Draft Board Report (2012-13) for Lisbon GA
Dear all, attached please find a draft of the Board report for the Lisbon GA to be discussed at our tonight's monthly call. Thanks for your considerations and comments. Kind regards, Wolf EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Dear Wolf, We will make it available in the AC room for today's call. Kind regards, Silvia Silvia Vivanco Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (202) 570-7119 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Cell/Mobile: +1 (202) 735-7011 -----Original Message----- From: Wolf Ludwig [mailto:wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:45 AM To: euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff Subject: Draft Board Report (2012-13) for Lisbon GA Dear all, attached please find a draft of the Board report for the Lisbon GA to be discussed at our tonight's monthly call. Thanks for your considerations and comments. Kind regards, Wolf EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Dear Wolf, thank you for making this excellent report available. My comments, following the order of your report's section numbers, are laid out here: "2. EURALO representations" In this section you mention re: the ICANN Academy which is in fact only the "Leadership Programme" of the ICANN Academy, that "The first pilot of this project is foreseen for the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban in July this year." This is incorrect. I believe that the pilot would be set for the Buenos Aires meeting. I'll let Sandra correct this accordingly. Further, may I suggest that the Academy initial proposal has evolved a lot since the beginning and the work of the two WGs, both version 1, https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/At-Large+ICANN+Academy+Ad-Hoc+Wo... and the expanded cross-community version 2, https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/At-Large+ICANN+Academy+Expanded+... and these might therefore be better starting points for relating to the work of the working group. "4. Out-reach and In-reach" LACRALO might have found a way to improve participation, and that's to have its monthly call extended to 90 minutes instead of 60 minutes, but each monthly call contains a 30-45 minute Capacity Building Webinar, where they invite an expert from ICANN, sometimes a staff member, sometimes someone from another part of ICANN's community, sometimes an in-house expert, to speak about a subject and answer questions. It is hoped that as a result, more people from ALSes will start understanding the issues better and take a more active part in the work. This appears to have worked so far, with increased participation on the monthly call. There are other initiatives which have been tried by LACRALO and I'll be happy to share them with everyone during the Face to Face in Lisbon, whether during the formal F2F or the informal one before. Yesterday I did a short Webinar for APRALO, and repeated it in its entirety to LACRALO, which explains the ALAC policy development process. How Statements get written? What is the involvement of an ALAC member in his/her region? What do RALO leaders have to do to engage ALSes? Indeed, how can ALSes be heard? The talk is around 30 minutes and I'd be happy to engage in Lisbon for it. As a result, please be so kind to find the slide deck attached and consider tabling 30 minutes either during the GA agenda or informally before. "5. Individual Membership" Let's define an interim Chair of this and a set of members, who may already be members of ALSes, acting in an interim capacity, as Christopher Wilkinson has suggested during the EURALO call. I believe that the "home" needs to be built before it starts getting filled with individual members. And I believe that individual members will come when the home is built. In response to Oksana's suggestion that ALS *representatives* should be able to be an ALS *representative* in another region, this is forbidden in the ALAC bylaws for a reason to make sure there might not be a possibility of manipulation/capture. It is 99.9% sure that this cannot change because any change to this rule would need approval from the ALAC and approval from the Board and I don't see this happening ever. Of course, there is no rule against being a simple member of several ALSes. I am a member of 3 ALSes in 3 different regions; some are members of more than 3, in different or in the same region, it doesn't matter. These are my notes for the time being. Looking forward to replies. Kind regards, Olivier On 21/05/2013 17:45, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
Dear all,
attached please find a draft of the Board report for the Lisbon GA to be discussed at our tonight's monthly call.
Thanks for your considerations and comments.
Kind regards, Wolf
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Dear Olivier, thanks for this feedback and your remarks what is much appreciated. Please allow me to insert my comments below Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote Tue, 21 May 2013 23:11:
Dear Wolf,
thank you for making this excellent report available.
My comments, following the order of your report's section numbers, are laid out here:
"2. EURALO representations"
In this section you mention re: the ICANN Academy which is in fact only the "Leadership Programme" of the ICANN Academy, that "The first pilot of this project is foreseen for the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban in July this year."
