Annette Muehlberg wrote:
As far as I understood we wanted to have one big General Assembly (GA) online in which we discuss those issues we could not accomplish yet at the Lisbon meeting, such as incorporation and the nominations for the EURALO Board and the 2 european ALAC seats. I think we should stick to this procedure. Based on my previous experience I am not sure we would have the time to discuss all this by phone. Further, we do not have a board yet, and the priority should be to have one, so we can go forward with the required legitimacy. Until that time, we have asked the ICANN staff to run the process on our behalf. In the discussion I had the chance to take part in virtually we decided that the name of the association is: "European Internet Users Forum" (no adding of "ICANN" in front) and to clarify the relation to ICANN we have chosen between the subtitles the following: "Regional At-Large Organisation of ICANN" (instead of: "consumer rights and civil liberties in information society"). The majority of those present physically and remotely at the meetings in Lisbon decided on "ICANN European Internet Users forum" and skip the subtitle altogether. If wanted to change the name, it would require to change the bylaws through a vote from the GA. The new board should convene a GA.
However, we should now start with content rather than the process. My suggestion is that the new board should set up working groups for the individual membership and incorporation issues. Once these groups have come up with a well-documented proposal, the GA will be in a position to vote on it. I want to avoid at all costs that proposals of a technical nature are being drafted by the plenary meeting. This generates lots of cacophony, but the results are quite low. WGs are just a suggestion. I leave it up to the Euralo board to decide. Patrick