Dear Friends and Colleagues: May I express my appreciation to all those who have accepted to stand for election to the EURALO board at the forthcoming Annual Meeting in Belgrade. I am however concerned about the manner in which EURALO appears to be reaching a conclusion on this matter. Civil Society in general and the ICANN At Large in particular have not yet reached the threshold of participation and representation that would lend sufficient credibility to their necessary and worthy efforts in several international Internet fora. EURALO needs to continue to work on this, in terms of its membership, structures and representation. Although these concerns are - I think - shared among our membership, I wonder whether we all appreciate how much still needs to be done, particularly to establish the autonomy of At Large and ALAC with respect to ICANN. In this context, it was - I suggest - an error of judgment on the part of our elected ICANN Board member to have initiated his own "ticket" of candidates to the EURALO Board, whatever the merits of the individual candidates concerned. The At Large Board member is elected by ALAC and the RALO's, not vice-versa. Furthermore, we thus give proof patent to our critics that At Large is a creature of ICANN. For instance, I would not expect that individual ICANN Board members would be intervening in the election of other Constituency or Supporting Organisations' councils, which in turn elect their ICANN Board members. There would be a conflict of interest, or at least a détournement. Should it ever be so, it would not be an example to be followed. In this respect, for future reference, I would recommend that EURALO elections be conducted by a neutral election committee supported by the ICANN staff. I would also recommend that candidates be nominated and seconded individually by member ALS's. Since EURALO wants to have larger numbers of ALS ("outreach") and greater participation from within member ALS ("inreach"), then I suggest that we could begin right here. Contrariwise, if the whole "ticket" is nominated internally, I can think of no better way of turning off the potential interest of newcomers. (And we need them, many.) Finally, I would turn to our individual members. At this stage in the development of EURALO, I suggest that our individual members enjoy neither the representativity nor the mandate to act as officers of EURALO. Those individual members who wish to exercise a mandate in At Large - and thankfully there are some - should give priority to creating their corresponding ALS's, as provided for in the amended EURALO Statutes. Otherwise, yet again, EURALO and ALAC lay themselves open to the characterisation of a self-perpetuating group of ICANN insiders. None of us want that. Needless to say, the above comments may not be taken as criticism of any of our members, candidates, officers or delegates. This is about EURALO's process, and how it may be perceived both internally and externally. And about how it may be improved. With my best regards to you all and best wishes for a successful meeting in Belgrade. Christopher Wilkinson ISOC-Belgium-Wallonia ALS On 27 May 2011, at 12:14, Wolf Ludwig wrote: