Re: [EURO-Discuss] Regional advice on France@Large application needed
Wolf Ludwig ha scritto:
Dear all,
EURALO and its board is asked for opinion and advice on new ALS applications in its region. In previous cases our verifications didn’t show any difficulties or inconsistencies. Unfortunately in a recent one, the application from France @Large, we face some problems to come up with an unanimous recommendation.
Repeated and detailed verifications of France@Large’s application by the staff and some of the board members showed the following inconsistencies:
*the type of organisation and its membership is rather unclear. In the application form, some of the crucial questions (2 d-e) on the participation, role and influence of individual Internet users, are answered with “No”. In question 2 f-j it is stated that the applicant/ALS has “no organizations as members“ and „ governmental bodies or quasi-governmental bodies as members“ neither. That means that the organisational character of the applicant is not evident after repeated checks.
I'm not sure I understand. According to the English application that was posted to the EURALO list almost two months ago, in 2 d-e they say the exact opposite of what you report, they say that decisions are taken by their members. And in 2 e-f they say that they have no organizational members and no governmental members, which is a good thing. That's why we are asking those questions - to be sure that they are not controlled by companies or governments.
*the membership development,
*the exact activities and
*the financing/funding of the applicant.
Therefore the Co-Chair and other board members cannot support France@Large’s application under consideration of the given information. If there is no objection from other board and EURALO members -- with any further reasons to be considered -- we would like to recommend non-approval to ALAC.
I am a EURALO Board member, but this is the first time I am asked an opinion about this application. Can you explain me how and by whom this application was discussed, to come to the recommendation above? I remember the application being posted to the EURALO list, but I don't remember any comment there. Was there any request to all Board members or to the EURALO list for comments? If not, why not? In any case, I am forwarding this message to the list so that everyone is informed and we can have an open discussion. In general, we have to be very cautious about rejecting new applications, as it might look like a form of capture by the existing RALO members. I do not have a final opinion yet, but I have known Jefsey Morfin - the France@Large leader - for years, and even if he often has very controversial opinions, he exists and he has been participating to the At Large since the year 2000, which is more than can be said of several accredited ALSes. There should be a clear reason to reject this application, not just "we're not sure" or "we don't like him". That's a guarantee for a new Ombudsman case.
Please note that we need to know your opinion within the NEXT 2 DAYS.
Nothing has happened for two months, so why all this hurry now? Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Only one point I will comment on / answer Vittorio.. the reason for why reply now... I have called for the vote on this application to go ahead at its designated last date that is the 30th April... To allow the ALAC to vote under the new system of regional and local advice we require that advice so the vote can go ahead... CLO -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 7:31 PM To: Wolf Ludwig Cc: Annette Mühlberg; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Karen Banks; Jeanette Hofmann; Desiree Miloshevic; Sébastien Bachollet; William Drake; Veronica Cretu; Rudi Vansnick; Dr. Christoph Bruch; At-Large Staff; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: Regional advice on France@Large application needed Wolf Ludwig ha scritto:
Dear all,
EURALO and its board is asked for opinion and advice on new ALS applications in its region. In previous cases our verifications didn’t show any difficulties or inconsistencies. Unfortunately in a recent one, the application from France @Large, we face some problems to come up with an unanimous recommendation.
Repeated and detailed verifications of France@Large’s application by the staff and some of the board members showed the following inconsistencies:
*the type of organisation and its membership is rather unclear. In the application form, some of the crucial questions (2 d-e) on the participation, role and influence of individual Internet users, are answered with “No”. In question 2 f-j it is stated that the applicant/ALS has “no organizations as members“ and „ governmental bodies or quasi-governmental bodies as members“ neither. That means that the organisational character of the applicant is not evident after repeated checks.
I'm not sure I understand. According to the English application that was posted to the EURALO list almost two months ago, in 2 d-e they say the exact opposite of what you report, they say that decisions are taken by their members. And in 2 e-f they say that they have no organizational members and no governmental members, which is a good thing. That's why we are asking those questions - to be sure that they are not controlled by companies or governments.
*the membership development,
*the exact activities and
*the financing/funding of the applicant.
Therefore the Co-Chair and other board members cannot support France@Large’s application under consideration of the given information. If there is no objection from other board and EURALO members -- with any further reasons to be considered -- we would like to recommend non-approval to ALAC.
I am a EURALO Board member, but this is the first time I am asked an opinion about this application. Can you explain me how and by whom this application was discussed, to come to the recommendation above? I remember the application being posted to the EURALO list, but I don't remember any comment there. Was there any request to all Board members or to the EURALO list for comments? If not, why not? In any case, I am forwarding this message to the list so that everyone is informed and we can have an open discussion. In general, we have to be very cautious about rejecting new applications, as it might look like a form of capture by the existing RALO members. I do not have a final opinion yet, but I have known Jefsey Morfin - the France@Large leader - for years, and even if he often has very controversial opinions, he exists and he has been participating to the At Large since the year 2000, which is more than can be said of several accredited ALSes. There should be a clear reason to reject this application, not just "we're not sure" or "we don't like him". That's a guarantee for a new Ombudsman case.
Please note that we need to know your opinion within the NEXT 2 DAYS.
Nothing has happened for two months, so why all this hurry now? Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Hi Vittorio, Vittorio Bertola wrote Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:31:
I'm not sure I understand. According to the English application that was posted to the EURALO list almost two months ago, in 2 d-e they say the exact opposite of what you report, they say that decisions are taken by their members. And in 2 e-f they say that they have no organizational members and no governmental members, which is a good thing. That's why we are asking those questions - to be sure that they are not controlled by companies or governments.
To my knowledge there are two versions of the application DD form: 1- the one dated March 10, 08 and sent the very day by Matthias and 2- the one dated March 27, 08 and sent on 4.04.08 by Matthias and I am referring to the indications in the later one.
(...) Can you explain me how and by whom this application was discussed, to come to the recommendation above?
The application was verified and discussed by several board and ALAC members (Jeanette, Annette, Veronica and myself) besides the staff repeatedly
I remember the application being posted to the EURALO list, but I don't remember any comment there. Was there any request to all Board members or to the EURALO list for comments? If not, why not?
