- EURO-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Invitation to the 1st EURALO General Assembly, Paris
by Wolf Ludwig May 12, 2008

May 12, 2008

Dear all, after the first announcement (and some memories ;-) of the next 32nd ICANN Public Meeting at the end of June in Paris we now reached considerable registration for participation from our ALSes what I highly appreciate. A recent up-date of participation for Paris you can find at the EURALO Workspace: https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe I will take this opportunity to officially invite you to our 1st General Assembly (GA) which will be convened before the opening of the ICANN meeting on Saturday, 21 June 08, approximately in the afternoon (02:00-05:00 PM) in Paris (for more information see: https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?21_june_2008) The exact details of the time and venue of our General Assembly will be send to you soon. Attached please find a first draft of an agenda for our GA. If you have any more suggestions and other points you wish to be added to this draft please let me know (preferably within the next two weeks). A report of the EURALO Board will be submitted via this list before the Paris meeting. Thanks and best regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net http://blog.allmend.ch - Digitale Allmend

2 1

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Invitation to the 1st EURALO General Assembly, Paris
by JFC Morfin May 11, 2008

May 11, 2008

At 22:00 11/05/2008, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >I will take this opportunity to officially invite you to our 1st >General Assembly (GA) which will be convened before the opening of >the ICANN meeting on Saturday, 21 June 08, approximately in the >afternoon (02:00-05:00 PM) in Paris (for more information see: >https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?21_june_2008) The exact >details of the time and venue of our General Assembly will be send to you soon. > >Attached please find a first draft of an agenda for our GA. If you >have any more suggestions and other points you wish to be added to >this draft please let me know (preferably within the next two weeks). Dear Wolf, as a speaker, on behalf of france@large, for the first @large meeting ever on the eve of Marina del Rey 2000, with Karl Auerbach and Andy Mueller-Maguhn, etc I hope I will be able to say a few welcome words to you in Paris to the World Internet Week of Paris (http://wiw.de-paris.info) I am interested to know the procedure to be nominated Euralo candidate (unless there are national quotas ?) jfc

1 0

Important: Resigning from ALAC Position at ICANN
by Veronica Cretu May 7, 2008

May 7, 2008

Dear colleagues! Warm greetings from Moldova! Hope my message finds you well! I am currently involved as an international expert in a big project for the Ministry of Education of Liberia and will have to spend more than three weeks there starting from May 15. The NGO I run here in Moldova is also involved in many national projects which require very much of my direct involvement: monitoring and evaluation. In this context, it is quite a challenge to find additional time for ALAC activities when I am full-time involved in so many activities.That is why, it is my duty to inform you all that due to the many projects I am currently in charge of, I have to unfortunately resign from my ALAC position. It has not been an easy decision to make at all! I just can not stay in ALAC any longer just for the sake of being on ALAC/AtLarge – I prefer to be effective and to produce impact. And this is smth for which I simply don’t have time now! I must say that ALAC has been a great experience for me and I am truly thankful to everyone on ALAC who have been day by day, side by side during this last year. I have learned a lot from this professional, hard-working, committed and culturally diverse community. I want to thank my European colleagues: Annette and WolfgangKleinwächterin the first place, for their confidence in me and for believing that I can bring something new to ALAC, even if I am from Eastern Europe:)! I am very thankful to Cheryl and Izumi for their openness and for their professional support on the initiatives I launched on ALAC. I am happy for having worked with my European colleagues: Sebastian and Wolf and all my respect for all EURALO board membersfor the patience, passion and possible solutions they have been trying to identify in order to make EURALO start working on policy related issues in the region; My thanks go also for my North American colleagues: Alan, Robert and Beau – for their professional work and support whenever needed; Jose Ovidio, Carlos, Hawa– my admiration for the effort and time you invest in ALAC – I know it has not been easy for you given the language barriers that you have been facing so far; Mohamed, Fatimata, Vanda and Thu Hue –many thanks for your energy, time and devotion and for your friendly support on the ideas I was promoting on ALAC/Atlarge. Many thanks to current ALAC liaisons: Hong, Jacqueline and Wendy; And of course, my many thanks toNick- I know it is not an easy task to handle the communication and collaboration with such a big and diverse community. Thank you for your support throughout this year. I know ICANN staff will do much more in order to support ALAC/AtLarge become a viable and strong community now with more staff members in place. I am glad I managed to bring to ALAC/AtLarge some ideas and practices that go back to my professional background. Because I strongly believe that “A policy is a deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s).” back in Puerto Rico (my first ICANN meeting) I came to the conclusion that ALAC /At Large needs to have a set of mechanisms via which these policies are identified, promoted and evaluated. These are the few things that I have managed to do in the period of June 2007 – present: -I initiated the “OneDay” Workshop for ALAC/AtLarge. -I have designed the agenda and conducted together with Cheryl and Izumi two “OneDay” workshops before ICANN meetings in Los-Angeles and New Delhi. -I have compiled OneDay Evaluation Reports, based on the feedback from ALAC/AtLarge members who have participated in these meetings; -Back in New Delhi, I made a statement on behalf of ALAC on Organizational Development; -I elaborated the ALAC Organizational Development document that focuses on several components of the ALAC’s developments; -I proposed a document on “What is an ALAC/AtLarge” Working Group – and the document was used for planning activities per certain working groups during the OneDay workshop in New Delhi; -I have recently transferred some of the good practices that came as a result of this Organizational Development processes on ALAC into the GNSO Improvements Report. -Along with all the above, I organized a three days training program on Internet Governance and Community Development in Moldova (www.cmb.md/igf [http://www.cmb.md/igf] during which we had a special session on ALAC/AtLarge @ ICANN. Training participants were 16 young leaders representing civil society, business sector, international community and the Government. -I have had several discussions with APTI members from Romania, as they were our project partners in the above Program, and as a result we have recently received their application in order to become an accredited ALS structure @ICANN from our part of the world. All the reports and documents I produced have been available since produced at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?organisational_development [https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?organisational_development] . To conclude, I want to encourage you to contact me/stay in touch in case you are interested in working on projects/initiatives dealing with ICT for Development, Access to Knowledge, Internet Governance, Community Development, IDNs, Education, Virtual Embassies, Climate Change, etc. both regionally and/or internationally! Good luck with all your initiatives and all the best! As ever, Veronica Veronica Cretu, President, CMB Training Center CMB - Promoting innovations in Communication, Management and Business Chisinau, Moldova www.cmb.md [http://www.cmb.md/] www.cmb.md/igf [http://www.cmb.md/igf] +373 22 27 45 04, 273196 email:vcretu@cmb.md [javascript:openWin('/WorldClient.dll?Session=EJQQNER&View=Compose&To=vcretu(a)cmb.md&New=Yes','Compose',800,600,'yes');] VeronicaC(a)diplomacy.edu [javascript:openWin('/WorldClient.dll?Session=EJQQNER&View=Compose&To=VeronicaC(a)diplomacy.edu&New=Yes','Compose',800,600,'yes');]

