Comments/Questions on Summary of EURALO Board Meeting in Geneva
Dear Board members, especially those who made it for Geneva meeting this week, greetings! Thank you, Wolf, for the summary of the meeting, which is highly appreciated, especially due to my absence from the meeting! Below are some questions/concerns/comments I have after reading the Summary report per concrete issues that have been discussed during the meeting: 1. “There are suggestions to reduce the size of the EURALO board to five members to make it more operational and effective” – What are the main reasons behind changing the current number of EURALO Board members? (there is no enough information from the meeting summary on this). 2. I see that there were discussions about organizing certain events BUT “As we cannot count on ICANN funding for such a side event / Users Summit PrepCom in Paris” there are ideas about „prepare and submit a project proposal for the board to be submitted to different European organizations for sponsoring”. In this context, I have the following comments/observations: If EURALO is an ICANN related/created structure – than it should be able to function on support from ICANN. In case certain proposals are submitted to ICANN for funding, they SHOULD NOT BE refused/rejected, but on the contrary, improved and developed and finally implemented. Otherwise, if we start looking for funding from other organizations, we are NOT an ICANN structure any longer. Requesting funding from other donors, EUROPEAN ones, does not mean only using money for certain purposes, but adjusting our projects/activities/mission/scope, etc. to the priorities of the grant giver. And here: EURALO should clarify its working relationship with ICANN; If EURALO starts thinking about applying for sponsorship from other organizations, then, it should re-think/review its organizational structure, mission, etc. – that are not in line with ICANN bylaws, rules, procedures any longer. Also, in regards to EURALO will submit a new budget proposal for the Fiscal Year 2008-09 to ALAC that will include several activities, and my questions/comments are: - Usually any budget is made based on a Action Plan/s for a certain period of time. Where can EURALO’s Action Plan for 2008-2009 be accessed? To what extent ALSs are involved in identification of certain activities of this Action Plan? 3. ICANN Internet users declaration and the preparation process of this Declaration: Preparing a Declaration of this kind on behalf of ICANN Internet Users raises several questions vs. concerns: The extent/degree to which ICANN Internet users are aware/informed about the current problems and challenges in the field? What ARE the current challenges, main problems in the field? What are the solutions or/and alternative decisions that are proposed OR should be taken? What are the PROs and CONs of each solution? Other. In order to find answers to the above questions, one needs both human and financial recourses. An ideal output would be a research report which would be disseminated among ICANN Internet users community and vis-à-vis which ICANN Internet Users community would take a certain attitude. This attitude is actually something that is reflected in a Declaration, and by this Declaration ICANN Internet Users would seek concrete changes/attitude from ICANN side. Is this what is meant? Is this the process that is being discussed by EURALO? I would appreciate concrete details about it, in order to be able to come with certain proposal/solutions for how that can be implemented, etc. Thank you all very much for your time and for making the Board F2F meeting become a reality for at least some members of the Board:)! Have a nice weekend ahead, Veronica
Dear Veronica and all, Here my replies and explanations regarding Veronica’s
questions/concerns/comments (...) after reading the Summary report per concrete issues that have been discussed during the meeting.
Veronica Cretu wrote Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:21:
(...) 1. “There are suggestions to reduce the size of the EURALO board to five members to make it more operational and effective” – What are the main reasons behind changing the current number of EURALO Board members? (there is no enough information from the meeting summary on this).
After the creation of EURALO in Lisbon at March 07 and in the course of the subsequent board nominations and elections we had severe controversies on this list. It was therefore decided to have an enlarged board size to be “inclusive” as much as possible; and I still believe that this enlargement was reasonable under the prior circumstances. After the board elections in May 07 we realized however that some of the board members never reacted or participated on this list. Some of them told me that they are over- charged by their real jobs and/or live circumstances – what is understandable. But: A board – by definition – has a certain lead function and responsibility towards its members/organisations and should try to be as operational and effective as possible during the election term. Our experiences during the last months proofed that coordination and cooperation becomes more difficult according to the size of the board. Therefore I believe, before our first re-elections at our General Assembly in Paris we should make clear that nominations of board members demand a certain availability (in terms of time) of candidates, inputs, participation and commitments during the election term (for one up to two years). Having a small group of dedicated people coordination and work division will be easier. And candidates should announce before what is their special interest or contribution in regard of coordination, projects or content / follow-up on subjects. This is my personal reasoning and I don’t know whether it’s shared by all board members present in Geneva.
