Vittorio, As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack of basic understanding of what At-Large actually is and what its status should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt to stay servile to BoD in order to have gotten their proposal passed. I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered currently. That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I see no any problem with it. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want
to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings
Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive mode. If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report. Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and productive. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org