5 4

WG: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input
by Dominik Filipp May 7, 2008

May 7, 2008

Hi all, There is already an ongoing debate on domain tasting on NA-Discuss and partly ALAC forums discussing the elimination of the AGP. Unfortunately, because of the list split there is no central place directly accessible to all where to address this important issue. It would perhaps be worth considering the reactivation of the Domain Tasting Working Group. Dominik Wolf Ludwig wrote: >Dear all, > >I would like to forward to you this Call for public Comments. >It would be great to have some comments and inputs from the >EURALO community on the GNSO Domain Tasting Motion! > >Thanks and regards, >Wolf

1 0

WG: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input
by Wolf Ludwig May 6, 2008

May 6, 2008

Dear all, I would like to forward to you this Call for public Comments. It would be great to have some comments and inputs from the EURALO community on the GNSO Domain Tasting Motion! Thanks and regards, Wolf Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote Sat, 3 May 2008 09:08: >Your attention is drawn to the following *call for public comment* forwarded >to all SO & AC Chairs earlier today. > >The Secretariats and Executive Committees / Boards of the RALO's are hereby >requested to ensure (in their role in the "managing of outreach and public >involvement and acting as the main forum and coordination point in each >region for public input to ICANN", {see ><http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/> >http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/} ) to ensure that the ALS's and >At-large Community in your region are *aware of* and have *the opportunity >to input* into this final round of comment into the Domain Tasting Issue/ >Motion before it goes to the ICANN Board. > >Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) >ALAC Chair 2007-2008 > > > >From: (.) Denise Michel >Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 8:18 AM > >Subject: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion > >To: Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee Chairs > >Please note that a forum for public comments has been opened regarding the >recent action by the GNSO Council to approve by super majority vote a motion >to discourage use of the current "add grace period" (AGP). The forum can be >found at <http://icann.org/public_comment/#dt-motion-21may08>. > >The motion, which is now pending for Board action, would specifically >prohibit any gTLD operator that has implemented an "add grace period" (AGP) >from offering a refund for any domain name deleted during the AGP that >exceeds 10% of its net new registrations during that month, or fifty domain >names, whichever is greater. An exemption could be granted based on >extraordinary circumstances, as detailed in the motion. > >The public and all interested parties are invited to comment on this motion >before final consideration by the Board. >(.) > >Regards, >Denise Michel >Vice President Policy > comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net http://blog.allmend.ch - Digitale Allmend

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Regional advice on France@Large application needed
by Vittorio Bertola May 3, 2008

May 3, 2008

Wolf Ludwig ha scritto: > Dear all, > > EURALO and its board is asked for opinion and advice on new ALS > applications in its region. In previous cases our verifications > didn’t show any difficulties or inconsistencies. Unfortunately in a > recent one, the application from France @Large, we face some problems > to come up with an unanimous recommendation. > > Repeated and detailed verifications of France@Large’s application by > the staff and some of the board members showed the following > inconsistencies: > > *the type of organisation and its membership is rather unclear. In > the application form, some of the crucial questions (2 d-e) on the > participation, role and influence of individual Internet users, are > answered with “No”. In question 2 f-j it is stated that the > applicant/ALS has “no organizations as members“ and „ governmental > bodies or quasi-governmental bodies as members“ neither. That means > that the organisational character of the applicant is not evident > after repeated checks. I'm not sure I understand. According to the English application that was posted to the EURALO list almost two months ago, in 2 d-e they say the exact opposite of what you report, they say that decisions are taken by their members. And in 2 e-f they say that they have no organizational members and no governmental members, which is a good thing. That's why we are asking those questions - to be sure that they are not controlled by companies or governments. > *the membership development, > > *the exact activities and > > *the financing/funding of the applicant. > > Therefore the Co-Chair and other board members cannot support > France@Large’s application under consideration of the given > information. If there is no objection from other board and EURALO > members -- with any further reasons to be considered -- we would like > to recommend non-approval to ALAC. I am a EURALO Board member, but this is the first time I am asked an opinion about this application. Can you explain me how and by whom this application was discussed, to come to the recommendation above? I remember the application being posted to the EURALO list, but I don't remember any comment there. Was there any request to all Board members or to the EURALO list for comments? If not, why not? In any case, I am forwarding this message to the list so that everyone is informed and we can have an open discussion. In general, we have to be very cautious about rejecting new applications, as it might look like a form of capture by the existing RALO members. I do not have a final opinion yet, but I have known Jefsey Morfin - the France@Large leader - for years, and even if he often has very controversial opinions, he exists and he has been participating to the At Large since the year 2000, which is more than can be said of several accredited ALSes. There should be a clear reason to reject this application, not just "we're not sure" or "we don't like him". That's a guarantee for a new Ombudsman case. > Please note that we need to know your opinion within the NEXT 2 DAYS. Nothing has happened for two months, so why all this hurry now? Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

6 19

france@large proposes an Arts, Cultures and Technologies French Language TLD
by JFC Morfin May 3, 2008

May 3, 2008

Dear Friends, FYI, the French Ministry for Communications has initiated the legal public consultation concerning the review of the management of the French territories ccTLDs. As part of its answer france@large has made the proposition to dedicate ".tf" to artistics, culural and technical issues in the French language. In particular, this proposition should lead to a show case for the international digital convergence and semantic emergence of the Multilingal Internet. france@large is already attentive to the work engaged in the IETF concerning the IDNA proposition through several observers. jfc

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Regional advice on France@Large application needed
by JFC Morfin May 2, 2008