2. I see that there were discussions about organizing certain events BUT “As we cannot count on ICANN funding for such a side event / Users Summit PrepCom in Paris” there are ideas about „prepare and submit a project proposal for the board to be submitted to different European organizations for sponsoring”. In this context, I have the following comments/observations:
If EURALO is an ICANN related/created structure – than it should be able to function on support from ICANN.
(Wolf’s remark) I agree in principle.
In case certain proposals are submitted to ICANN for funding, they SHOULD NOT BE refused/rejected, but on the contrary, improved and developed and finally implemented.
(Wolf’s remark) I agree in principle but don’t see it as exclusive as you. If I have to invest more time and energy to convince ICANN (or any mother structure) to conduct useful meetings, outreach activities or content-related projects etc. than I prefer a certain autonomy to better invest my (volunteer) capacities – incl. fundraising for my planed activities. I would not call it “optimal” but rather more “pragmatic” ;-)
Otherwise, if we start looking for funding from other organizations, we are NOT an ICANN structure any longer. Requesting funding from other donors, EUROPEAN ones, does not mean only using money for certain purposes, but adjusting our projects/activities/mission/scope, etc. to the priorities of the grant giver.
(Wolf’s remark) As I said, I don’t see it in this “either” – “or” manner. I conducted several projects in the past when I submitted “my” goals / priorities / subjects and when I was not directed by grant givers or sponsors.
And here: EURALO should clarify its working relationship with ICANN; If EURALO starts thinking about applying for sponsorship from other organizations, then, it should re-think/review its organizational structure, mission, etc. – that are not in line with ICANN bylaws, rules, procedures any longer.
(Wolf’s remark) These questions of principle could be reconsidered at our next GA!
Also, in regards to EURALO will submit a new budget proposal for the Fiscal Year 2008-09 to ALAC that will include several activities, and my questions/comments are: - Usually any budget is made based on a Action Plan/s for a certain period of time. Where can EURALO’s Action Plan for 2008-2009 be accessed? To what extent ALSs are involved in identification of certain activities of this Action Plan?
(Wolf’s remark) It is clear to me that we won’t get any financial support from ICANN in the current Fiscal Year (ending in June 07) any more. To prepare a side event in Paris (Users Summit PrepCom or whatsoever) needs external funding, as mentioned before. The budget proposal we have to submit refers to the FY 2008-09 (post Paris) and will be based on a minima action plan (f2f board meeting, GA and outreach activities), as mentioned in the notes from Geneva.
3. ICANN Internet users declaration and the preparation process of this Declaration: Preparing a Declaration of this kind on behalf of ICANN Internet Users raises several questions vs. concerns: The extent/degree to which ICANN Internet users are aware/informed about the current problems and challenges in the field? What ARE the current challenges, main problems in the field? What are the solutions or/and alternative decisions that are proposed OR should be taken? What are the PROs and CONs of each solution? Other. In order to find answers to the above questions, one needs both human and financial recourses. An ideal output would be a research report which would be disseminated among ICANN Internet users community and vis-à-vis which ICANN Internet Users community would take a certain attitude. This attitude is actually something that is reflected in a Declaration, and by this Declaration ICANN Internet Users would seek concrete changes/attitude from ICANN side.
Is this what is meant? Is this the process that is being discussed by EURALO? I would appreciate concrete details about it, in order to be able to come with certain proposal/solutions for how that can be implemented, etc.