As we found several inconsistencies in the application (compared with other applicants), we agreed with the staff to try to get more and detailed information before discussing it "in public". There have been additional contacts by the staff with Jefsey Morfin which unfortunately couldn’t bring the clarifications we asked for.
(...) but I have known Jefsey Morfin - the France@Large leader - for >years, and even if he often has very controversial opinions, he exists and >he has been participating to the At Large since the year 2000, which is >more than can be said of several accredited ALSes. There should be a clear >reason to reject this application, not just "we're not sure"
I stated several reasons in my previous mail which are shared by all those 7 people (mentioned above) who checked the DD form, Website etc. repeatedly.
or "we don't like him".
Nobody ever said that "we don't like him". I know Jefsey Morfin just from the list so far, others know him much longer as you do. And our opinion on France@Large’s application has nothing to do with personal prejudices.
Nothing has happened for two months, so why all this hurry now?
If you haven’t realised anything for two months this does not necessarily mean that “nothing has happened” – I find your conclusions rather offensive BTW – and it perfectly fits to Juergen Habermas’ remarks about the “context of interest and perception”! Regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net http://blog.allmend.ch - Digitale Allmend
Wolf Ludwig ha scritto:
To my knowledge there are two versions of the application DD form: 1- the one dated March 10, 08 and sent the very day by Matthias and 2- the one dated March 27, 08 and sent on 4.04.08 by Matthias and I am referring to the indications in the later one.
Unfortunately, the only one that was circulated to the EURALO list (or to me in any form) is the one sent on March 5. If there is a newer one, then we should at least get it before we are given two days to comment upon it :-)
(...) Can you explain me how and by whom this application was discussed, to come to the recommendation above?
The application was verified and discussed by several board and ALAC members (Jeanette, Annette, Veronica and myself) besides the staff repeatedly
And who decided that ALS applications are to be discussed privately and only by a subset of the EURALO Board, rather than by all EURALO Board members?
(...) but I have known Jefsey Morfin - the France@Large leader - for >years, and even if he often has very controversial opinions, he exists and >he has been participating to the At Large since the year 2000, which is >more than can be said of several accredited ALSes. There should be a clear >reason to reject this application, not just "we're not sure"
I stated several reasons in my previous mail which are shared by all those 7 people (mentioned above) who checked the DD form, Website etc. repeatedly.
I see four people in your list above... well, never mind.
Nothing has happened for two months, so why all this hurry now?
If you haven’t realised anything for two months this does not necessarily mean that “nothing has happened” – I find your conclusions rather offensive BTW – and it perfectly fits to Juergen Habermas’ remarks about the “context of interest and perception”!
I am a EURALO Board member and this ALS application was never put up for discussion in two months. I would expect that the Board takes decisions on regional advice, not a self-appointed subgroup of people. In the absence of Board discussion, nothing has happened. 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. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Vittorio Bertola wrote Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:38:
Unfortunately, the only one that was circulated to the EURALO list (or to me in any form) is the one sent on March 5. If there is a newer one, then we should at least get it before we are given two days to comment upon it :-)
And anybody had the chance to express his/her opinion on the given application already. The same is true for the application of APTI, Bucarest, were we had no comments from the list or board members neither.
And who decided that ALS applications are to be discussed privately and only by a subset of the EURALO Board, rather than by all EURALO Board members?
In the case of France@Large the staff informed us that “Unfortunately ... unable to send you the Due Dilligence form earlier because there were some inconsistencies in the application” (on 4.04.08). Our verifications brought us to the same result and therefore it was suggested to look for some clarifications first before the issue is posted on the list. I don’t see any “private” character is this procedure. And everybody, the board and you included, could have told us any further opinion on the subject.
I see four people in your list above... well, never mind.
Actually four people from the board plus one (who prefered not being mentioned) and three staff members makes even – sorry! – eight.
I am a EURALO Board member and this ALS application was never put up for discussion in two months. I would expect that the Board takes decisions on regional advice, not a self-appointed subgroup of people. In the absence of Board discussion, nothing has happened.
Any application regarding our region was forwarded to the list (CLUSIT, APTI and France@Large) and any member ALS or board member can post a position on it. BTW I cannot enforce any discussions which are not suggested or promoted by others as well. Let's call it "shared responsibility" ;-)
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. Regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net http://blog.allmend.ch - Digitale Allmend
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/ <--------
:-) 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-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
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-lists.i...
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
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
Roberto Gaetano ha scritto:
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.
I disagree: deferring the vote on the accreditation of a European ALS from just before the EURALO GA to just after the EURALO GA would deprive them of the possibility to vote at that GA. You need to have a very valid, unchallengeable rationale to do that. It would really not look good if France@Large went to the Ombudsman and said that the current EURALO people are trying to find excuses to reject or defer their application until the GA is done: even if that is false, it would be hard to disprove, especially since I've yet to listen to a convincing reason against approving this application - until now, I've only heard a lot of FUD, but no fact. On the other hand, if staff contacted the other people listed in the application and ascertained that they're not really active or aware about what this is about, then I might be in favour of rejecting the application. But you need to have convincing evidence about this, as I am pretty sure that Monsieur Morfin will go straight towards the Ombudsman office if the application is rejected. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
At 14:56 29/04/2008, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
I am pretty sure that Monsieur Morfin will go straight towards the Ombudsman office if the application is rejected.
Be sure that this is already elsewhere -). My only real worry is the poor image it gives from Staff is certainly wrong. They cannot without order work hard on not being able to localise an active mailing list, understand simple architectural legalese, oppose that our mailing list would not be active when the Guidlines accept a declaration that the ALS will have a site and they document our active wiki, declare that they do not know how we will get a 500 to 1000 audience while they list the way we have already have a 700 one, implies we have no meeting when we have two technically leading ones in june, think we were inactive when we ... will I will stop here :-) My second concern is the Paris ALAC GA. I am afraid that if france@large cannot vote most of the attendees to the meeting will be france@large members and journalists. Some of our members favor this for the publicity we will get. This is not what I want. This is why I sent the application early enough and strictly abode by the rules. jfc
Vittorio:
I disagree: deferring the vote on the accreditation of a European ALS from just before the EURALO GA to just after the EURALO GA would deprive them of the possibility to vote at that GA.