May 2, 2008

At 10:12 30/04/2008, Roberto Gaetano wrote: >JFC, >Please find below the questions asked by Wolf in plain text. >I hope it helps. >Cheers, >Roberto Thank you, Roberto. NB. france@large members are copied separately since the france@large working language is French, some French summaries are added. Dear Wolf, Let me first clear up something, I can fully understand as to why one cannot understand something. However, I do not think it to be reasonable to start a conflict in inventing and broadly publishing answers instead of asking questions. This has created some unrest among france@large for no reason at all. I am working on a document relating france@large's history and positions for our press folder. It will be translated in English. Therefore, I will only explain what is necessary for you to fully understand what you ask for. I will try to give all the detail you need. Do not hesitate to ask for more. The france@large structure is "innovative". But it is also 30 years proven through a score of other projects and 7.5 years old, performant and stable, and very commonly copied in the Internet governance. A. Some preliminary We have already met this same attitude several times at ICANN and IETF. The last time was when the Intlnet organization (see below) was denied to join its proper NCUC constituency. Opposition was lead by Danny Younger with the same absurdities. I was very gentle with them and provided without result a great many explanations. We made it clear that we wanted also to participate in the WG-IDN. This was opposed by some for strategic reasons and interests. We called upon Franck Fowlie, but eventually dropped the issue when we won in ISO against their wish to "internationalize" ISO 3166 to control the IDNccTLDs and IANA. This is why we sent the france@large application during an ICANN meeting, while informing my opponents. There is no interest in sneaking in if we really want to work together. It has not been difficult to learn from him that the Staff is under pressure on this file. Nick said he spent 10 times more time on it than usual, but did not explain why. Nor said I was wrong. B. In this post I wear two caps (1) general secretary of the france@large association. As such my role is purely administrative and neutral. (2) Interim Chair of the france@large @large General Assembly which is to france@large what the GNSO/GA is to ICANN, except that france@large's purpose in life is to support the GA (like ISOC is to the IETF). In such capacity my role is to express the rough or multi-consual positions of the GA Members as they result from more than seven years of debates, considerations of the positions and researches of our centers of expertise, and common actions. C. Intlnet I created Intlnet (as the SIAT [Secrétariat International pour les Applications de la Télématique]) in August 1978. The mission was to serve as the secretary of the international network operators (monopolies, ISPs, and private nets) consensus in the best interest of the people's relational spaces. The job was the same as the GNSO, a fully open ccNSO and the ASO. It permited me (as Tymnet International services manager) to get them into the same room (ISIS Club, twice a year) to discuss the International digital network while some where in legal or commercial competition. The administrative formula I used was based upon my experience of the French Navy distributed and mobile international network , voluntary flexiblity of the French non-profit association law, and my small business international development independent consultancy. It legally coupled - on one side a formal light secretariat [a few hours a month, outside of meetings], acting as a common information center and a foreign expertise repository, with no budget and assuming ancillary tasks, legal responsibilities, information management, coordination etc. - on the other side an unformal assembly of monopoly, public operator, private nets, private entrepreneurs and individual informed users and of their commonly catalyzed and assisted projects. It worked well for years, proved to be extremely effective, legaly robust, at low cost. It dramatically helped the emergence of the international network (http://intlnet.org/intlhist.htm - the world network the day the Internet was born). Staying equally adequate, this administrative formula survived the various changes in the Intlnet further points of influence, priorities, tactics and Membership. It is the kind of structure adopted by the UN, ISO, IETF, ISOC, ICANN, WSIS, IGF, civil society, etc. with the today increasingly accepted rule that, in the end, what counts are the ideas, pertinence, practical tests and consensus, and not the number, powers, vaporware texts and votes. IETF is pretty strict on this. D. france@large As we did many times in many areas of the world digital ecosystem (and keep doing it), we applied in 2000 this formula to the specific support of the French @large community, together with most of the French @large candidates for the ICANN BoD election. For one year, we were quite visible, contributing and accepted; but we observed that ICANN did not want to play the things along the international diversified network ecology and its initial commitments. It wanted to play them, along the US interests and culture, moreover after 9/11, and along <http://whitehouse.gov/pcipb>http://whitehouse.gov/pcipb. We expected and welcomed it because this was logic and necessary for the network stability. This is because it was more credible a scenario than the USA giving away the Internet. We adapted. Intlnet kept supporting societal and technical projects and issues, concerns and actions engaged by "Internet co-owners" (as we translate "@large") with a global vision in mind. france@large did the same for its France oriented constituents. E. ICANN dropped interest in @large We progressively dropped our direct interest in ICANN's bureaucracy while they dropped their interest in @large, blocked Esther Dyson and Pindar Wong, maintained the "BoD squatters" in place, dropped interest in Joop Teemstra's IDNO, etc. We also chose to drop visibility not to confuse the projects we helped to engage in many areas, such as: - the French side of the Intlnet "dot-root" community test-bed (as per ICANN ICP-3) on the DNS evolution (http://dot-root.com) - AFRAC, to work on a France's digital protection experimentation and the building of a French referential system as a national level MDRS (Multilingual Distributed Referential System), a distributed enhanced IANA for the Multilingual Semantic Internet (http://afrac.org) - icannatlarge.org that Vittorio knows rather well. We eventually registered in France the ATLARGE non-profit organization (after so many years of debates) ... and it failed. - cooperation with the MINC (Multilingual Internet Names Consortium) led us to create Eurolinc, for France and Europe. It turned being too "French Government first" to our liking. It was quite influent at the WSIS. (http://eurolinc.org, now http://eurolinc.eu) - @large oriented watch and project (PERFIDES) considerations in RFIDs and nanoization fields (http://perfida.org) They are a part of the future france@large flag project known as the "fridge screen" for the housewife and family global e-control. - support of the French language requirements in the Internet technology. This lead to an heavy load mail-combat at the IETF (RFC 4646) to defend languages and cultures, interests of non-anglo-saxon publishing industries, and IANA independence against the Unicode/Google lobby, and the creation of the MLTF (http://mltf.org) as one of its centers of expertise. - etc. This drained most of our remaining initial members and called on high level experts through AFRAC and the through the creation of MLTF. Each time you have to engage in a new fight you shift the focus, quickly "losing" the interest of some of your Members; but only slowly "gaining" new interests. F. Some of the engaged actions and meetings ahead When Sebastien Bachollet suceeded in getting ICANN to Paris, we decided it was a good opportunity to bring some of our experience to ICANN in an appropriate manner, in order to help its best transition. We, therefore, revived the external shell of france@large [i.e. publishing its GA list] and still are in this process. 