This is incorrect. I believe that the pilot would be set for the Buenos Aires meeting. I'll let Sandra correct this accordingly.
(WL) Thanks and agreed -- I was not sure about Durban or BA later this year. I need to check these details incl. newer links with Sandra before we "officially submit" this report.
Further, may I suggest that the Academy initial proposal has evolved a lot since the beginning and the work of the two WGs, both version 1, https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/At-Large+ICANN+Academy+Ad-Hoc+Wo... and the expanded cross-community version 2, https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/At-Large+ICANN+Academy+Expanded+... and these might therefore be better starting points for relating to the work of the working group.
(WL) To be checked with and approved by Sandra.
"4. Out-reach and In-reach" LACRALO might have found a way to improve participation, and that's to have its monthly call extended to 90 minutes instead of 60 minutes, but each monthly call contains a 30-45 minute Capacity Building Webinar, where they invite an expert from ICANN, sometimes a staff member, sometimes someone from another part of ICANN's community, sometimes an in-house expert, to speak about a subject and answer questions. It is hoped that as a result, more people from ALSes will start understanding the issues better and take a more active part in the work. This appears to have worked so far, with increased participation on the monthly call.
There are other initiatives which have been tried by LACRALO and I'll be happy to share them with everyone during the Face to Face in Lisbon, whether during the formal F2F or the informal one before.
Yesterday I did a short Webinar for APRALO, and repeated it in its entirety to LACRALO, which explains the ALAC policy development process. How Statements get written? What is the involvement of an ALAC member in his/her region? What do RALO leaders have to do to engage ALSes? Indeed, how can ALSes be heard? The talk is around 30 minutes and I'd be happy to engage in Lisbon for it. As a result, please be so kind to find the slide deck attached and consider tabling 30 minutes either during the GA agenda or informally before.
(WL) I always tried to keep these reports as short and concise as possible (2 pages max.) and concentrating on "previous" facts and experiences in the reporting period by avoiding too many details or scenarios (or examples from other RALOs). IMO, this annual report is a summary about what WE did or didn't do last year and not a discussion paper or project proposal. The examples you noted here from other RALOs are *important* and valuable for our on-spot discussion in Lisbon, to look over the fence to see what others do better than we did so far, to consider better practices -- but this shouldn't be part of this annual report. Let me suggest that you point to these good examples at the GA itself under the Agenda points 10 to 13 -- see: https://community.icann.org/display/EURALO/2013+EURALO+General+Assembly
"5. Individual Membership" Let's define an interim Chair of this and a set of members, who may already be members of ALSes, acting in an interim capacity, as Christopher Wilkinson has suggested during the EURALO call. I believe that the "home" needs to be built before it starts getting filled with individual members. And I believe that individual members will come when the home is built.
(WL) I didn't want to commend on this again ;-) Well, we created a list of factual and potential indiv. members already by keeping this group open. As the folks concerned (except Siranush before) didn't care for any follow-up, we prepared the first and next steps for them (incl. draft Bylaws and application form). We found Roberto and Veronica serving as the contact points to get the application ready for DD and certification procedure. I am hesitating to do anything more for "them" like defining an interim Chair for this ALS -- I won't be part of it and therefore *they* should define and select BY themselves. I am open to anything what makes this initiative finally work, if it's not always remotely operated by us. Let's add it as a sub-point to the Lisbon Agenda BUT we shouldn't say more in the Board report (besides what didn't work so far ;-)
In response to Oksana's suggestion that ALS *representatives* should be able to be an ALS *representative* in another region, this is forbidden in the ALAC bylaws for a reason to make sure there might not be a possibility of manipulation/capture. It is 99.9% sure that this cannot change because any change to this rule would need approval from the ALAC and approval from the Board and I don't see this happening ever.
Of course, there is no rule against being a simple member of several ALSes. I am a member of 3 ALSes in 3 different regions; some are members of more than 3, in different or in the same region, it doesn't matter.
