with ICANN?" > > > > The available options will then be: > > > > YES > > NO > > ABSTAIN > > > > Hopefully this will meet with general understanding. > > > > On 09/05/07, Stefan Hügel <sh(a)fiff.de> wrote: > > Dear Nick, dear colleagues, > > > > I am not sure if it is a good idea to artificially restrict the number of > > board members. As there is a lot of work to do, why exclude individuals who > > are willing to do that work? > > > > It is also not plausible to me, why Annettes suggestion endangers the > > progress of the election. We should strive together for the best possible > > solution and not build up pressure against alternative opinions. > > > > Unfortunately, I have to state that I object to the recommendation to have a > > board of seven. Instead, in my opinion, we should at least have a board of 9 > > elected members. Even better, we should not exclude anyone. > > > > Additionally I would object to the recommendation to let only the signers of > > the MoU vote. All accredited ALSes should have the right to vote, as it was > > discussed earlier. > > > > Best > > Stefan > > > > > > > > Am 09.05.2007 um 17:24 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > EURO-Discuss mailing list > > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > -- > -- > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > --

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 10, 2007

May 10, 2007

Dear Stefan: The reason that 5,7, and 9 were chosen is because these are odd numbers; this way, tied votes will not be possible, but with 10, a tied vote is possible. Secondly: Since we have 11 candidates including the two ALAC who remain interested in serving as a board member if they do not get elected, and since one person cannot hold both a board and an ALAC seat, the maximum number of board members we could have with the current nominations is 9. Therefore, I would suggest that we do not need to have the option of 10 board members, since there are only 9 possible directors in any case. I hope you would agree? I am hopeful that today I can speak directly to Heike Jensen. If the representatives of FITUG could consult each other as well in connection with whether they could sign the MoU, if the remaining two ALSes who have not signed were to sign, that would mean we could manage with just one vote, instead of needing two votes. If we need two votes, then of course we shall have them. On 10/05/07, Stefan Hügel <sh(a)fiff.de> wrote: > Dear Nick, dear colleagues, > > I'd like to suggest the following: > > Extend the voting on the number of board members: 5, 7, 9 or 10 (that is, > all candidates). (In this sense I object to the voting on 5, 7 or 9.) > > I fully agree on a vote amongst the signers of the MoU, if the non-signers > will be allowed to take part in the election. > > One final remark I' like to make: We should vote first on the number of > seats and the ALSes allowed to take part in the election. Only afterwards, > the election itself should take place. I think it is important to know > before voting, who has the right to vote and how many candidates will get a > seat. > > Best > Stefan > > > > Am 09.05.2007 um 20:31 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: > > Stefan, two questions to make sure I understand where we are: > > Since you object to 7, do you object to voting on whether there will > be 5, 7, or 9 board members? > > As to the objection about ALSes: It seems to me that there is no > option, therefore, but that there must be a vote amongst those who > have signed the MoU as to whether or not they wish to formally require > that only those who have signed the MoU may vote in the election. > > Since they have signed the MoU, it is up to them to decide whether > they wish to limit the voting rights in the manner proposed, as > provided in the relevant clauses of the MoU. > > There are at present only three ALSes who have not yet signed the MoU. > > We (Susie and myself) will therefore setup a vote to start this > Friday, when the election would have started, and ending on the same > date the election would have ended, with this question: > > "Shall voting rights in the upcoming elections be limited to those who > have signed the MoU with ICANN?" > > The available options will then be: > > YES > NO > ABSTAIN > > Hopefully this will meet with general understanding. > > On 09/05/07, Stefan Hügel <sh(a)fiff.de> wrote: > Dear Nick, dear colleagues, > > I am not sure if it is a good idea to artificially restrict the number of > board members. As there is a lot of work to do, why exclude individuals who > are willing to do that work? > > It is also not plausible to me, why Annettes suggestion endangers the > progress of the election. We should strive together for the best possible > solution and not build up pressure against alternative opinions. > > Unfortunately, I have to state that I object to the recommendation to have a > board of seven. Instead, in my opinion, we should at least have a board of 9 > elected members. Even better, we should not exclude anyone. > > Additionally I would object to the recommendation to let only the signers of > the MoU vote. All accredited ALSes should have the right to vote, as it was > discussed earlier. > > Best > Stefan > > > > Am 09.05.2007 um 17:24 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > > > -- > 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 > > > > > > -- > -- > 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 > > > > -- > 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 > > -- -- 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

Legal situation with respect to ALAC candidatures
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 10, 2007