1) we initiated the World Internet Week de Paris concept, gathering other events in the same week, applied as an ALS. (http://wiw.de-paris.info) 2) In order to help we had protected several domain names and made the future IGF-FR site available to the French Internet Community. Due to the lack of reaction of ISOC France (currently submitted to a "Denial of Thinking" by some activists), we engaged a roadmap to create an independent structure (AFGI - you can see a flow chart of AFGI at http://fr-fgi.fr/status.htp) copied on ours. We will probably continue for a few weeks to foster that way the emergent French Internet Governance Forum. As a result, we established a growing IGF-FR 700 people distribution list. We hope the AFGI will be fully transferred by the end of June.. We consider a comparable move for the http://euro-IGF.eu project, but I think we should discuss it first. 3) We plan two expert meetings on multilinguistics (Multilinguistica 2008) and ethitechics (Ethitechnica 2008) in June. 4) we cooperate to the Multilinc project (http://multilinc.org) where we serve as a mailing list for the emergence of French CULTLD (Cultural, Lingustic and/or Regional TLDs) projects. 5) the same we co-sponsor the Intertest (http://intertest.org) project and contribute to its French/Ebglish parallel writting of its IETF Draft. 6) we pushed our members and ISOC France members to join the IETF WG:IDNABIS to be able to help them as far as French language related issues are concerned. We understand that others linguistic community plan to copy us. > > Let me try it again: This is the first time I am asked something clear!. > > We do not really understand the type, > > character and functioning of your organisation France@Large. france@large is exactly as it is defined by its "statuts" Legally it is a neutral, independent, non-profit organization with a maximum 11 coopted voluteers as Secretary Members. It includes a Treasurer, but at this stage it has no bank account. This NGO fully abides by the French laws on non-profit organizations, which are probably the most thoroughly worked out in the world. They in turn permit a great deal of innovative flexibility in the "statuts" (acts of incorporation and by-laws) to adapt to new situations. These 11 individual Secretary Members make the secretariat membership, nomination committee, general assembly, and Board. under the name of "Secretariat". The functioning is democratic. Until there are 7 members, the Chair has more autonomy on a daily basis. There is no limit concerning the @large Members who form the General Assembly the job of which is to debate and concert. Not to decide, but to help each Member to decide for his own system. This is what IGF understood a distributed society need (we call it polycracy). This separates the legal responsibility, financial mantters, operational management from the political aspects that belong to the General Assembly. It helps the sponsoring, catalyzing, and coordination of R&D and of projects because @large members bear no legal, financial, poltical, and responsibility. Only ethical obligations to the @large community and to the public. The association does not maintain mailing list archives for legal responsibility protection (third party archives have been registered by Members. This is equivalent to Joe Sims' no-member/non-profit ICANN construction in a French legal context where the ICANN solution is banned as undemocratic (historic declaration as of August 4, 1789 which began the French Revolution). > > Is it a member organisation of/for individuals interested in > > the cause or Internet users? It is a three layer member organisation that is interested in the cause of the Internet co-owners through the provision of an operational and neutral professional support structure: - first layer organizes and supports an open @large "general assembly" mailing list - second layer is an independent well supported mailing list where everyone should (but not obligatorily) be French or a Resident [in order to be able to possibly gain public sponsoring]. The list is not subject to ID verification. - third layer : is an interaction with the non-registered @large and general public in : - calling on external expertise as an editor or a catalyst to comply with the motions of the General Assembly. - providing information and ancillary services to the "General Assembly" mailing list. - providing information and ongoing representation to the general public on behalf of the general assembly. >How can individuals participate in France@Large? @large individuals can: (1) be coopted as one of the 11 voluntary members. This is usually performed through an "engagement period". The law allows NGOs to remain incorporated with two Members. We currently have 3 members, and 2 "fiancés", some for a long period of time. This is really just a matter of paperwork and personal practicalities. 11 is for manageable stability and help people understand that action is with the GA not with the secretariat. There are not many voluntaries. Should there be more, we have the authority to adapt in minutes (one e-mail vote and a letter to the Prefecture Associations Bureau). (2) freely join our mailing list as "@large" Members. We currently have 24 of them because we want to firstly understand how we stand with ICANN and IETF. We also want to build on the <http://wiw.de-paris.info/>http://wiw.de-paris.info and the French IGF publicity. We engaged in them for that purpose. (3) freely join our centers of expertise and work on analysis, studies, documents. (4) share in organising projects or events with the support of Secretariat. NB. in French law, organisations are named "personne légales" and must be documented as such. Not mentionning them means that only individual ("Personnes physiques") are considered. There is no sub-representation right being documented (this right would permit an organisation to be represented by different persons). > > Besides your mailing list, are there other > > possibilities for participation, such as meetings, General > > Assemblies? The mailing list is our permanent general assembly online. This is not an administrative body of france@large as clearly indicated in "Statuts", but as General Assembly activity as in GNSO/GA. We developed the French Internet Governance Forum in order to enlarge its possible audience to the whole of the French information society. In this we closely cooperate with the French ISOC Chapter. We are careful at helping them to make a difference between a French rooted project such as ours and the other existing, or proposed, ones, and the Network (US) rooted ISOC. There is complementarity and no over-lap. >Do individual members have voting rights at the GA? Everyone is an individual member. In the france@large structure the legal general assembly is named the "secretariat" to avoid confusion with its "deliverable" which is a supported open