(Wolf’s remark) The idea of a “Internet users declaration” came up after LA and IGF 07 among EURALO fellows. In Rio they had a Dynamic Coalition dealing with this subject already – Vittorio and others were part of it. And nobody wants “to invent any new circle” again. There were many issue-related initiatives, discussions, inputs and drafts in different Foras already (WSIS, OECD, APC, ISOC-Italy, IGF etc.). And the idea is to take into consideration what was already done before and to link it up to ongoing ICANN discussions and particular User concerns. I think nobody is planning a “research report” which requires time and considerable means. The starting point was a common concern at EURALO and a Users Summit PrepCom in Paris in summer 07 could be another useful platform for it ... As mentioned before, these are my pesonal remarks and I hope they may be useful. Thanks for your response to the Geneva meeting notes, Veronica, and best regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 www.comunica-ch.net http://blog.allmend.ch - Digitale Allmend
Dear all, Thanks Wolf for your hard work and to Veronica to start this discussion. I would like to be sure I understand well.
From the Geneva meeting there are 2 projects for the Paris meeting: 1/ Euralo GA 2/ Users Summit PrepCom What are the differences? Why we need to have other funding than Icann one? Thanks and all the best
Sébastien Bachollet Président sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr -----Message d'origine----- De : euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Wolf Ludwig Envoyé : samedi 1 mars 2008 17:40 À : Discussion for At-Large Europe; euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Objet : Re: [EURO-Discuss] Comments/Questions on Summary of EURALO Board Meeting in Geneva Dear Veronica and all, Here my replies and explanations regarding Veronicas
questions/concerns/comments (...) after reading the Summary report per concrete issues that have been discussed during the meeting.
Veronica Cretu wrote Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:21:
(...) 1. There are suggestions to reduce the size of the EURALO board to five members to make it more operational and effective What are the main reasons behind changing the current number of EURALO Board members? (there is no enough information from the meeting summary on this).
After the creation of EURALO in Lisbon at March 07 and in the course of the subsequent board nominations and elections we had severe controversies on this list. It was therefore decided to have an enlarged board size to be inclusive as much as possible; and I still believe that this enlargement was reasonable under the prior circumstances. After the board elections in May 07 we realized however that some of the board members never reacted or participated on this list. Some of them told me that they are over- charged by their real jobs and/or live circumstances what is understandable. But: A board by definition has a certain lead function and responsibility towards its members/organisations and should try to be as operational and effective as possible during the election term. Our experiences during the last months proofed that coordination and cooperation becomes more difficult according to the size of the board. Therefore I believe, before our first re-elections at our General Assembly in Paris we should make clear that nominations of board members demand a certain availability (in terms of time) of candidates, inputs, participation and commitments during the election term (for one up to two years). Having a small group of dedicated people coordination and work division will be easier. And candidates should announce before what is their special interest or contribution in regard of coordination, projects or content / follow-up on subjects. This is my personal reasoning and I dont know whether its shared by all board members present in Geneva.
2. I see that there were discussions about organizing certain events BUT As we cannot count on ICANN funding for such a side event / Users Summit PrepCom in Paris there are ideas about prepare and submit a project proposal for the board to be submitted to different European organizations for sponsoring. In this context, I have the following comments/observations:
If EURALO is an ICANN related/created structure than it should be able to function on support from ICANN.
(Wolfs remark) I agree in principle.
In case certain proposals are submitted to ICANN for funding, they SHOULD NOT BE refused/rejected, but on the contrary, improved and developed and finally implemented.
(Wolfs remark) I agree in principle but dont see it as exclusive as you. If I have to invest more time and energy to convince ICANN (or any mother structure) to conduct useful meetings, outreach activities or content-related projects etc. than I prefer a certain autonomy to better invest my (volunteer) capacities incl. fundraising for my planed activities. I would not call it optimal but rather more pragmatic ;-)
Otherwise, if we start looking for funding from other organizations, we are
NOT an ICANN structure any longer. Requesting funding from other donors, EUROPEAN ones, does not mean only using money for certain purposes, but adjusting our projects/activities/mission/scope, etc. to the priorities of the grant giver.
(Wolfs remark) As I said, I dont see it in this either or manner. I conducted several projects in the past when I submitted my goals / priorities / subjects and when I was not directed by grant givers or sponsors.