May 10, 2007

Dear European colleagues: I have had a reply back from the Office of the General Counsel in respect of the two questions you asked me to take to them. With respect to the two questions: 1) Would Ms. Cretu's candidature be void because she didn't belong to an ALS in advance of the closing of the nominations period: It is arguable that a candidate should be a member of an ALS at the time they are nominated, but the Bylaws and MoU do not require that to be the case. As a consequence this fact does not void her candidature. 2) Would the fact that Ms. Cretu has been announced to be a member of the same ALS which Annette Muehlberg is a principal of void her candidature? Since Annette is the NomCom appointee, and the Bylaws and MoU govern only the diversity requirements of the two ALAC members to be chosen by the RALO, this fact does not void her candidature. A bit of elaboration is however in order, in respect of two points: 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. 2) All RALOs are encouraged very strongly to follow not just the letter of their MoUs and Operating Principles or Bylaws, and the ICANN bylaws as well, but their spirit too. This would include ensuring that those they nominate for elections are, at the time of their being nominated, clearly in compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the relevant MoUs, Bylaws/Operating Principles, and the like. This helps ensure that all elections are conducted entirely without any possible irregularity, or perception of irregularity, which only enhances the validity of elections and helps to avoid any external doubts about the result or the transparency and governance exhibited by the At-Large community. These points are provided not to point fingers at or criticise any person or organisation, but rather to encourage everyone to consult these documents carefully, to ensure that you understand them, so that problems like those we have just encountered can be avoided. No other region has had anything like as great a difficulty in choosing their initial officers as EURALO is having and has had so far. I strongly urge you all to ensure that henceforward no further problems arise - the ICANN world is watching, and I would hope everyone would want the wider world to look upon At-Large as a benchmark in how to work transparently and without irregularity or the need to consult external parties further in handling of their elections. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

6 7

Revised elections process - IMPORTANT PLEASE READ
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 9, 2007

May 9, 2007

Dear All: I have revised the page on the wiki reflecting the elections process in two regards: 1) To take account of the fact that the GCs office has said that Ms. Cretu's candidature is in order; 2) To take into account that the voting system can accomodate the preference-casting system decided in Lisbon and also on the teleconference 3) To take into account an error in my understanding of what was discussed on the teleconference. I had mistakenly understood that the ALAC seats would be selected via voters casting two votes for their preference, and the top 2 vote getters would be elected. In fact, the preference-based system to be used for the Board seats was retained also for the ALAC members, which means that only one system is needed for the entire ballot (simpler to understand for voters). I reproduce the page from the Wiki below. The wiki page again is at: https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_elections_2007 2007 EURALO Election Details As posted by email by the ICANN staff, incorporating the decisions recommended to the region on the teleconference of 4 May 2007. ELECTION PERIOD: Noon UTC, Friday 11 May to Noon UTC, Wednesday 16th May. VOTERS: The designated voters (1 per ALS) of ALSes who have signed the Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN either in-person at the Lisbon ICANN meeting or digitally via electronic mail - at any time before the beginning of the voting - Text available from the RALO Organising Instruments page. Current list of MOU signatories can be found at: the MoU Signatories page. CANDIDATES: All those nominated up to the end of the teleconference on 4th May 2007 (see below for complete list) NUMBER OF BOARD SEATS: The strong recommendation of those on the teleconference was that there should be 7 members of the initial board. If there is any objection to this number, then the call's strong recommendation is that there should be a section on the ballot for each voter to pick from amongst the following options for the number of total seats: 5, 7, 9 Voting For the ALAC Candidates: The ballot will work as follows: Each voter will rank, in order of preference, ALL the ALAC candidates. The voting system will then produce a list, which incorporates the preferences expressed. The candidate receiving the highest preference across all preference votes cast will show at the top of the list; the next-highest directly underneath, and the third preference at the bottom. Since the GC office has ruled that the candidature of Ms. Cretu is in order, there will be three candidates. The terms of the two seats are staggered. Whichever candidate receives the highest preference from amongst all the ranked votes cast shall have the two-year term. The candidate receiving the next- highest ranking shall receive the one year term. The two candidates receiving the highest aggregated preference votes shall be elected. The remaining candidate, (if any) will be subject to election to the Board (see below for details) Voting For the EURALO Board: The ballot for the board will list all of the current nominees for board seats, of which there are twelve (12) (reproduced below and also at Meeting Notes 4 May 2007. This list includes the three candidates for ALAC seats. The candidate for an ALAC seat who does not get elected, may be seated as a board member (but see below). No candidate for ALAC may be elected to both an ALAC seat AND a board seat, however. The actual ballot will work as follows: Each voter will rank, in order of preference, ALL the board nominees. The voting system will then produce a list, which incorporates the preferences expressed. The board members who will be elected are the top 'N' listed, from the top of the list on down. The Number 'N' shall be either: In the case that no objection is raised to the call's recommendation of seven (7) members: 7 In the case that an objection is raised, then the number shall be that number from the selection above (5,7,9) which receives the most votes. TERM OF BOARD MEMBERS: It was not decided on the call how to determine which board members would receive one year terms, and which would receive two, as per the Bylaws, Clause 9.5.2. Therefore, the staff recommends the following: The top 1/2 of the list of preferences from the board election (rounded to the nearest whole number, depending upon the number of seats), will receive two-year terms, and the bottom 1/2 will receive one-year terms. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO OBJECT TO THIS PROCEDURE as this is simply a staff proposal. Keep in mind, however, that it might be viewed as less than ideal to have another ballot, immediately after the first, to decide who shall have what length of term from amongst those elected. VOTING MECHANISM: At-Large uses a voting system provided by BigPulse (www.bigpulse.com) The authorised voter will receive an individualised email, with a clickable link as well as manual login instructions, which are individually-generated. The system will be setup to provide a secret ballot, and the ICANN staff will ensure that the system produces a reminder email 48 hours before the vote closes, and then again 24 hours before the vote closes, to any voter who has not yet voted to help ensure that they do cast a vote. We will also setup a URL where anyone will be able to see the results of the vote for themselves to ensure transparency with respect to the results. This URL will be forwarded to both European email lists. CANDIDATES LIST Christian Name Surname ALS (Country of ALS) Country of Residence Nationality Sub-Region Board Candidate (Y/N) ALAC Candidate (2 seats) Notes Patrick Vande Walle ISOC Luxembourg (Luxembourg) Luxembourg Western Europe SN: 07/04/07 Sébastien Bachollet ISOC France (France) France Western Europe Nom: Dessi Veronica Cretu network new media (Germany) Moldava Eastern Europe Nom: Wolfgang Rudi Vansnick ISOC Belgium (Belgium) Belgium Belgium Western Europe Yes Vittorio Bertola ISOC Italy (Italy) Italy Italy Western Europe Yes Christoph Bruch GCLU (Germany) Germany Germany Western Europe Yes Desiree Miloshevic United Kingdom Serbia (?) Eastern Europe Yes Bill Drake Switzerland USA Western Europe Yes Jeanette Hofmann Germany Germany Western Europe Yes Karen Banks UK Australia Western Europe Yes Wolf Ludwig Switzerland Germany Western Europe Yes member of Communica.ch, an ALS candidate organisation Paco de Quito ISOC CAT (Spain) Spain Spain Western Europe Yes Patrick Vande Walle ISOC Luxembourg (Luxembourg) Luxembourg Western Europe Yes (ALAC Candidate) Sebastien Bachollet ISOC France (France) France France Western Europe Yes (ALAC Candidate) Veronica Cretu network new media (Germany) Moldova Moldova Eastern Europe