To the best of my knowledge the GA is around the 20 Jume, today is still the 29 April. There should be plenty of time. Cheers, Roberto
Dear All: In respect of the points below a few clarifications: 1. The France@large application was received on 13th February 2008, during the ICANN international meeting. As a result of the hectic nature of being at an ICANN meeting the application was not acknowledged until the 28th February, which is 8 days longer than it should have taken. We apologised to M Morfin in that email for the delay and explained the nature of the delay. 2. The due dilligence form was actually completed by several members of the ICANN staff - the first version was done by M Minisci, the Regional Liaison for Europe. The regional liaison for each region always fills out the due dilligence form in the first instance as they are most likely to know of new applicant organisations. Because of the fact that Massimiliano is quite new, and there were still a number of open questions, I then performed additional due dilligence. The later due dilligence form you will find has additional information and elaboration in various respects. 3. Frederic did ask to speak to those persons that the application identified as being other leaders in france@large. M Morfin was unwilling to allow this unless he could attend each such call in person. It may be worthwhile for everyone to know that this application has required about 10 times the amount of due dilligence as is the norm for ALS applications. The due dilligence process was performed as required by the ALS Application Evaluation Guidelines, attached hereto in order for it to be easily found. The applicant is due to receive a decision on the application not later than 7 May 2008. From my understanding of the intent of ALAC to vote imminently on this application this deadline should be reached. On 28/04/2008 12:20, "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote: :-) 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-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Dear Nick, thank you for you first real mail on the matter. At 02:47 29/04/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear All: In respect of the points below a few clarifications:
1. The France@large application was received on 13th February 2008, during the ICANN international meeting.
So, it was probably immediately dicussed since everyone was there.
As a result of the hectic nature of being at an ICANN meeting the application was not acknowledged until the 28th February, which is 8 days longer than it should have taken. We apologised to M Morfin in that email for the delay and explained the nature of the delay.
Correct.
2. The due dilligence form was actually completed by several members of the ICANN staff the first version was done by M Minisci, the Regional Liaison for Europe. The regional liaison for each region always fills out the due dilligence form in the first instance as they are most likely to know of new applicant organisations.
ICANN archives can help.
Because of the fact that Massimiliano is quite new, and there were still a number of open questions, I then performed additional due dilligence. The later due dilligence form you will find has additional information and elaboration in various respects.
Please indicate what this document changes, when it was approved, in what way france@large does not comply with it.
3. Frederic did ask to speak to those persons that the application identified as being other leaders in france@large. M Morfin was unwilling to allow this unless he could attend each such call in person.
???? I was surprised when Frederic asked me the permission to call them (why to ask about them if it is not to call them). I even sent them a mail, copied to Frederic, to introduce Frederic and explain them he was very very new and how to best help him.
It may be worthwhile for everyone to know that this application has required about 10 times the amount of due dilligence as is the norm for ALS applications.
We are interested to understand why? Our application is online for everyone to see : http://alfrance.info/index.php?title=Proc%C3%A9dure_d%27adh%C3%A9sion_%C3%A0...
The due dilligence process was performed as required by the ALS Application Evaluation Guidelines, attached hereto in order for it to be easily found.
The applicant is due to receive a decision on the application not later than 7 May 2008. From my understanding of the intent of ALAC to vote imminently on this application this deadline should be reached.
The first question of Frederic's first short phone call was to know what I though went wrong to explain the delay. Since this mail raises no additional question, I am to consider that the reason for the delay (a very slow, obscure, and odd process) is elsewhere. The question is where this elsewhere is. jfc
Dear All: The france@large application was not discussed in New Delhi actually; applications are not immediately discussed as that short-circuits the application evaluation process. I refer you to the document provided on the email to which you replied. As to the content of the due dilligence document, and the questions related to it, I refer you again to the ALS Application Evaluation process in the document previously attached. As to the speed of the application process, that is also covered in the referenced document. Your application is not being handled in any extraordinary way process-wise. It is not overdue for decision either. On 28/04/2008 18:31, "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote: Dear Nick, thank you for you first real mail on the matter. At 02:47 29/04/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear All: In respect of the points below a few clarifications:
1. The France@large application was received on 13th February 2008, during the ICANN international meeting.
So, it was probably immediately dicussed since everyone was there.
As a result of the hectic nature of being at an ICANN meeting the application was not acknowledged until the 28th February, which is 8 days longer than it should have taken. We apologised to M Morfin in that email for the delay and explained the nature of the delay.
Correct.
2. The due dilligence form was actually completed by several members of the ICANN staff - the first version was done by M Minisci, the Regional Liaison for Europe. The regional liaison for each region always fills out the due dilligence form in the first instance as they are most likely to know of new applicant organisations.
ICANN archives can help.
Because of the fact that Massimiliano is quite new, and there were still a number of open questions, I then performed additional due dilligence. The later due dilligence form you will find has additional information and elaboration in various respects.
Please indicate what this document changes, when it was approved, in what way france@large does not comply with it.
3. Frederic did ask to speak to those persons that the application identified as being other leaders in france@large. M Morfin was unwilling to allow this unless he could attend each such call in person.
???? I was surprised when Frederic asked me the permission to call them (why to ask about them if it is not to call them). I even sent them a mail, copied to Frederic, to introduce Frederic and explain them he was very very new and how to best help him.
It may be worthwhile for everyone to know that this application has required about 10 times the amount of due dilligence as is the norm for ALS applications.
We are interested to understand why? Our application is online for everyone to see : http://alfrance.info/index.php?title=Proc%C3%A9dure_d%27adh%C3%A9sion_%C3%A0...
The due dilligence process was performed as required by the ALS Application Evaluation Guidelines, attached hereto in order for it to be easily found.
The applicant is due to receive a decision on the application not later than 7 May 2008. From my understanding of the intent of ALAC to vote imminently on this application this deadline should be reached.