And here: EURALO should clarify its working relationship with ICANN; If EURALO starts thinking about applying for sponsorship from other organizations, then, it should re-think/review its organizational structure, mission, etc. that are not in line with ICANN bylaws, rules, procedures any longer.
(Wolfs remark) These questions of principle could be reconsidered at our next GA!
Also, in regards to EURALO will submit a new budget proposal for the Fiscal
Year 2008-09 to ALAC that will include several activities, and my questions/comments are: - Usually any budget is made based on a Action Plan/s for a certain period of time. Where can EURALOs Action Plan for 2008-2009 be accessed? To what extent ALSs are involved in identification of certain activities of this Action Plan?
(Wolfs remark) It is clear to me that we wont get any financial support from ICANN in the current Fiscal Year (ending in June 07) any more. To prepare a side event in Paris (Users Summit PrepCom or whatsoever) needs external funding, as mentioned before. The budget proposal we have to submit refers to the FY 2008-09 (post Paris) and will be based on a minima action plan (f2f board meeting, GA and outreach activities), as mentioned in the notes from Geneva.
3. ICANN Internet users declaration and the preparation process of this Declaration: Preparing a Declaration of this kind on behalf of ICANN Internet Users raises several questions vs. concerns: The extent/degree to which ICANN Internet users are aware/informed about the current problems and challenges in the field? What ARE the current challenges, main problems in the field? What are the solutions or/and alternative decisions that are proposed OR should be taken? What are the PROs and CONs of each solution? Other. In order to find answers to the above questions, one needs both human and financial recourses. An ideal output would be a research report which would
be disseminated among ICANN Internet users community and vis-à-vis which ICANN Internet Users community would take a certain attitude. This attitude
is actually something that is reflected in a Declaration, and by this Declaration ICANN Internet Users would seek concrete changes/attitude from ICANN side.
Is this what is meant? Is this the process that is being discussed by EURALO? I would appreciate concrete details about it, in order to be able to come with certain proposal/solutions for how that can be implemented, etc.
(Wolfs remark) The idea of a Internet users declaration came up after LA and IGF 07 among EURALO fellows. In Rio they had a Dynamic Coalition dealing with this subject already Vittorio and others were part of it. And nobody wants to invent any new circle again. There were many issue-related initiatives, discussions, inputs and drafts in different Foras already (WSIS, OECD, APC, ISOC-Italy, IGF etc.). And the idea is to take into consideration what was already done before and to link it up to ongoing ICANN discussions and particular User concerns. I think nobody is planning a research report which requires time and considerable means. The starting point was a common concern at EURALO and a Users Summit PrepCom in Paris in summer 07 could be another useful platform for it ... As mentioned before, these are my pesonal remarks and I hope they may be useful. Thanks for your response to the Geneva meeting notes, Veronica, and best regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 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 cann.org Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1305 - Release Date: 29/02/2008 18:32 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1306 - Release Date: 01/03/2008 17:41
My undertanding is that we do have two different sessions in paris: 1. The EURALO GA for all ALS from Europe (funded my ICANN) 2. A preparatyory meeting for the users summit (in Africa) for all present RALO members from all continents. No funds are needed for this because only people who are in Paris anyhow will participate. We shuld ask Nick to look for opportunities for a remote participation. The purpose of the PrepCom is the agree on the design, programme, budget, drafting procedures for the final documents etc. for the At Large Summit (ATLAS) in the African meeting. Wolfgang ________________________________ Lähettäjä: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org puolesta: Sébastien Bachollet Lähetetty: su 2.3.2008 17:21 Vastaanottaja: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe' Aihe: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Comments/Questions on Summary of EURALO BoardMeeting in Geneva Dear all, Thanks Wolf for your hard work and to Veronica to start this discussion. I would like to be sure I understand well.
From the Geneva meeting there are 2 projects for the Paris meeting: 1/ Euralo GA 2/ Users Summit PrepCom What are the differences? Why we need to have other funding than Icann one? Thanks and all the best
Sébastien Bachollet Président sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr -----Message d'origine----- De : euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Wolf Ludwig Envoyé : samedi 1 mars 2008 17:40 À : Discussion for At-Large Europe; euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Objet : Re: [EURO-Discuss] Comments/Questions on Summary of EURALO Board Meeting in Geneva Dear Veronica and all, Here my replies and explanations regarding Veronica's
questions/concerns/comments (...) after reading the Summary report per concrete issues that have been discussed during the meeting.
