On 28/03/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> wrote:

On 2007-03-28 14:43:21 +0100, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

> My thought, without prejudice to what the legal people might say,
> is that ICANN doesn't really have a preference and the bylaws do
> not provide for ICANN to have such a preference.

I disagree with the latter; that's part of the questions that you've
chosen to ignore for a while now.

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007-March/000159.html

I would characterise 'ignoring' as inaccurate, since I have previously stated on two occasions the reason for the delay, which in any case is a matter of hours. It is really unfortunate that you were not here; many of the questions and concerns that you have could have been a part of the discussions and dealt with alongside your colleagues.

I hope that you will decide to have enough faith and trust in the other ALSes here to accept that they would not have concluded these arrangements unless they were satisfied that the outcome resulting was worthwhile.

> My suggestion to everyone is that we agree the process you wish
> to follow in respect of this element once we have all returned
> home and had some time to get through the elections process and
> address the question of incorporation - it would seem to me that
> the question you raise here, and the question of incorporation,
> are questions which naturally go together.

> Does that seem sensible to you?

The more I see of this process, the more I think that all that
should be signed tomorrow is a set of very short letters of intent
in which ICANN and the ALSes state that they:

(a) intend that a European RALO be formed according to the
    principles laid out in the draft materials coordinated

(b) intend that a formal MoU be signed once EURALO is formed and the
    question around individual user participation resolved

You can still declare victory and hold a ceremony around that.

Cheers,
--
Thomas Roessler   < roessler@does-not-exist.org>