The first question of Frederic's first short phone call was to know what I though went wrong to explain the delay. Since this mail raises no additional question, I am to consider that the reason for the delay (a very slow, obscure, and odd process) is elsewhere. The question is where this elsewhere is. jfc -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Dear Nick, as a multilinguist (practicalities of diversity in the semiotic area) I am always puzzled when I must read English as opposed to American. The differences are so great for a non English speaker that I am never really sure of the intended meaning :-) . At 06:54 29/04/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear All: The france@large application was not discussed in New Delhi actually; applications are not immediately discussed as that short-circuits the application evaluation process. I refer you to the document provided on the email to which you replied.
Difficult for me for example to know who is the "you" and what are the documents belonging to this set. It seems - since you spent 900 % times more on this application than on others, while I did not spend more time than asking if it was proceeding - that the replies where not from france@large and questions were not sent to france@large. france@large being the oldest ALS in existance, being for the reason very innovative in its structure, evolution and reflexion, asking no guidance not even answer from it when not understanding or misreading its documentation or biased comments may lead to Guidlines unwilling disrespect.
As to the content of the due dilligence document, and the questions related to it, I refer you again to the ALS Application Evaluation process in the document previously attached.
OK. I was uncertain about what your English implied. We are in agreement that the only reference is the "Proposed" Guidelines subject to the non-dated Review of the Office of the General Counsel. And that the "Due Diligence Form" you refer to is the Part III.2 document and the untitled form filled by the new commer Massimilino Minisci that you have yourself completed. This documente is dated March 27, I was not sent a copy in one month and I obtained by chance on the public list.
As to the speed of the application process, that is also covered in the referenced document. Your application is not being handled in any extraordinary way process-wise. It is not overdue for decision either.
I understand that you are extending your new department and this is not an easy task. I make no claim whatsoever. I just note that you did not substantiated why france@large due process demanded more working time not to be overdue. You obviously understand that these mails will be published on our site as we are a transparent organisation. All I can do is to delay the publication to be able to put a header saying that the Staff and others were disturbed for reasons we ignored and do not understand and that has satisfactorily clarified. For the recourds, I note that you did not comment on my pretended obstruction. Don't you think that the best would be you give me a ring as you first intended, Or that we have a drink together if you opo in Paris in the coming days. All this rigmarole seems really out-of-place. We are intented to cooperate, not to squabble that way. Cheers ! jfc
On 28/04/2008 18:31, "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:
Dear Nick, thank you for you first real mail on the matter.
At 02:47 29/04/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear All: In respect of the points below a few clarifications:
1. The France@large application was received on 13th February 2008, during the ICANN international meeting.
So, it was probably immediately dicussed since everyone was there.
As a result of the hectic nature of being at an ICANN meeting the application was not acknowledged until the 28th February, which is 8 days longer than it should have taken. We apologised to M Morfin in that email for the delay and explained the nature of the delay.
Correct.
2. The due dilligence form was actually completed by several members of the ICANN staff the first version was done by M Minisci, the Regional Liaison for Europe. The regional liaison for each region always fills out the due dilligence form in the first instance as they are most likely to know of new applicant organisations.
ICANN archives can help.
Because of the fact that Massimiliano is quite new, and there were still a number of open questions, I then performed additional due dilligence. The later due dilligence form you will find has additional information and elaboration in various respects.
Please indicate what this document changes, when it was approved, in what way france@large does not comply with it.
3. Frederic did ask to speak to those persons that the application identified as being other leaders in france@large. M Morfin was unwilling to allow this unless he could attend each such call in person.
???? I was surprised when Frederic asked me the permission to call them (why to ask about them if it is not to call them). I even sent them a mail, copied to Frederic, to introduce Frederic and explain them he was very very new and how to best help him.
It may be worthwhile for everyone to know that this application has required about 10 times the amount of due dilligence as is the norm for ALS applications.
We are interested to understand why? Our application is online for everyone to see : http://alfrance.info/index.php?title=Proc%C3%A9dure_d%27adh%C3%A9sion_%C3%A0...
The due dilligence process was performed as required by the ALS Application Evaluation Guidelines, attached hereto in order for it to be easily found.
The applicant is due to receive a decision on the application not later than 7 May 2008. From my understanding of the intent of ALAC to vote imminently on this application this deadline should be reached.
The first question of Frederic's first short phone call was to know what I though went wrong to explain the delay. Since this mail raises no additional question, I am to consider that the reason for the delay (a very slow, obscure, and odd process) is elsewhere.
The question is where this elsewhere is. jfc
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
My apologies for taking so long to reply to this message; as I believe I mentioned all three members of the At-Large staff are present in Marina del Rey for meetings and have been only rarely able to check email. Let me try and provide a bit of extra detail in hopes that this is useful. Firstly, my apologies for choosing the wrong document to attach to you. The one attached has all the same content excepting that the introductory note is different (and correct) and the word 'proposed' has been removed from the title. Note that this document is currently being translated into several languages; once it has been checked these will all be made available and posted online. Further, the process is outlined on the website - the best link is that at http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm. You will note that the application process does not generally involve the applicant very much; the due diligence process is intended to provide a basic verification of the information provided by the applicant. It is not customary to publicise the DD form itself, as it often may contain information which the applicant might not prefer to be posted publicly, as I suspect is the case with this form. The Staff can ask questions of the applicant when there does not seem to be any other way to answer the questions on the form - which is the case when an organisation appears to be brand-new, does not have much information posted on the website (or does not have a website at all), or where little information is available by other means such as searching the web. These factors did come into play with this application and a member of staff spent three hours over two calls with M Morfin as you have heard from the email correspondence. Unfortunately, that call did not produce further clarification in respect of the questions raised by the application and the due diligence process. Other comments can be found inline below. On 29/04/2008 05:27, "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote: Dear Nick, as a multilinguist (practicalities of diversity in the semiotic area) I am always puzzled when I must read English as opposed to American. The differences are so great for a non English speaker that I am never really sure of the intended meaning :-) . At 06:54 29/04/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear All: The france@large application was not discussed in New Delhi actually; applications are not immediately discussed as that short-circuits the application evaluation process. I refer you to the document provided on the email to which you replied.
Difficult for me for example to know who is the "you" and what are the documents belonging to this set. It seems - since you spent 900 % times more on this application than on others, while I did not spend more time than asking if it was proceeding - that the replies where not from france@large and questions were not sent to france@large. france@large being the oldest ALS in existance, being for the reason very innovative in its structure, evolution and reflexion, asking no guidance not even answer from it when not understanding or misreading its documentation or biased comments may lead to Guidlines unwilling disrespect. I draw your attention to the clarifications at the top of this reply.