Veronica Cretu wrote Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:21:
(...) 1. "There are suggestions to reduce the size of the EURALO board to five members to make it more operational and effective" - What are the main reasons behind changing the current number of EURALO Board members? (there is no enough information from the meeting summary on this).
After the creation of EURALO in Lisbon at March 07 and in the course of the subsequent board nominations and elections we had severe controversies on this list. It was therefore decided to have an enlarged board size to be "inclusive" as much as possible; and I still believe that this enlargement was reasonable under the prior circumstances. After the board elections in May 07 we realized however that some of the board members never reacted or participated on this list. Some of them told me that they are over- charged by their real jobs and/or live circumstances - what is understandable. But: A board - by definition - has a certain lead function and responsibility towards its members/organisations and should try to be as operational and effective as possible during the election term. Our experiences during the last months proofed that coordination and cooperation becomes more difficult according to the size of the board. Therefore I believe, before our first re-elections at our General Assembly in Paris we should make clear that nominations of board members demand a certain availability (in terms of time) of candidates, inputs, participation and commitments during the election term (for one up to two years). Having a small group of dedicated people coordination and work division will be easier. And candidates should announce before what is their special interest or contribution in regard of coordination, projects or content / follow-up on subjects. This is my personal reasoning and I don't know whether it's shared by all board members present in Geneva.
2. I see that there were discussions about organizing certain events BUT "As we cannot count on ICANN funding for such a side event / Users Summit PrepCom in Paris" there are ideas about "prepare and submit a project proposal for the board to be submitted to different European organizations for sponsoring". In this context, I have the following comments/observations:
If EURALO is an ICANN related/created structure - than it should be able to function on support from ICANN.
(Wolf's remark) I agree in principle.
In case certain proposals are submitted to ICANN for funding, they SHOULD NOT BE refused/rejected, but on the contrary, improved and developed and finally implemented.
(Wolf's remark) I agree in principle but don't see it as exclusive as you. If I have to invest more time and energy to convince ICANN (or any mother structure) to conduct useful meetings, outreach activities or content-related projects etc. than I prefer a certain autonomy to better invest my (volunteer) capacities - incl. fundraising for my planed activities. I would not call it "optimal" but rather more "pragmatic" ;-)
Otherwise, if we start looking for funding from other organizations, we are
NOT an ICANN structure any longer. Requesting funding from other donors, EUROPEAN ones, does not mean only using money for certain purposes, but adjusting our projects/activities/mission/scope, etc. to the priorities of the grant giver.
(Wolf's remark) As I said, I don't see it in this "either" - "or" manner. I conducted several projects in the past when I submitted "my" goals / priorities / subjects and when I was not directed by grant givers or sponsors.
And here: EURALO should clarify its working relationship with ICANN; If EURALO starts thinking about applying for sponsorship from other organizations, then, it should re-think/review its organizational structure, mission, etc. - that are not in line with ICANN bylaws, rules, procedures any longer.
(Wolf's remark) These questions of principle could be reconsidered at our next GA!
Also, in regards to EURALO will submit a new budget proposal for the Fiscal
Year 2008-09 to ALAC that will include several activities, and my questions/comments are: - Usually any budget is made based on a Action Plan/s for a certain period of time. Where can EURALO's Action Plan for 2008-2009 be accessed? To what extent ALSs are involved in identification of certain activities of this Action Plan?
(Wolf's remark) It is clear to me that we won't get any financial support from ICANN in the current Fiscal Year (ending in June 07) any more. To prepare a side event in Paris (Users Summit PrepCom or whatsoever) needs external funding, as mentioned before. The budget proposal we have to submit refers to the FY 2008-09 (post Paris) and will be based on a minima action plan (f2f board meeting, GA and outreach activities), as mentioned in the notes from Geneva.