mailing list, wearing the name of "General Assembly" for the "@large" Members.of this "GA".To properly understand what <mailto:france@large>france@large is, you just have to understand that its "GA" is of the same nature as the GNSO/GA. > > Can they be elected to the Board or other constituencies > > of France@Large? The "Secretary Members" of france@large are the Membersip, the Nominating Committee, the Board and the "Secretariat" (i.e. the ordinary/extraordinary assembly). Please refer to the "Statuts". The "@large Members" form the "@large General Assembly". > > Who decides in France@Large -- the General Assembly, the Board or > the Secretariat - or what is the "legislative" and what the "executive" part? You do not use the "Status" wording. - the General Secretary, the Editor and the Treasurer are the Bureau and the executive. - the "secretariat" is the Secretaries Membership, the Board and the general ordinary/extraordinary assembly. It is the legislative. - the General Assembly of @large Members is neither "executive" nor "legislative", it is "concertative" and supported (like ISOC supports the IETF). Up to now the GA is rough/multi-consensual. This means that the decisions concerning the functionning of the GA is managed as is the IETF. The positions are multiconsensually documented, this means that if there is not a unique consensus, the different positions are documented in parallel by consensus of their supporters and interoperability is discussed and reported. Up to now the small size of the GA made it uncessary to go any further than to go by a netiquette copied from IETF, former IDNO and common sense netiquette. As explained we plan to detail things more (probably based upon the analysis carried at the DNSO/WG-Review and for IDNO by-laws) once we have a new Chair and advanced on the SAIG working tool. >What is the proportion between members and secretariat? Everyone is member. There are four colleges of Members (cf. "Statuts"). - the Secretary Members. There are three of them plus 2 joining and we are looking for one or two to manage our site and wiki. - the @large Members. They are the people subscribed to the "GA's Listegenerale". There are 23 of them. - the Expert Members, they are members of center of expertise, people cooperating to project or event organisation. There are around 20 of them. >Does secretariat mean employed staff? Secretariat means the Secretary Members college forming the legislative of the association. france@large's job in life is to legally, adminstrativelly, and technogically support an open informal GA, so that this GA is free to debate, motion, organize, etc. and ask france@large to support what they need, incuding to ordinarily represent them with press and other entities. The GA is the brain, and france@large is the body. Both layers are total liberty to legally update their bylaws in a few days to adapt to new situations. The way that the GA organizes itself is its own business and to be documented in the france@large Reglement Interieur (by-laws). The GA, which I temporarily chair for practical reasons, has not expressed such a need as of yet. We will work on that as soonas the ALAC affiliation is completed weI suspected the ICANN attitude and did not want to run into the risk of an anti-ALAC lobby). Also, we agree, from the experience acquired throughout the Internet Community (IDNO, icannatlarge.org, GNSO WG-Review, and sublists, etc.) that the moderation and chairmanship of a mailing list should be facilitated by an ad-hoc software system, which is equal and neutral to everyone. We jointly work with people from different NGOs on the specifications of such a system (SAIG). This should result in a DIC (Document d'Internet Commun) before year's end. Its basic architecture was documented last year in an ISOC project (to obtain an impartial competent review) that was technically approved. The 'secretariat' means voluntary staff. The "business work" is delegated to specialized organizations related to Intlnet or not. For example, world@wide is a tiny five year old Intlnet foundation specializing in Internet Governance support and protection through hosting and domain name investment : they provide the domain names and the hosting we use. The publishing will be carried out by a new non-profit that can use and pay students, named Epistole. Everyone has their own job. > > Another "real" question is financing and funding of > > France@Large: Are you funded by membership fees only? We are organised to have no expenses and no funding. Experience shows that looking for and attending to money costs more than the resulting return. We go by the practical rule that non-profit associations should never do anything the Chairs will not be able to pay from their own pocket. This has some limitations, but no money related obligations. > > Do you > > have other sources of income such as donations, sponsors > > etc.? This is certainly permitted. Please cf. the "Statuts". The reason why we need at least three persons is that the Treasurer and Chair must legally be a different person to obtain public subsidies. However, we prefer to gain practical support (free meeting room, hosting, etc.) to remain independent. We consider ourselves a public service. >As far as I understood, you have several secretariat > > members - are they volunteers or employed by France@Large? There is no money, no employees, and a maximum of 11 volunteers to support a limitless, fully open, etc. mailing list as a non-legally responsible "GA" wherein no one has to produce anything other than ideas (no ID required) - voting authentication will be treated in a different way though the SAIG (on a contribution basis - we do not look for king, president and votes, we look for multiconsesus). Every knowledgeable and motivated individual can join or create one of our CX (Center of Expertise). > > (Compared with other ALSes, a professional secretariat needs > > considerable income what can hardly be covered by membership > > fees only). Professional only means manned by professionnals, and not by paid amateurs. > > This are the questions I noted when I read your application > > and the Due Diligence form. And, as I said, I couldn't > > understand the type, character and functioning of your > > organisation - and would be pleased to learn more about it! As a general comment, our efficacity rules go by the Gospel: - Mark 2, 18-22 - we deal with new things where the mistake is to address them with old ideas and structures. - Matthew 10, 9 - we need no money, etc. - Mark 9,30-37 - we want to be the leader. This system works and survives rather well. > > For the rest of your interesting remarks regarding ICANN, > > Internet business and governance, standardisation, diversity, > > multi-linguism, WSIS/SMSI etc. I am looking forward to a > > discussion with you, Jefrey, hopefully at the next > > opportunity in Paris. > > > > I still hope that we can find a solution together, without > > too much noise and confrontation - but for our common cause: > > the interest of the Internet users. Certainly. However, you have to understand how hurting this fud/fuss was perceived. Moreover, it was all done in public. I, therefore, had to calm things here, and to bark a little bit to ensure that some people do not bite back. All of this is a good example to help Roberto understand why f2f meetings are of great importance. Where are you located? Any chance for you to come to Geneva on May 13? I do not know yet whether I will go there myself; as all of this, of course, costs a lot (please remember that we have no budget :-). All the best. jfc