As to the content of the due dilligence document, and the questions related to it, I refer you again to the ALS Application Evaluation process in the document previously attached.
OK. I was uncertain about what your English implied. We are in agreement that the only reference is the "Proposed" Guidelines subject to the non-dated Review of the Office of the General Counsel. And that the "Due Diligence Form" you refer to is the Part III.2 document and the untitled form filled by the new commer Massimilino Minisci that you have yourself completed. This documente is dated March 27, I was not sent a copy in one month and I obtained by chance on the public list. The fact that a member of staff is new does not have a bearing on the due diligence process or the results reached by that process, since that process is based upon basic fact checking using sources including independent online research independent of the applicant's web presence.
As to the speed of the application process, that is also covered in the referenced document. Your application is not being handled in any extraordinary way process-wise. It is not overdue for decision either.
I understand that you are extending your new department and this is not an easy task. I make no claim whatsoever. I just note that you did not substantiated why france@large due process demanded more working time not to be overdue. You obviously understand that these mails will be published on our site as we are a transparent organisation. All I can do is to delay the publication to be able to put a header saying that the Staff and others were disturbed for reasons we ignored and do not understand and that has satisfactorily clarified. The At-Large department is not new and the fact that some members of staff are new is also not relevant (and in any case, I myself am not new to ICANN). The due diligence process is administrative, and not subjective. The staff role is limited to trying to verify the statements on the application form as required by the community-developed process. Your application and the information about it has also been reviewed by long-standing members of the community and from their statements they have drawn their own conclusions as you have heard. In reply to your question about why the application has consumed so much staff time: This was due to online review of sources, as well as multiple hours of discussions with you personally, plus the time spent in trying to reach you, discussions with members of the community about the application and the information on the DD form, and discussions with other members of staff in the regional liaison team. With respect to publication of email: As this mailing list is itself publicly archived there is of course no issue whatever with further publication of emails. That said, If you were to publish fragments of the email correspondence, for example, rather than the entire text, I believe this would not be reasonable, as that could lead to misunderstandings. For the recourds, I note that you did not comment on my pretended obstruction. I am afraid that I do not understand the above statement. Don't you think that the best would be you give me a ring as you first intended, Or that we have a drink together if you opo in Paris in the coming days. All this rigmarole seems really out-of-place. We are intented to cooperate, not to squabble that way. After three hours of dialogue between yourself and the staff which did not lead to the answers to the questions raised by your application, it is hard to imagine how further conversations would be more productive. As I am sure you are aware, there are 100 existing ALSes and I am quite sure that any number of them would like to have telephone conversations with the staff which are even a fraction as long as three hours; I'm sure you'll understand that we do have to try and balance the time spent amongst the entire community as fairly and equitably as we can. We have done far more due diligence work on this application than is customary (or required); I'm sorry that it has not led to a result which you would it to have done.
From our perspective, there is no squabbling at all - I am simply answering your questions about an administrative process.
Cheers ! jfc
On 28/04/2008 18:31, "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:
Dear Nick, thank you for you first real mail on the matter.
At 02:47 29/04/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear All: In respect of the points below a few clarifications:
1. The France@large application was received on 13th February 2008, during the ICANN international meeting.
So, it was probably immediately dicussed since everyone was there.
As a result of the hectic nature of being at an ICANN meeting the application was not acknowledged until the 28th February, which is 8 days longer than it should have taken. We apologised to M Morfin in that email for the delay and explained the nature of the delay.
Correct.
2. The due dilligence form was actually completed by several members of the ICANN staff - the first version was done by M Minisci, the Regional Liaison for Europe. The regional liaison for each region always fills out the due dilligence form in the first instance as they are most likely to know of new applicant organisations.
ICANN archives can help.
Because of the fact that Massimiliano is quite new, and there were still a number of open questions, I then performed additional due dilligence. The later due dilligence form you will find has additional information and elaboration in various respects.
Please indicate what this document changes, when it was approved, in what way france@large does not comply with it.
3. Frederic did ask to speak to those persons that the application identified as being other leaders in france@large. M Morfin was unwilling to allow this unless he could attend each such call in person.
???? I was surprised when Frederic asked me the permission to call them (why to ask about them if it is not to call them). I even sent them a mail, copied to Frederic, to introduce Frederic and explain them he was very very new and how to best help him.
It may be worthwhile for everyone to know that this application has required about 10 times the amount of due dilligence as is the norm for ALS applications.
We are interested to understand why? Our application is online for everyone to see : http://alfrance.info/index.php?title=Proc%C3%A9dure_d%27adh%C3%A9sion_%C3%A0...
The due dilligence process was performed as required by the ALS Application Evaluation Guidelines, attached hereto in order for it to be easily found.
The applicant is due to receive a decision on the application not later than 7 May 2008. From my understanding of the intent of ALAC to vote imminently on this application this deadline should be reached.
The first question of Frederic's first short phone call was to know what I though went wrong to explain the delay. Since this mail raises no additional question, I am to consider that the reason for the delay (a very slow, obscure, and odd process) is elsewhere.
The question is where this elsewhere is. jfc
-- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Dear Nick, I thank you for spending the time to send this mail while you are buzzy. At 07:21 03/05/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
My apologies for taking so long to reply to this message; as I believe I mentioned all three members of the At-Large staff are present in Marina del Rey for meetings and have been only rarely able to check email.
noted.
Let me try and provide a bit of extra detail in hopes that this is useful. Firstly, my apologies for choosing the wrong document to attach to you. The one attached has all the same content excepting that the introductory note is different (and correct) and the word 'proposed' has been removed from the title. Note that this document is currently being translated into several languages; once it has been checked these will all be made available and posted online.
noted.
Further, the process is outlined on the website the best link is that at http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm.
agreed.
You will note that the application process does not generally involve the applicant very much; the due diligence process is intended to provide a basic verification of the information provided by the applicant.
Correct. This is why we are surprised by the non-basic issues being raised upon erroneous DD non verified information.