3. ICANN Internet users declaration and the preparation process of this Declaration: Preparing a Declaration of this kind on behalf of ICANN Internet Users raises several questions vs. concerns: The extent/degree to which ICANN Internet users are aware/informed about the current problems and challenges in the field? What ARE the current challenges, main problems in the field? What are the solutions or/and alternative decisions that are proposed OR should be taken? What are the PROs and CONs of each solution? Other. In order to find answers to the above questions, one needs both human and financial recourses. An ideal output would be a research report which would
be disseminated among ICANN Internet users community and vis-à-vis which ICANN Internet Users community would take a certain attitude. This attitude
is actually something that is reflected in a Declaration, and by this Declaration ICANN Internet Users would seek concrete changes/attitude from ICANN side.
Is this what is meant? Is this the process that is being discussed by EURALO? I would appreciate concrete details about it, in order to be able to come with certain proposal/solutions for how that can be implemented, etc.
(Wolf's remark) The idea of a "Internet users declaration" came up after LA and IGF 07 among EURALO fellows. In Rio they had a Dynamic Coalition dealing with this subject already - Vittorio and others were part of it. And nobody wants "to invent any new circle" again. There were many issue-related initiatives, discussions, inputs and drafts in different Foras already (WSIS, OECD, APC, ISOC-Italy, IGF etc.). And the idea is to take into consideration what was already done before and to link it up to ongoing ICANN discussions and particular User concerns. I think nobody is planning a "research report" which requires time and considerable means. The starting point was a common concern at EURALO and a Users Summit PrepCom in Paris in summer 07 could be another useful platform for it ... As mentioned before, these are my pesonal remarks and I hope they may be useful. Thanks for your response to the Geneva meeting notes, Veronica, and best regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 www.comunica-ch.net http://blog.allmend.ch <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 cann.org Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1305 - Release Date: 29/02/2008 18:32 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1306 - Release Date: 01/03/2008 17:41 _______________________________________________ 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 <http://www.euralo.org/>
I fully agree with you Wolfgang. 1/ is under the responsibility of EuRalo 2/ is under the responsibility of Alac but where all the ideas of Euralo members are certainly more than welcome. Sébastien Bachollet Président sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr -----Message d'origine----- De : Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Envoyé : dimanche 2 mars 2008 17:54 À : sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr; Discussion for At-Large Europe Objet : VS: [EURO-Discuss] Comments/Questions on Summary of EURALOBoardMeeting in Geneva My undertanding is that we do have two different sessions in paris: 1. The EURALO GA for all ALS from Europe (funded my ICANN) 2. A preparatyory meeting for the users summit (in Africa) for all present RALO members from all continents. No funds are needed for this because only people who are in Paris anyhow will participate. We shuld ask Nick to look for opportunities for a remote participation. The purpose of the PrepCom is the agree on the design, programme, budget, drafting procedures for the final documents etc. for the At Large Summit (ATLAS) in the African meeting. Wolfgang ________________________________ Lähettäjä: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org puolesta: Sébastien Bachollet Lähetetty: su 2.3.2008 17:21 Vastaanottaja: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe' Aihe: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Comments/Questions on Summary of EURALO BoardMeeting in Geneva Dear all, Thanks Wolf for your hard work and to Veronica to start this discussion. I would like to be sure I understand well.
From the Geneva meeting there are 2 projects for the Paris meeting: 1/ Euralo GA 2/ Users Summit PrepCom What are the differences? Why we need to have other funding than Icann one? Thanks and all the best
Sébastien Bachollet Président sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr -----Message d'origine----- De : euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Wolf Ludwig Envoyé : samedi 1 mars 2008 17:40 À : Discussion for At-Large Europe; euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Objet : Re: [EURO-Discuss] Comments/Questions on Summary of EURALO Board Meeting in Geneva Dear Veronica and all, Here my replies and explanations regarding Veronica's
questions/concerns/comments (...) after reading the Summary report per concrete issues that have been discussed during the meeting.