(WL) I explained this point in length and details already by making clear that we can be *simple members* of different ALSes inside and outside a region BUT we can NOT be *representatives* of more than one ALS (inside or outside a region), as you confirmed Olivier. And I repeatedly noted that we (at RALO level) cannot change this rule. IF anybody is still unhappy with this binding ALAC rule, the person can try to convince ALAC about a respective change of their Bylaws! This was my very last comment on this point. Other comments are of course welcome. Thanks for your inputs so far, Olivier. Kind regards, Wolf EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Dear Wolf, thanks for your kind reply. Just one point to add: On 22/05/2013 00:12, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
(WL) I always tried to keep these reports as short and concise as possible (2 pages max.) and concentrating on "previous" facts and experiences in the reporting period by avoiding too many details or scenarios (or examples from other RALOs). IMO, this annual report is a summary about what WE did or didn't do last year and not a discussion paper or project proposal. The examples you noted here from other RALOs are *important* and valuable for our on-spot discussion in Lisbon, to look over the fence to see what others do better than we did so far, to consider better practices -- but this shouldn't be part of this annual report. Let me suggest that you point to these good examples at the GA itself under the Agenda points 10 to 13 -- see: https://community.icann.org/display/EURALO/2013+EURALO+General+Assembly
Indeed -- I think I might have confused everyone with the way I responded to your first message. Indeed, I was first commenting on the content of your report and beyond the error I pointed our re: Buenos Aires vs. Durban, I am in full agreement with the contents of your report. The other points I made in my message were discussion points and follow-up beyond your report, discussions which I hope we can start now on the mailing list and which can follow-on in Lisbon, during the GA but also before, and informally too. Just to get things moving. I believe that you and I are in violent agreement. Kind regards, Olivier
Just on 1 point, my comment below:
In response to Oksana's suggestion that ALS *representatives* should be able to be an ALS *representative* in another region, this is forbidden in the ALAC bylaws for a reason to make sure there might not be a possibility of manipulation/capture. It is 99.9% sure that this cannot change because any change to this rule would need approval from the ALAC and approval from the Board and I don't see this happening ever.
Of course, there is no rule against being a simple member of several ALSes. I am a member of 3 ALSes in 3 different regions; some are members of more than 3, in different or in the same region, it doesn't matter.
(WL) I explained this point in length and details already by making clear that we can be *simple members* of different ALSes inside and outside a region BUT we can NOT be *representatives* of more than one ALS (inside or outside a region), as you confirmed Olivier. And I repeatedly noted that we (at RALO level) cannot change this rule. IF anybody is still unhappy with this binding ALAC rule, the person can try to convince ALAC about a respective change of their Bylaws! This was my very last comment on this point.
I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction. Cheers, R.
Dear all, We will have today in our governmental agency round table on Cyrillic domain for Ukraine, so I was going to intervene into this discussion later, but Roberto's remark forced me to change my mind) First of all, I have to say, that we are discussing now not "Board" report, but only "Chair" report - I saw it for the first time few minutes before teleconference call. This is extremely serious problem for me, and i will return to this issue later. But regarding Roberto's comment, I would like to clear the problem just now. I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction. <OP> Roberto, you are now in Armenia, and you yourself raised the issue regarding Armenia allocation to ICANN region. Armenia IS in Europe, and HAS TO BE in EURALO. I am absolutely sure, that all Armenian representatives are or will be extremely successful and highly appreciated in APRALO. But it is EURALO's gap that WE can not use their potential in full capacity. Yes, Siranush and Narine are nearly the most regular participants of our teleconference calls (unlike majority of other members of EURALO), but it is not enough. So, when I am talking about changes in the rules, I mean such exceptional cases. I am really ready to raise this issue within ALAC, at least to ask, if this problem with Armenia is unique, or there are some other similar cases. If there are, I will insist on broad discussion of this issue. I am fully understand, how Wolf is frustrated with my obstinacy with this issue, but I would like to remember, that two years ago, when I tried to raise visa issues for the first time, I was indisputably said (again by Wolf), that ICANN is absolutely wrong place to discuss this issue. Now visa issues are on ICANN agenda. (Of course, I understand, that it's not my achievement, but rather Canada merit)))). But maybe, this time I will also receive some otherworldly help?))) I am not sure that I will be on-line until the late evening, but I will follow this discussion. Best regards, Oksana On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Just on 1 point, my comment below:
In response to Oksana's suggestion that ALS *representatives* should be able to be an ALS *representative* in another region, this is forbidden in the ALAC bylaws for a reason to make sure there might not be a possibility of manipulation/capture. It is 99.9% sure that this cannot change because any change to this rule would need approval from the ALAC and approval from the Board and I don't see this happening ever.