2 1

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

May 9, 2007

At this point I have just received the digital signature of ISOC NL. This means at this point there are only two ALSes who have yet to sign: FITUG Terre des Femmes I have written directly to Dr. Heike Jensen to see if she is keeping up with the correspondence and asking if she believes TDF will be joining the MoU. To treat both ALSes equally I will do the same thing tomorrow. My sincere hope is that we can, at this point, actually get the last two digital signatures and as a result no longer have to have multiple votes, or more complex votes. Speaking personally, at the end of a long day, I must say I very much hope we can all find a way to move forward without multiple votes and with a compromise allowing a vote on a number of board seats to be held. That, to me, represents the best of a democratic process: when consensus is not possible, a vote is held. With one of the three ALAC candidates having withdrawn his name from being a possible board candidate, the maximum number of seats to be chosen from if we keep the list of 5, 7, and 9, would mean that all those willing to serve on the board would be able to do so from the entire list of nominees. My hope is that everyone will be willing to accept the dual votes: on the number of seats, and the candidates for the board, and allow a democratic vote to determine the result, rather than seeking to insist on one particular proposal or another. On 09/05/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: > Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto: > > We (Susie and myself) will therefore setup a vote to start this > > Friday, when the election would have started, and ending on the same > > date the election would have ended, with this question: > > Please note that if it turns out that you can enjoy rights without > signing the related agreement, my organization will consider terminating > the agreement. Why should we sign a contract if it is not necessary? > > Anyway, if you really want a vote on that, let's do this in parallel; > but let's not delay the rest of the procedure. I think that further > delays are unacceptable. We already stretched the original schedule a > lot, we accepted late nominations without objection, we encouraged those > who had not signed yet to do it now so that they could still participate > in the vote. Many of us here accepted lots and lots of compromises, > trying to build a home that can be good both for techies and for > activists, for groups and for individuals; and we still receive messages > stating "the only solution is to do exactly as I say". I think that > ICANN should be more supportive of constructive contributions and less > accommodating with destructive ones. > > In the end, people have to realize that either they believe in this > process, and so sign the MoU and accept to live with the diversity of > opinions in the group, or they do not, and so they stop participating. > Just staying half way, posting objections to each and every step > forward, is neither useful nor reasonable for anyone. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > -- -- 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 9, 2007

May 9, 2007

Dear Vittorio: This is not the interpretation of the ICANN GCs office I'm afraid. Since the MoU is missing key elements of an enforceable contract such as a jurisdiction, as well as enforcement provisions, this reinforces that it is meant to be a good-faith agreement between the parties. I take your point in the last paragraph ;) On 09/05/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: > Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto: > > 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. > > AFAIK, a piece of paper signed by the legal representatives of the > parties is a private contract, is binding upon the parties, and can be > enforced in courts (though there might be reasons why the court might > declare the contract void, but you'd have to go to court to see what > they think of it). > > Personally, not being a lawyer, I perceived the MoU as a binding > contract for those who sign it, ICANN included. If ICANN ever tried to > escape its obligations... I would consider sueing it :-) > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > -- -- 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] follow our own bylaws
by Annette Muehlberg May 9, 2007

May 9, 2007

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 > --

4 3

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