Veronica Cretu wrote Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:21:
(...) 1. "There are suggestions to reduce the size of the EURALO board to five members to make it more operational and effective" - What are the main reasons behind changing the current number of EURALO Board members? (there is no enough information from the meeting summary on this).
After the creation of EURALO in Lisbon at March 07 and in the course of the subsequent board nominations and elections we had severe controversies on this list. It was therefore decided to have an enlarged board size to be "inclusive" as much as possible; and I still believe that this enlargement was reasonable under the prior circumstances. After the board elections in May 07 we realized however that some of the board members never reacted or participated on this list. Some of them told me that they are over- charged by their real jobs and/or live circumstances - what is understandable. But: A board - by definition - has a certain lead function and responsibility towards its members/organisations and should try to be as operational and effective as possible during the election term. Our experiences during the last months proofed that coordination and cooperation becomes more difficult according to the size of the board. Therefore I believe, before our first re-elections at our General Assembly in Paris we should make clear that nominations of board members demand a certain availability (in terms of time) of candidates, inputs, participation and commitments during the election term (for one up to two years). Having a small group of dedicated people coordination and work division will be easier. And candidates should announce before what is their special interest or contribution in regard of coordination, projects or content / follow-up on subjects. This is my personal reasoning and I don't know whether it's shared by all board members present in Geneva.
2. I see that there were discussions about organizing certain events BUT "As we cannot count on ICANN funding for such a side event / Users Summit PrepCom in Paris" there are ideas about "prepare and submit a project proposal for the board to be submitted to different European organizations for sponsoring". In this context, I have the following comments/observations:
If EURALO is an ICANN related/created structure - than it should be able to function on support from ICANN.
(Wolf's remark) I agree in principle.
In case certain proposals are submitted to ICANN for funding, they SHOULD NOT BE refused/rejected, but on the contrary, improved and developed and finally implemented.
(Wolf's remark) I agree in principle but don't see it as exclusive as you. If I have to invest more time and energy to convince ICANN (or any mother structure) to conduct useful meetings, outreach activities or content-related projects etc. than I prefer a certain autonomy to better invest my (volunteer) capacities - incl. fundraising for my planed activities. I would not call it "optimal" but rather more "pragmatic" ;-)
Otherwise, if we start looking for funding from other organizations, we are
NOT an ICANN structure any longer. Requesting funding from other donors, EUROPEAN ones, does not mean only using money for certain purposes, but adjusting our projects/activities/mission/scope, etc. to the priorities of the grant giver.
(Wolf's remark) As I said, I don't see it in this "either" - "or" manner. I conducted several projects in the past when I submitted "my" goals / priorities / subjects and when I was not directed by grant givers or sponsors.
And here: EURALO should clarify its working relationship with ICANN; If EURALO starts thinking about applying for sponsorship from other organizations, then, it should re-think/review its organizational structure, mission, etc. - that are not in line with ICANN bylaws, rules, procedures any longer.
(Wolf's remark) These questions of principle could be reconsidered at our next GA!
Also, in regards to EURALO will submit a new budget proposal for the Fiscal
Year 2008-09 to ALAC that will include several activities, and my questions/comments are: - Usually any budget is made based on a Action Plan/s for a certain period of time. Where can EURALO's Action Plan for 2008-2009 be accessed? To what extent ALSs are involved in identification of certain activities of this Action Plan?
(Wolf's remark) It is clear to me that we won't get any financial support from ICANN in the current Fiscal Year (ending in June 07) any more. To prepare a side event in Paris (Users Summit PrepCom or whatsoever) needs external funding, as mentioned before. The budget proposal we have to submit refers to the FY 2008-09 (post Paris) and will be based on a minima action plan (f2f board meeting, GA and outreach activities), as mentioned in the notes from Geneva.