It is not customary to publicise the DD form itself, as it often may contain information which the applicant might not prefer to be posted publicly, as I suspect is the case with this form.
It is not, as far as we are concerned. We have nothing exact which cannot be published. We strive to be a transparent organisation.
The Staff can ask questions of the applicant when there does not seem to be any other way to answer the questions on the form which is the case when an organisation appears to be brand-new, does not have much information posted on the website (or does not have a website at all), or where little information is available by other means such as searching the web.
Hardly the case with the edest @large incorporated organisation, with a structured and documented site, plus several related sites, probably one of the largest reported google figure.
These factors did come into play with this application and a member of staff spent three hours over two calls with M Morfin as you have heard from the email correspondence.
I was not aware of any other M. Morfin in the ALS process. I received two calls. Hardly 3 hours long, even keeping subjective hours. One to tell me that we were engaged in the new UN, that you were not interested in knowing who we are, wanting to know where the money we do not have come from, and that there was an urgent call to place. The second one, to ask if you could call the Bureau Members I listed (you say I refused, and I copied you the mail I sent them to welcome your call) and again to talk of the source of the money we do not have. (When I say "you" I mean your organisation).
Unfortunately, that call did not produce further clarification in respect of the questions raised by the application and the due diligence process.
Please just quote the mail listing that questions. A part from: where comes the money you do not have and do not spend, and: can I call the people you said I could, I know none of them. I think I extensively answered the questions Wolf rose. I could have done the same for you. Just in case: time and meaning was not lost in translation. The calls were in French. They mostly where about teaching me what our organisation is (which is not).
Other comments can be found inline below.
On 29/04/2008 05:27, "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:
Dear Nick, as a multilinguist (practicalities of diversity in the semiotic area) I am always puzzled when I must read English as opposed to American. The differences are so great for a non English speaker that I am never really sure of the intended meaning :-) .
At 06:54 29/04/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear All: The france@large application was not discussed in New Delhi actually; applications are not immediately discussed as that short-circuits the application evaluation process. I refer you to the document provided on the email to which you replied.
Difficult for me for example to know who is the "you" and what are the documents belonging to this set. It seems - since you spent 900 % times more on this application than on others, while I did not spend more time than asking if it was proceeding - that the replies where not from france@large and questions were not sent to france@large. france@large being the oldest ALS in existance, being for the reason very innovative in its structure, evolution and reflexion, asking no guidance not even answer from it when not understanding or misreading its documentation or biased comments may lead to Guidlines unwilling disrespect.
You answered:
I draw your attention to the clarifications at the top of this reply.
I am sorry, but I do not think so.
As to the content of the due dilligence document, and the questions related to it, I refer you again to the ALS Application Evaluation process in the document previously attached.
OK. I was uncertain about what your English implied. We are in agreement that the only reference is the "Proposed" Guidelines subject to the non-dated Review of the Office of the General Counsel. And that the "Due Diligence Form" you refer to is the Part III.2 document and the untitled form filled by the new commer Massimilino Minisci that you have yourself completed. This documente is dated March 27, I was not sent a copy in one month and I obtained by chance on the public list.
You answered:
The fact that a member of staff is new does not have a bearing on the due diligence process or the results reached by that process, since that process is based upon basic fact checking using sources including independent online research independent of the applicant's web presence.
Noted. Any one can easily repeat the process. http://franceatlarge.org http://google.com
As to the speed of the application process, that is also covered in the referenced document. Your application is not being handled in any extraordinary way process-wise. It is not overdue for decision either.
I understand that you are extending your new department and this is not an easy task. I make no claim whatsoever. I just note that you did not substantiated why france@large due process demanded more working time not to be overdue. You obviously understand that these mails will be published on our site as we are a transparent organisation. All I can do is to delay the publication to be able to put a header saying that the Staff and others were disturbed for reasons we ignored and do not understand and that has satisfactorily clarified.
You answered:
The At-Large department is not new and the fact that some members of staff are new is also not relevant (and in any case, I myself am not new to ICANN). The due diligence process is administrative, and not subjective. The staff role is limited to trying to verify the statements on the application form as required by the community-developed process.
IMHO this calls for two hours for a non trained person.
Your application and the information about it has also been reviewed by long-standing members of the community and from their statements they have drawn their own conclusions as you have heard.
This is where the process becomes circumvoluted and subjective. Can you document this? You will have to answer the Ombudsman questions.
In reply to your question about why the application has consumed so much staff time: This was due to online review of sources,
Correct. There are so many of them. I understand that it is faster when there not yet a web site. But is the DD not just about checking there is a wev presence or not? If you started reading and analysing the hundreds of pages we have online over the last 8 years ....
as well as multiple hours of discussions with you personally,
They did not take much of _my_ time. I cannot appreciate about yours.
plus the time spent in trying to reach you,
I think I left as many messages returning yours. Nowadays, e-mails are very convenient. And are recorded.
discussions with members of the community about the application and the information on the DD form, and discussions with other members of staff in the regional liaison team.
From a few leaks, it seems they actually were extensive.
With respect to publication of email: As this mailing list is itself publicly archived there is of course no issue whatever with further publication of emails. That said, If you were to publish fragments of the email correspondence, for example, rather than the entire text, I believe this would not be reasonable, as that could lead to misunderstandings.
Why not you to prepare the file recording the entirety of our exchanges for the Ombudsman. This would save time to all of us. I am sure I can trust you. And this way you would feel confident.
For the recourds, I note that you did not comment on my pretended obstruction.
You answered:
I am afraid that I do not understand the above statement.
You claimed I refused the people listed on our applications to be called if I was not present.
Don't you think that the best would be you give me a ring as you first intended, Or that we have a drink together if you opo in Paris in the coming days. All this rigmarole seems really out-of-place. We are intented to cooperate, not to squabble that way.
You answered.
After three hours of dialogue between yourself and the staff which did not lead to the answers to the questions raised by your application, it is hard to imagine how further conversations would be more productive.
I do not know where these three hours come from. But I see where they lead to.
As I am sure you are aware, there are 100 existing ALSes and I am quite sure that any number of them would like to have telephone conversations with the staff which are even a fraction as long as three hours;
I understand that. I will certainly lobby for more man power for you. I understand that your task is overwhelming @ 1 new ALS per month.