Of course, there is no rule against being a simple member of several ALSes. I am a member of 3 ALSes in 3 different regions; some are members of more than 3, in different or in the same region, it doesn't matter.
(WL) I explained this point in length and details already by making clear that we can be *simple members* of different ALSes inside and outside a region BUT we can NOT be *representatives* of more than one ALS (inside or outside a region), as you confirmed Olivier. And I repeatedly noted that we (at RALO level) cannot change this rule. IF anybody is still unhappy with this binding ALAC rule, the person can try to convince ALAC about a respective change of their Bylaws! This was my very last comment on this point.
I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction. Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
In the next couple of days I will circulate a short report of the meeting I had at ISOC Armenia, during which the issue of ICANN regions has been debated. I agree with Oksana, there are cases in which we have to change the rules, because there are good reasons for doing so. Re: the representative for multiple ALSes, I am just saying that I do not see such compelling reason. But if there is one (like the case for Armenia in EU rather than AP), I will change my mind. Cheers, R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di EMP Inviato: mercoledì 22 maggio 2013 08:35 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Cc: At-Large Staff Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] R: Draft Board Report (2012-13) for Lisbon GA
Dear all,
We will have today in our governmental agency round table on Cyrillic domain for Ukraine, so I was going to intervene into this discussion later, but Roberto's remark forced me to change my mind)
First of all, I have to say, that we are discussing now not "Board" report, but only "Chair" report - I saw it for the first time few minutes before teleconference call. This is extremely serious problem for me, and i will return to this issue later.
But regarding Roberto's comment, I would like to clear the problem just now.
I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction.
<OP> Roberto, you are now in Armenia, and you yourself raised the issue regarding Armenia allocation to ICANN region. Armenia IS in Europe, and HAS TO BE in EURALO. I am absolutely sure, that all Armenian representatives are or will be extremely successful and highly appreciated in APRALO. But it is EURALO's gap that WE can not use their potential in full capacity. Yes, Siranush and Narine are nearly the most regular participants of our teleconference calls (unlike majority of other members of EURALO), but it is not enough.
So, when I am talking about changes in the rules, I mean such exceptional cases. I am really ready to raise this issue within ALAC, at least to ask, if this problem with Armenia is unique, or there are some other similar cases. If there are, I will insist on broad discussion of this issue.
I am fully understand, how Wolf is frustrated with my obstinacy with this issue, but I would like to remember, that two years ago, when I tried to raise visa issues for the first time, I was indisputably said (again by Wolf), that ICANN is absolutely wrong place to discuss this issue. Now visa issues are on ICANN agenda. (Of course, I understand, that it's not my achievement, but rather Canada merit)))). But maybe, this time I will also receive some otherworldly help?)))
I am not sure that I will be on-line until the late evening, but I will follow this discussion.
Best regards, Oksana
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Just on 1 point, my comment below:
In response to Oksana's suggestion that ALS *representatives* should be able to be an ALS *representative* in another region, this is forbidden in the ALAC bylaws for a reason to make sure there might not be a possibility of manipulation/capture. It is 99.9% sure that this cannot change because any change to this rule would need approval from the ALAC and approval from the Board and I don't see this happening ever.
Of course, there is no rule against being a simple member of several ALSes. I am a member of 3 ALSes in 3 different regions; some are members of more than 3, in different or in the same region, it doesn't matter.
(WL) I explained this point in length and details already by making clear that we can be *simple members* of different ALSes inside and outside a region BUT we can NOT be *representatives* of more than one ALS (inside or outside a region), as you confirmed Olivier. And I repeatedly noted that we (at RALO level) cannot change this rule. IF anybody is still unhappy with this binding ALAC rule, the person can try to convince ALAC about a respective change of their Bylaws! This was my very last comment on this point.