3. ICANN Internet users declaration and the preparation process of this Declaration: Preparing a Declaration of this kind on behalf of ICANN Internet Users raises several questions vs. concerns: The extent/degree to which ICANN Internet users are aware/informed about the current problems and challenges in the field? What ARE the current challenges, main problems in the field? What are the solutions or/and alternative decisions that are proposed OR should be taken? What are the PROs and CONs of each solution? Other. In order to find answers to the above questions, one needs both human and financial recourses. An ideal output would be a research report which would
be disseminated among ICANN Internet users community and vis-à-vis which ICANN Internet Users community would take a certain attitude. This attitude
is actually something that is reflected in a Declaration, and by this Declaration ICANN Internet Users would seek concrete changes/attitude from ICANN side.
Is this what is meant? Is this the process that is being discussed by EURALO? I would appreciate concrete details about it, in order to be able to come with certain proposal/solutions for how that can be implemented, etc.
(Wolf's remark) The idea of a "Internet users declaration" came up after LA and IGF 07 among EURALO fellows. In Rio they had a Dynamic Coalition dealing with this subject already - Vittorio and others were part of it. And nobody wants "to invent any new circle" again. There were many issue-related initiatives, discussions, inputs and drafts in different Foras already (WSIS, OECD, APC, ISOC-Italy, IGF etc.). And the idea is to take into consideration what was already done before and to link it up to ongoing ICANN discussions and particular User concerns. I think nobody is planning a "research report" which requires time and considerable means. The starting point was a common concern at EURALO and a Users Summit PrepCom in Paris in summer 07 could be another useful platform for it ... As mentioned before, these are my pesonal remarks and I hope they may be useful. Thanks for your response to the Geneva meeting notes, Veronica, and best regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 www.comunica-ch.net http://blog.allmend.ch <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 cann.org Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1305 - Release Date: 29/02/2008 18:32 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1306 - Release Date: 01/03/2008 17:41 _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i cann.org Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1306 - Release Date: 01/03/2008 17:41 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1306 - Release Date: 01/03/2008 17:41
At 19:10 02/03/2008, Sébastien Bachollet wrote:
I fully agree with you Wolfgang. 1/ is under the responsibility of EuRalo 2/ is under the responsibility of Alac but where all the ideas of Euralo members are certainly more than welcome.
Great! This correspondsto the invitation france@large made to guest a meeting for all the @large being present in Paris. I understand that this prep-ATLAS will be organised by the ALAC. Do you have decided of the dates of the two meetings? This is important to us in relation to national/european internet oriented specialised events we might organise during the last week of June/first week of July. All the best. jfc
Cher Sébastien, dear Wolfgang, thanks, Wolfgang, for your interpretation of the difference of the two Paris events: 1) our GA is under mere EURALO responsibility (but travel and stay-over expenses for our ALSes will be covered by ICANN because the GA "coincides" with an ICANN meeting in our region). 2) The planed Users Summit PrepCom ("The purpose of the PrepCom is
the agree on the design, programme, budget, drafting procedures for the final documents etc. for the At Large Summit (ATLAS) in the African meeting.") Such a PrepCom has to be organised and conducted by EURALO and ALAC and we need some financial means for this (which will not be covered by ICANN). Therefore I suggested to draft a project and funding proposal for organisation and conduct of such a PrepCom.
Best, Wolf Sébastien Bachollet wrote Sun, 2 Mar 2008 19:10:
I fully agree with you Wolfgang. 1/ is under the responsibility of EuRalo 2/ is under the responsibility of Alac but where all the ideas of Euralo members are certainly more than welcome.
Sébastien Bachollet Président sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr
Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote dimanche 2 mars 2008 17:54:
My undertanding is that we do have two different sessions in paris: 1. The EURALO GA for all ALS from Europe (funded my ICANN) 2.A p reparatyory meeting for the users summit (in Africa) for all present RALO members from all continents. No funds are needed for this because only people who are in Paris anyhow will participate. We shuld ask Nick to look for opportunities for a remote participation. The purpose of the PrepCom is the agree on the design, programme, budget, drafting procedures for the final documents etc. for the At Large Summit (ATLAS) in the African meeting.
Wolfgang
comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 www.comunica-ch.net http://blog.allmend.ch - Digitale Allmend
participants (5)
-
JFC Morfin -
Kleinwächter, Wolfgang -
Sébastien Bachollet -
Veronica Cretu -
Wolf Ludwig