I'm sure you'll understand that we do have to try and balance the time spent amongst the entire community as fairly and equitably as we can. We have done far more due diligence work on this application than is customary (or required);
The question remains: why did you do more work than _required_? If the answer can be published, why has this not resulted with questions being asked? If you claim having a communication problem by phone, why did these questions have not been raised by mail? These are the questions I will ask to the Ombudsman. Let understand. I consider this as pure discrimination hazing. So will press. We are quite used to it. I just want that you are not personnally taken for a biaised responsible while everyone guess you are acting under orders.
I'm sorry that it has not led to a result which you would it to have done.
I am sorry but I am not able to make sense from this (nor do the two translations programs I tried).
From our perspective, there is no squabbling at all I am simply answering your questions about an administrative process.
Form our's the squabbling is in the biaised stonewalling. You know what? You should just publish the form with the questions you have. This would help preparing a better form addressing your needs. Conflicts have sources. The best is to use friendly conflicts like this one as a source of inspiration to reduce that sources. Cheers. jfc
Cheers ! jfc
On 28/04/2008 18:31, "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:
Dear Nick, thank you for you first real mail on the matter.
At 02:47 29/04/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear All: In respect of the points below a few clarifications:
1. The France@large application was received on 13th February 2008, during the ICANN international meeting.
So, it was probably immediately dicussed since everyone was there.
As a result of the hectic nature of being at an ICANN meeting the application was not acknowledged until the 28th February, which is 8 days longer than it should have taken. We apologised to M Morfin in that email for the delay and explained the nature of the delay.
Correct.
2. The due dilligence form was actually completed by several members of the ICANN staff the first version was done by M Minisci, the Regional Liaison for Europe. The regional liaison for each region always fills out the due dilligence form in the first instance as they are most likely to know of new applicant organisations.
ICANN archives can help.
Because of the fact that Massimiliano is quite new, and there were still a number of open questions, I then performed additional due dilligence. The later due dilligence form you will find has additional information and elaboration in various respects.
Please indicate what this document changes, when it was approved, in what way france@large does not comply with it.
3. Frederic did ask to speak to those persons that the application identified as being other leaders in france@large. M Morfin was unwilling to allow this unless he could attend each such call in person.
???? I was surprised when Frederic asked me the permission to call them (why to ask about them if it is not to call them). I even sent them a mail, copied to Frederic, to introduce Frederic and explain them he was very very new and how to best help him.
It may be worthwhile for everyone to know that this application has required about 10 times the amount of due dilligence as is the norm for ALS applications.
We are interested to understand why? Our application is online for everyone to see : http://alfrance.info/index.php?title=Proc%C3%A9dure_d%27adh%C3%A9si on_%C3%A0_l%27ALAC
The due dilligence process was performed as required by the ALS Application Evaluation Guidelines, attached hereto in order for it to be easily found.
The applicant is due to receive a decision on the application not later than 7 May 2008. From my understanding of the intent of ALAC to vote imminently on this application this deadline should be reached.
The first question of Frederic's first short phone call was to know what I though went wrong to explain the delay. Since this mail raises no additional question, I am to consider that the reason for the delay (a very slow, obscure, and odd process) is elsewhere.
The question is where this elsewhere is. jfc
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Hi Vittorio and all, Vittorio Bertola wrote Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:07:
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?
At this point I don't want to make this to "my personal or private affair" against an applicant, not at all. And when you argue that "the staff's due diligence claims things that are opposite to what the applicant says" I can tell you that several people - not only staff - expressed the same questions and doubts about the original application form conc. members, character of organisation, role and participation of individual Internet users, "the secretariat being the only managing entity" and who exactly elects and mandats the secretariat (a secretariat is normaly understood as the "executive" and the board, elected by a GA, as "legislative" part of an organisation). The other question was funding by whom? The "17 members real and active, or not?", as you mentioned? I think, this variety of questions and inconsistencies gave enough ground for the suggested non-approval - not only for staff members - but the board members involved as well -- and not arguing in a concerted, negative or prejudiced manner. But as I stated before, this was a collective process. I took the role (as present chair) to communicate the bad and unpleasant message but I don't want to stipulate it to my personal or private affair against an applicant. Regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net http://blog.allmend.ch - Digitale Allmend
Dear all, since these mails seems to concern france@large, it would be a good thing if we could read them properly. jfc At 11:31 28/04/2008, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Dear all,
EURALO and its board is asked for opinion and advice on new ALS applications in its region. In previous cases our verifications didn't show any difficulties or inconsistencies. Unfortunately in a recent one, the application from France @Large, we face some problems to come up with an unanimous recommendation. &WVFVBæBFWFÆVBfW&f6Fons of France@Large's application by the staff and some of the board members showed the following inconsistencies: §FRGRöb÷&væ6FöâæBG2ÖVÖ&W'6 is rather unclear. In H\XØ][ÛÜKÛÛYHÙe crucial questions (2 d-e) on the \XÚ\][ÛÛHand influence of individual Internet users, are answered with "No". In question 2 f-j it is stated that the applicant/ALS has "no organizations as members" and governmental bodies or quasi-governmental bodies as members" neither. That means that the organisational character of the applicant is not evident Y\\X@ted checks. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; UTF8ISO-CONVERTED=n; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-63B2E7C
I'm not sure I understand. According to the English application that was posted to the EURALO list almost two months ago, in 2 d-e they say the exact opposite of what you report, they say that decisions are taken by their members. And in 2 e-f they say that they have no organizational members and no governmental members, which is a good thing. That's why we are asking those questions - to be sure that they are not controlled by companies or governments.
*the membership development, *the exact activities and
*the financing/funding of the applicant.
Therefore the Co-Chair and other board members cannot support [ÙP\Ùx &\È\XØ][Ûunder consideration of the given information. If there is no objection from other board and EURALO Y[X\ÈKHwith any further reasons to be considered -- we would like ÈXÛÛ[Y[ÛX\Ý[ÈSP'H[HHUTSÈØ@rd member, but this is the first time I am asked an opinion about this application. Can you explain me how and by whom this application was discussed, to come to the recommendation aboveH[Y[X\H\XØ][ÛZ[ÈÜÝed to the EURALO list, but I don't remember any comment there. Was there any request to all Board members or to the EURALO list for comments? If not, why not? In any case, I am forwarding this message to the list so that everyone is informed and we can have an open discussion.
