To take time in order to do a more in-depth analysis, seems to me to be a wise approach. My only suggestion is to make sure that this solution is agreed beforehand with the applicant. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wolf Ludwig Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2008 01:26 To: JFC Morfin; Discussion for At-Large Europe Cc: Discussion for At-Large Europe; At-Large Staff; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Dr.Christoph Bruch; Veronica Cretu Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Regional advice on France@Large applicationneeded
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 - what you partly suggested (if I understood it well) in your response:
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.
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?
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)?
As you may know, the RALO concerned can only express its opinion and recommendation on an application and ALAC will take the decision. Therefore it's 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.
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@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss _atlarge-l ists.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
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org