I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction. Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Thanks Roberto for providing such a report! But as noted before (my reply to Oksana) the ICANN regional model with obvious inconsistencies (see Armenia etc.) and ALAC's representation rules are two different issues and shouldn't be confused. Best, Wolf Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 22 May 2013 08:55:
In the next couple of days I will circulate a short report of the meeting I had at ISOC Armenia, during which the issue of ICANN regions has been debated. I agree with Oksana, there are cases in which we have to change the rules, because there are good reasons for doing so. Re: the representative for multiple ALSes, I am just saying that I do not see such compelling reason. But if there is one (like the case for Armenia in EU rather than AP), I will change my mind. Cheers, R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di EMP Inviato: mercoledì 22 maggio 2013 08:35 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Cc: At-Large Staff Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] R: Draft Board Report (2012-13) for Lisbon GA
Dear all,
We will have today in our governmental agency round table on Cyrillic domain for Ukraine, so I was going to intervene into this discussion later, but Roberto's remark forced me to change my mind)
First of all, I have to say, that we are discussing now not "Board" report, but only "Chair" report - I saw it for the first time few minutes before teleconference call. This is extremely serious problem for me, and i will return to this issue later.
But regarding Roberto's comment, I would like to clear the problem just now.
I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction.
<OP> Roberto, you are now in Armenia, and you yourself raised the issue regarding Armenia allocation to ICANN region. Armenia IS in Europe, and HAS TO BE in EURALO. I am absolutely sure, that all Armenian representatives are or will be extremely successful and highly appreciated in APRALO. But it is EURALO's gap that WE can not use their potential in full capacity. Yes, Siranush and Narine are nearly the most regular participants of our teleconference calls (unlike majority of other members of EURALO), but it is not enough.
So, when I am talking about changes in the rules, I mean such exceptional cases. I am really ready to raise this issue within ALAC, at least to ask, if this problem with Armenia is unique, or there are some other similar cases. If there are, I will insist on broad discussion of this issue.
I am fully understand, how Wolf is frustrated with my obstinacy with this issue, but I would like to remember, that two years ago, when I tried to raise visa issues for the first time, I was indisputably said (again by Wolf), that ICANN is absolutely wrong place to discuss this issue. Now visa issues are on ICANN agenda. (Of course, I understand, that it's not my achievement, but rather Canada merit)))). But maybe, this time I will also receive some otherworldly help?)))
I am not sure that I will be on-line until the late evening, but I will follow this discussion.
Best regards, Oksana
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Just on 1 point, my comment below:
In response to Oksana's suggestion that ALS *representatives* should be able to be an ALS *representative* in another region, this is forbidden in the ALAC bylaws for a reason to make sure there might not be a possibility of manipulation/capture. It is 99.9% sure that this cannot change because any change to this rule would need approval from the ALAC and approval from the Board and I don't see this happening ever.
Of course, there is no rule against being a simple member of several ALSes. I am a member of 3 ALSes in 3 different regions; some are members of more than 3, in different or in the same region, it doesn't matter.
(WL) I explained this point in length and details already by making clear that we can be *simple members* of different ALSes inside and outside a region BUT we can NOT be *representatives* of more than one ALS (inside or outside a region), as you confirmed Olivier. And I repeatedly noted that we (at RALO level) cannot change this rule. IF anybody is still unhappy with this binding ALAC rule, the person can try to convince ALAC about a respective change of their Bylaws! This was my very last comment on this point.
I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction. Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Wolf, I agree that they are separate issues. R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Wolf Ludwig Inviato: mercoledì 22 maggio 2013 23:58 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Cc: 'At-Large Staff' Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] R: R: Draft Board Report (2012-13) for Lisbon GA
Thanks Roberto for providing such a report! But as noted before (my reply to Oksana) the ICANN regional model with obvious inconsistencies (see Armenia etc.) and ALAC's representation rules are two different issues and shouldn't be confused.
Best, Wolf
Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 22 May 2013 08:55:
In the next couple of days I will circulate a short report of the meeting I had at ISOC Armenia, during which the issue of ICANN regions has been debated. I agree with Oksana, there are cases in which we have to change the rules, because there are good reasons for doing so. Re: the representative for multiple ALSes, I am just saying that I do not see such compelling reason. But if there is one (like the case for Armenia in EU rather than AP), I will change my mind. Cheers, R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di EMP Inviato: mercoledì 22 maggio 2013 08:35 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Cc: At-Large Staff Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] R: Draft Board Report (2012-13) for Lisbon GA
Dear all,
We will have today in our governmental agency round table on Cyrillic domain for Ukraine, so I was going to intervene into this discussion later, but Roberto's remark forced me to change my mind)
First of all, I have to say, that we are discussing now not "Board" report, but only "Chair" report - I saw it for the first time few minutes before teleconference call. This is extremely serious problem for me, and i will return to this issue later.