In general, we have to be very cautious about rejecting new applications, as it might look like a form of capture by the existing RALO members. I do not have a final opinion yet, but I have known Jefsey Morfin - the France@Large leader - for years, and even if he often has very controversial opinions, he exists and he has been participating to the At Large since the year 2000, which is more than can be said of several accredited ALSes. There should be a clear reason to reject this application, not just "we're not sure" or "we don't like him". That's a guarantee for a new Ombudsman case.
Please note that we need to know your opinion within the NEXT 2 DAYS.
Nothing has happened for two months, so why all this hurry now?
Regards, -- 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-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
At 13:22 28/04/2008, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 7:31 PM To: Wolf Ludwig Cc: Annette Mühlberg; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Karen Banks; Jeanette Hofmann; Desiree Miloshevic; Sébastien Bachollet; William Drake; Veronica Cretu; Rudi Vansnick; Dr. Christoph Bruch; At-Large Staff; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: Regional advice on France@Large application needed
Wolf Ludwig ha scritto:
Dear all,
EURALO and its board is asked for opinion and advice on new ALS applications in its region. In previous cases our verifications didn't show any difficulties or inconsistencies. Unfortunately in a recent one, the application from France @Large, we face some problems to come up with an unanimous recommendation.
\X]Y[]Z[Y\YXØ][ÛÈÙ[ÙP\Ùx s application by
the staff and some of the board members showed the following inconsistencies: §FRGe of organisation and its membership is rather unclear. In H\XØ][ÛÜKÛÛYHÙHÜXÚX[]Y\Ý[ÛÈ 2 d-e) on the \XÚ\][ÛÛH[[Y[ÙHÙ[@vidual Internet users, are answered with "No". In question 2 f-j it is stated that the applicant/ALS has âno organizations as members" and governmental bodies or quasi-governmental bodies as members" neither. That means that the organisational character of the applicant is not evident Y\\X]YÚXÚÜ'IÛHÝsure I understand. According to the English application that was posted to the EURALO list almost two months ago, in 2 d-e they say the exact opposite of what you report, they say that decisions are taken by their members. And in 2 e-f they say that they have no organizational members and no governmental members, which is a good thing. That's why we are asking those questions - to be sure that they are not controlled by companies or governments.
*the membership development, §FRW7B7FfFPs and
*the financing/funding of the applicant.
Therefore the Co-Chair and other board members cannot support [ÙP\Ùx &\È\XØ][Û[\ÛÛÚY\][ÛÀf the given information. If there is no objection from other board and EURALO Y[X\ÈKHÚ][H\\X\Àons to be considered -- we would like ÈXÛÛ[Y[Û@approval to ALAC.
I am a EURALO Board member, but this is the first time I am asked an opinion about this application. Can you explain me how and by whom this application was discussed, to come to the recommendation aboveH remember the application being posted to the EURALO list, but I don't remember any comment there. Was there any request to all Board members or to the EURALO list for comments? If not, why not? In any case, I am forwarding this message to the list so that everyone is informed and we can have an open discussion.
In general, we have to be very cautious about rejecting new applications, as it might look like a form of capture by the existing RALO members. I do not have a final opinion yet, but I have known Jefsey Morfin - the France@Large leader - for years, and even if he often has very controversial opinions, he exists and he has been participating to the At Large since the year 2000, which is more than can be said of several accredited ALSes. There should be a clear reason to reject this application, not just "we're not sure" or "we don't like him". That's a guarantee for a new Ombudsman case.
Please note that we need to know your opinion within the NEXT 2 DAYS.
Nothing has happened for two months, so why all this hurry now?
Regards, -- 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-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
At 13:50 28/04/2008, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
Vittorio Bertola wrote Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:31:
I'm not sure I understand. According to the English application that was posted to the EURALO list almost two months ago, in 2 d-e they say the ^XÝÜÜÚ]HÙwhat you report, they say that decisions are taken by their members. And in 2 e-f they say that they have no organizational members and no governmental members, which is a good thing. That's why ÙH\H\ÚÚ[ÈÜÙH]Y\Ý[Àns - to be sure that they are not controlled by companies or governments.
To my knowledge there are two versions of the application DD form: 1- the one dated March 10, 08 and sent the very day by Matthias and 2- the one dated March 27, 08 and sent on 4.04.08 by Matthias and I am referring to the indications in the later one.
(...) Can you explain me how and by whom this application was discussed, to come to the recommendation above?
The application was verified and discussed by several board and ALAC members (Jeanette, Annette, Veronica and myself) besides the staff repeatedly
I remember the application being posted to the EURALO list, but I don't [Y[X\[HÛÀmment there. Was there any request to all Board members or to the EURALO list for commentsYÝÚHÝÈ@s we found several inconsistencies in the application (compared with other applicants), we agreed with the staff to try to get more and detailed information before discussing it "in public". There have been additional contacts by the staff with Jefsey Morfin which unfortunately couldn't bring the clarifications we asked for.
(...) but I have known Jefsey Morfin - the France@Large leader - for YX\Ë[][YHÙ[\È\HÛÛÝ\ÚX[Ü@nions, he exists and >he has been participating to the At Large since the year 2000, which is >more than can be said of several accredited ALSes. There should be a clear reason to reject this application, not just "we're not sure"
I stated several reasons in my previous mail which are shared by all those 7 people (mentioned above) who checked the DD form, Website etc. repeatedly.
or "we don't like him".
Nobody ever said that "we don't like him". I know Jefsey Morfin just from the list so far, others know him much longer as you do. And our opinion on France@Large's application has nothing to do with personal prejudices.
Nothing has happened for two months, so why all this hurry now?
If you haven't realised anything for two months this does not necessarily mean that "nothing has happened" I find your conclusions rather offensive BTW and it perfectly fits to Juergen Habermap remarks about the "context of interest and perception"!
Regards, Wolf
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_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
participants (6)
-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
JFC Morfin -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Roberto Gaetano -
Vittorio Bertola -
Wolf Ludwig