1 0

April 29, 2008

At 3:54 PM +0100 4/24/08, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>Dear Jeanette: >> >>Thank you very much for your note. >> >>I understand this provision to mean that, as it >>says, ALAC members elected by the region should >>not have to go out of pocket to live up to >>their responsibilities. There are no statutory >>representatives to other ICANN bodies as you >>know. > >...and in your understanding the attending of >face to face EURALO meetings is not among the >responsibilities of EURALO board meetings? Nick, this is a very ungenerous reading of the paragraph and of the section describing ICANN's responsibilities under the MoU. The board is of course essential to the EURALO's activities, it's the representative of the RALO members and responsible for all matters of the RALO. It makes little sense to invite members of the ALS and then not the board. Obviously any meetings the ALS hold will be less effective without the board present. The presence of the EURALO in its region's ICANN meeting will be weakened. As a community EURALO clearly needs time together and at the moment you are denying them the opportunity. All for the cost of a few inter-city train tickets and a few days expenses. It would only take a little imagination to make the resources available, *or at least to try*. I think it's the view that you don't seem to be trying that is most worrying. Vittorio's comments about other RALOs are not relevant. The board isn't a handful of individuals, they are people elected by the members, volunteers offering their time and effort to the At Large. Best, Adam >> >>I hope this is helpful.d > >I am not sure your interpretation of this provision is the most obvious one. >jeanette > >> >> >>On 24/04/2008 16:08, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Adam Peake asked me to ask once again how ICANN staff can deny travel >> support to elected EURALO board members in light of the following >> passage of the EURALO MoU (and he also asked me to cc Kieren to ensure >> that he is aware of our problems). >> >> Agreed Responsibilities of ICANN >> 4.4 Providing the necessary resources to help support EURALO activities >> subject to ICANN's annual operational and budgetary plans and processes, >> save always that the elected representatives of EURALO to the At-Large >> Advisory Committee and other main ICANN bodies shall always be eligible >> to receive reasonable travel and subsistence such that they are able to >> attend such meetings without EURALO, or the representatives of the same, >> incurring these costs" >> >> "How can they deny this", is what Adam asks. >> At least it is good to see that others outside of our little group share >> our interpretation of things. >> >> jeanette >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> > Dear Jeanette: >> > >> > Of course by all means involve other RALOs if you think it is >> helpful >> > I hope my previous note shed some light on a number of these issues >> > where there seems to be some misunderstandings. >> > >> > On that subject, there is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding in >> your >> > comment below: The basic unit of At-Large is the ALS, at least at the >> > present time. All RALOs have established their structures in this way, >> > including EURALO; ICANN¹s Bylaws have not changed in respect of the >> > definition of the community and in fact all the RALOs are specifically >> > empowered in the Bylaws of including individuals in the RALOs. The >> > reality is they did not decide to do that (with the exception of the >> > provisions that exist in RALO organising instruments largely only in >> > the NARALO). >> > >> > I hope this makes clear that nothing has changed from ICANN¹s >> side, and >> > that in fact, RALOs are free to choose to allow direct membership of >> > individuals and they have been since the At-Large community became a >> > part of the ICANN Bylaws years ago. >> > >> > >> > On 17/04/2008 15:46, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Bill, >> > >> > I very much share your thoughts and I wonder if this discussion >> > shouldn't be moved to the ALAC list as it concerns other RALOs >> as well. >> > ICANN apparently moved from a concept of At large membership for >> > individuals to one that only recognizes organizations. I >> wonder how many >> > people are actually aware of this and support this move. >> > jeanette >> > >> > William Drake wrote: >> > > Hi Nick, >> > > >> > > While this conversation has drifted off, I¹d like to share >> a couple of >> > > closing thoughts on your decision. >> > > >> > > If as you say it is a matter of clear policy that ³no >> region has an >> > > opportunity for non-ALS members to receive travel support >> to attend >> > > ICANN meetings,² one would think this could have been made >> clear >> > when we >> > > asked about it repeatedly months ago. Instead, as Jeanette >> noted, you >> > > gave the impression last August that it shouldn¹t be a >> problem. I >> > think >> > > most people would reasonably read ³One could imagine that the >> > invitation >> > > could be extended to allow those officers to attend as >> well² in that >> > > way. If there is a policy to the contrary, one could not >> have so >> > imagined. >> > > >> > > Subsequently, a number of times people raised the matter >> with you in >> > > ways that indicated we were therefore assuming the >> invitation could be >> > > extended, and you never corrected us. On the basis of this >> assumption, >> > > people have gone forward and put some time into >> participating (and >> > would >> > > have done much more if we¹d been energized by a F2F meeting in >> > Warsaw or >> > > Geneva) with an eye toward finally being able to convene in >> Paris and >> > > really boot things up from there. Now we find out that a >> chunk of the >> > > board is basically to be excluded, not just in Paris, but going >> > forward. >> > > Teleconferencing in is obviously no substitute for >> participating in a >> > > first F2F board meeting and a General Assembly, >> particularly if one >> > > wants to get more deeply involved in the work, get to know >> the ALS >> > > folks, etc. >> > > >> > > More generally, if non-ALS people essentially have no standing, >> > wouldn¹t >> > > the time to make that absolutely clear have been last May, >> before the >> > > region elected non-ALS people to the board? If it had >> been, when >> > I was >> > > approached about getting into this, as a non-ALS person I¹d >> obviously >> > > have said there¹s no point and would have saved a lot of >> time since >> > > then. And if the objective is to energize people to get >> engaged in >> > > ICANN work, one would think it right to let regions organize >> > themselves >> > > as they need to and elect who they want... >> > > >> > > Anyway, I guess it¹s been a revealing learning process. I of >> > course will >> > > not stand for re-election but wish the next board all the best. >> > > >> > > Cheers, >> > > >> > > Bill >> > > >> > > On 4/14/08 6:20 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" >> > <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > Sorry if I was unclear that isn¹t quite what I meant >> and my >> > > apologies if what I said led to confusion. >> > > >> > > Basically, no region has an opportunity for non-ALS >> members to >> > > receive travel support to attend ICANN meetings. >> Therefore, if >> > > EURALO is allowed to send non-ALS representatives to an >> ICANN >> > > meeting and other regions are not, those other regions >> receive >> > > unequal (lesser) treatment to EURALO. >> > > >> > > The Secretariats have previously discussed in principle the >> > idea of >> > > establishing differential rules by region related to travel >> > support. >> > > The community has not however explored this idea and of >> course any >> > > proposal would need to be equitable across regions, and >> also >> > within >> > > regions. >> > > >> > > On 14/04/2008 17:55, "William Drake" >> > > <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi Nick, >> > > >> > > Thanks for this reply, but I still need help >> understanding the >> > > nature of the inequity you see. Your argument is >> that the >> > > boards of other regions would consider that ³it >> would unfairly >> > > prejudice² them if the full European board were funded, >> > just as >> > > they are? They demand that only some of our board >> participate >> > > in our board meeting and GA? >> > > >> > > Bill >> > > >> > > On 4/14/08 5:28 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" >> > > <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > Actually nothing has changed. As you will note >> from the >> > > email below, sent more than 7 months ago, you >> will notice >> > > that the statement I made did not say that the >> extension >> > > would be provided, only that it was possible. >> I¹m sure >> > that >> > > you all understand that we do need to be >> equitable to all >> > > regions. >> > > >> > > >> > > On 14/04/2008 17:17, "Jeanette Hofmann" >> > <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi Nick, >> > > >> > > last year, 15.08.2007 16:22 >> > > you sent the following mail below to the >> euro-discuss >> > > list. It would be >> > > great if you could you let us know what has >> changed in >> > > the meantime. I >> > > hope you get better soon. >> > > best, jeanette >> > > >> > > Re: [EURO-Discuss] Funding Request and Draft >> > Agenda for >> > > EURALO Board meeting >> > > >> > > ALS' are invited to send a single >> representative to >> > > ICANN meetings when the >> > > region that they are in is provided travel >> support. >> > > >> > > At this point Europe is the only region >> which has >> > > regional officers who are >> > > not also ALS representatives. One could imagine >> > that the >> > > invitation could be >> > > extended to allow those officers to attend >> as well. >> > > >> > > >> > > On 15/8/07 14:45, "Jeanette Hofmann" >> <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > > Hi Nick, from what I understand only >> ALS get >> > > financial support for >> > > > > attending ICANN meetings. Is that correct? >> > > > > This would mean that several board >> members would >> > > either not attend >> > > > > regional meetings or pay for themselves. >> > > > > jeanette >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> > > > My apologies for taking a few days to >> respond >> > to this >> > > email. I¹ve been a >> > > > bit under the weather (unwell). I¹ve >> taken the >> > liberty >> > > of copying in >> > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC chair) and the >> three ALAC >> > > representatives from >> > > > EURALO given the importance of the email to >> > planning >> > > overall... >> > > > >> > > > On the first point, as those of you who have >> > attended >> > > many ICANN >> > > > meetings will know, it is pretty much >> impossible to >> > > ensure that all >> > > > scheduling conflicts can be avoided in >> > connection with >> > > an ICANN meeting. >> > > > The Paris meeting is even more >> challenging, as >> > it is >> > > one day shorter >> > > > than the usual meeting since it ends on the >> > Thursday >> > > instead of Friday. >> > > > Having a EURALO meeting on Sunday >> wouldn¹t work >> > as the >> > > ALAC are meeting >> > > > that day and on that day ALAC is >> meeting with the >> > > GAC at lunch, and >> > > > the GNSO for breakfast (and members of >> EURALO would >> > > wish to attend these >> > > > meetings I suspect). Saturday was chosen >> only after >> > > careful review of >> > > > all options. You should know that there >> are always >> > > issues of the kind >> > > > you mention with RALO GA planning so >> EURALO is far >> > > from the first to >> > > > experience issues with scheduling. In >> fact, I >> > believe >> > > that the last >> > > > EURALO GA was split over three days due to >> > scheduling >> > > problems. >> > > > >> > > > With respect to travel support, the >> situation >> > is that >> > > each ALS will be >> > > > invited to send one representative with >> travel >> > support >> > > provided by >> > > > ICANN. Since no other region has >> received travel >> > > support on any other >> > > > basis, it would unfairly prejudice the >> others >> > to treat >> > > EURALO >> > > > differently and provide more travel >> support for one >> > > region over any >> > > > other. I can tell you that ensuring that >> telephonic >> > > remote participation >> > > > that works well is a priority at the >> Paris ICANN >> > > meeting as internally >> > > > the discussions about how this has not >> worked well >> > > previously have been >> > > > taken to a higher level than was >> previously the >> > case. >> > > > >> > > > I hope this answers your questions even >> if it >> > is not >> > > the answer that you >> > > > might wish to receive. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On 12/04/2008 18:34, "William Drake" >> > > > <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > It sounds like it would have been >> good to check >> > > with people on >> > > > scheduling >> > > > before fixing a date. >> > > > >> > > > Nick, could we please get definitive >> > clarification >> > > of the funding issue >> > > > raised today by Vittorio and >> Jeanette, and >> > > previously by Wolf, Karen, >> > > > Annette, myself, maybe others? >> Somehow I'd >> > > thought it was resolved that >> > > > there's no problem, but looking >> through my >> > saved >> > > Euralo message folder I >> > > > can't find a message that's actually >> from >> > you to >> > > that effect. >> > > > People need >> > > > to know whether and how to plan... >> > > > >> > > > Thanks >> > > > >> > > > Bill >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On 4/12/08 6:02 PM, "Vittorio Bertola" >> > > <vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Wolf Ludwig ha scritto: >> > > > > > To the members of the EURALO board: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Dear all >> > > > > > >> > > > > > According to our by-laws, we are >> > supposed to >> > > have our first GA this >> > > > > > year and the coming 32nd >> International >> > Public >> > > Meeting of ICANN in >> > > > > > Paris (from 22 to 26 June 08) >> offers an >> > almost >> > > perfect opportunity >> > > > > > for that. After a short discussion I >> > had with >> > > Nick he already >> > > > > > reserved Saturday, 21 June 08, >> all day >> > for us. >> > > Thanks Nick! >> > > > > >> > > > > I still don't know whether I'll get >> > funding for >> > > Paris, but in any >> > > > case I >> > > > > won't be able to get to Paris >> before the >> > > morning of the 22nd. >> > > > > Ciao, >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > >> > > > Regards, >> > > > >> > > > Nick Ashton-Hart >> > > > Director for At-Large >> > > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names >> and Numbers >> > > (ICANN) >> > > > Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 >> > > > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 >> > > > Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 >> > > > Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 >> > > > 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 >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> *********************************************************** >> > > William J. Drake >> > > Director, Project on the Information >> > > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO >> > > Graduate Institute of International and >> > > Development Studies >> > > Geneva, Switzerland >> > > william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch >> > > >> *********************************************************** >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > *********************************************************** >> > > William J. Drake >> > > Director, Project on the Information >> > > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO >> > > Graduate Institute of International and >> > > Development Studies >> > > Geneva, Switzerland >> > > william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch >> > > *********************************************************** >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Nick Ashton-Hart >> > Director for At-Large >> > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> > Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 >> > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 >> > Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 >> > Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 >> > 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 >> >> >>-- >> >>Regards, >> >>Nick Ashton-Hart >>Director for At-Large >>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 >>USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 >>Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 >>Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 >>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

3 5

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Regional advice on France@Large application needed
by JFC Morfin April 29, 2008

April 29, 2008

Dear Wolf, First point, I do not want to create a contentious issue between us and ICANN while we have _many_ other priorities preparing the World Internet Week de Paris (http://wiw.de-paris.info) So, these mails will not be copied immediately on our general list which has now 23 members, nor to the 700 Members (including ICANN Board Member) FGI list. However, your mails did leaked and the first questions are coming in. For seven years I am used to explain people round the world and in France that ICANN does not disregard the @large, just ingnores them. Do not be afraid, I will manage to explain them that ALAC does better. But I cannot know what people will do with it. At 01:26 29/04/2008, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >Dear Jefsey, >as I mentioned before in (one of) my mails to Vittorio, I don't want >to make my opinion regarding your application to a personal affair. >As I mentioned before as well, there were several people mostly >independent and unbiased - looking at your application and showing >up with almost the same questions again. This is anything else but a >conspiracy, perhaps a surprising coincidence. > >As it seems to me after today's discussion, we cannot come up with >an unanimous position from the EURALO board and membership at the >very moment and until April 30 (deadline of the ALAC decision after >consultation with the RALO concerned). Therefore let me ask you the >following questions â" what you partly suggested (if I understood >it well) in your response: Before answering this, I need to understand better an organisation we are just joining. Let me first ask you what is your job in this case, what is the role of the people in copy. You are not on the published ALAC lists. I went to the ICANN site and looked for a few names to understand who (except Cheryl) are the people you involve in Cc, who are the four decision makers and the three members of the Staff you discuss. All this sounds pure rigmarole to me, when you probably try to follow one of the many bureaucratic ICANN procedures. - Ludwig Wolf = one (your application) - france@large = four (not ours yet) - Langdon-Orr = nineteen. - Massimilino Minisci = None. - Jefsey, Jefsey Morfin or JFC = 1743. This may explain me some of the oddities I do not understand. May be, could you please explain what is exactly the internal procedure you follow. >1- Could you, given the fact that your application is controversial, >accept a prolongation of the ALAC approval deadline by let's say >two months or the end of the 32nd ICANN Public Meeting in Paris? >This would give us a chance to sit together in Paris and to >re-discuss all the open and unclear questions and inconsistencies >regarding your application. Let me clarify. I revived france@large after so many years of ICANN disinterest in what we consider @larges are. This is only to try to help ICANN stabilize better in the societal and cultural changes we are involved in. france@larege being an ALS is of interest to ICANN only if we welcome ICANN in Paris as an ALS. We registered for that in due time. We _do_not_understand_ all this fuss. I must say that I only take it as personal, what I am used to. I am also used to politically win. But I do not see the reasons of the fight. >2- Could you, in the meantime, forward all supplementary information >needed to the ICANN staff in charge or the EURALO board to better >answer the existing questions and clarify inconsistencies? Let me kindly ask you if you are pulling my leg? At the present time I know no question. I just learned today about a circulated document which is purely absurd. It only shows that author does not know about mailman, nor about the law. >3- Could we sort out controversial points regarding France@Large's >application, in the time frame mentioned, before referring to other >instances (such as Ombudsman or media)? Please do not call "inconsistent" or "controversial" what only reflect lacks in the Staff review of our registration. I have no intent, if we can avoid it, on such a trivial issue, to bother Frank Fowlie and the Board. But you have to realise that france@large is known to journalists in France as the odd people who want to help the ICANN transition. And I am also known. We have started the http://wikicann.org site to document this help and inform the press, media and public independently. It was very recently started : you can go and check that it was already accessed 2300 times. These are not things prepared at the last minute. I am not the master of what will be published when people discover your mails. >As you may know, the RALO concerned can only express its opinion and >recommendation on an application and ALAC will take the decision. >Therefore itâs on ALAC to decide on any prolongation in this >matter but I wanted to sort out the options of a potential solution >in the interest of the RALO concerned. As france@large, I am only concerned by the interest of ICANN and of our members. This necessarily demands a war/cooperation decision of ICANN to be reached before two weeks. I am certainly ready to provide answers to professional questions, but I have difficulties understanding what I have not provided yet in our file and on the phone. I certainly understand how it is embrassing. All this seems to be new both to us and to ICANN/ALAC. Let just address it professionnally. It should only be smooth. (Just for your information I am moving my office and I have most of my stuff packed). Cheers! jfc >I would appreciate your answers to the questions I raised. Thanks and >best regards, >Wolf > > JFC Morfin wrote Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:20: > >:-) > >Interesting. > > > >I sent the "application". It was not acknowledged. Ten days later on > >I sent a mail back. And I was told that application was received. I > >noted several times that I had no news. Nick mailed me he would send > >a mail. But bever did. Then eventually Frederic called not being > >interested in knowing me nor our history and organisation but why we > >had no budget, and having an urgent call. Then he called for a longer > >time, but this nice fellow is still young in the organisation. Then > >he wanted to call our execom people. But never did. Someone told him > >ICANN was the e-UN of the future. > > > >Then I see today a form completed by Massimiliano. Who ever > >Massimiliano is, I do not know him (so many new people in ICANN). The > >very first thing he should have done would be to forward the document > >to me, so we could discuss all its errors. You may also realise that > >as the eldest @large incorporated organisation, and as a pioneer of > >the Internet myself, I find this rather ...., ...., and hurting. > > > >Now, I have a question. Is ALAC real? > >What do you want me to do to answer the questions you never raised ? > >Fly to Australia. > >jfc > > > >PS. You right, I explained Frederic that this will only be a case for > >Brother Fowley. BTW if some wants to be sure we exist, we can come a > >"few" of us at the Paris meeting, but then you have to select a > >larger room. For the time being I do not copy this on the mailing > >list not to upset our Members. But I said that I needed an answer > >under 3 months since I applied, because I told them in February we would. > > > > > > > >At 20:07 28/04/2008, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > >>Wolf Ludwig ha scritto: > >> >> In any case, in the application that was circulated to the EURALO > >> >> list on March 5 I really see no grounds for rejection. If there are > >> >> other documents, please forward them to the list. > >> > > >> > Attached please find the DD form dated March 27 which was the basis > >> > of our discussions and considerations of the given case. > >> > >>Ok, so we have an interesting case in which the staff's due diligence > >>claims things that are opposite to what the applicant says. From this > >>due diligence form I see one fundamental question: are the 17 members > >>real and active, or not? (since, according to the due diligence, there > >>is no membership list and no mailing list, and the Web page seems to > >>have been created just recently) > >> > >>I see also a point about the secretariat being the only managing entity, > >>but that's normal as long as the secretariat is elective (acting like a > >>Board). It's not normal if the secretariat is not elected by the > >>members. So what's the case? > >> > >>Ciao, > >>-- > >>vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > >>--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>EURO-Discuss mailing list > >>EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlar > ge-lists.icann.org > >> > >>Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org > > > > > >comunica-ch >phone +41 79 204 83 87 >Skype: Wolf-Ludwig >www.comunica-ch.net > >http://blog.allmend.ch - >Digitale Allmend

2 1