But regarding Roberto's comment, I would like to clear the problem just now.
I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction.
<OP> Roberto, you are now in Armenia, and you yourself raised the issue regarding Armenia allocation to ICANN region. Armenia IS in Europe, and HAS TO BE in EURALO. I am absolutely sure, that all Armenian representatives are or will be extremely successful and highly appreciated in APRALO. But it is EURALO's gap that WE can not use their potential in full capacity. Yes, Siranush and Narine are nearly the most regular participants of our teleconference calls (unlike majority of other members of EURALO), but it is not enough.
So, when I am talking about changes in the rules, I mean such exceptional cases. I am really ready to raise this issue within ALAC, at least to ask, if this problem with Armenia is unique, or there are some other similar cases. If there are, I will insist on broad discussion of this issue.
I am fully understand, how Wolf is frustrated with my obstinacy with this issue, but I would like to remember, that two years ago, when I tried to raise visa issues for the first time, I was indisputably said (again by Wolf), that ICANN is absolutely wrong place to discuss this issue. Now visa issues are on ICANN agenda. (Of course, I understand, that it's not my achievement, but rather Canada merit)))). But maybe, this time I will also receive some otherworldly help?)))
I am not sure that I will be on-line until the late evening, but I will follow this discussion.
Best regards, Oksana
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Just on 1 point, my comment below:
In response to Oksana's suggestion that ALS *representatives* should be able to be an ALS *representative* in another region, this is forbidden in the ALAC bylaws for a reason to make sure there might not be a possibility of manipulation/capture. It is 99.9% sure that this cannot change because any change to this rule would need approval from the ALAC and approval from the Board and I don't see this happening ever.
Of course, there is no rule against being a simple member of several ALSes. I am a member of 3 ALSes in 3 different regions; some are members of more than 3, in different or in the same region, it doesn't matter.
(WL) I explained this point in length and details already by making clear that we can be *simple members* of different ALSes inside and outside a region BUT we can NOT be *representatives* of more than one ALS (inside or outside a region), as you confirmed Olivier. And I repeatedly noted that we (at RALO level) cannot change this rule. IF anybody is still unhappy with this binding ALAC rule, the person can try to convince ALAC about a respective change of their Bylaws! This was my very last comment on this point.
I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction. Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Wolf, Roberto, It is not about confusion. It is about problem solving. I don't know how to contribute to improving of ALAC regional model (I know about working group, but not about any practical results). ALAC's representation is the consequences of this problem. If I can not influence on the problem itself, but there is a chance to influence on consequences - why not to try? O. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wolf, I agree that they are separate issues. R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Wolf Ludwig Inviato: mercoledì 22 maggio 2013 23:58 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Cc: 'At-Large Staff' Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] R: R: Draft Board Report (2012-13) for Lisbon GA
Thanks Roberto for providing such a report! But as noted before (my reply to Oksana) the ICANN regional model with obvious inconsistencies (see Armenia etc.) and ALAC's representation rules are two different issues and shouldn't be confused.
Best, Wolf
Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 22 May 2013 08:55:
In the next couple of days I will circulate a short report of the meeting I had at ISOC Armenia, during which the issue of ICANN regions has been debated. I agree with Oksana, there are cases in which we have to change the rules, because there are good reasons for doing so. Re: the representative for multiple ALSes, I am just saying that I do not see such compelling reason. But if there is one (like the case for Armenia in EU rather than AP), I will change my mind. Cheers, R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di EMP Inviato: mercoledì 22 maggio 2013 08:35 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Cc: At-Large Staff Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] R: Draft Board Report (2012-13) for Lisbon GA
Dear all,
We will have today in our governmental agency round table on Cyrillic domain for Ukraine, so I was going to intervene into this discussion later, but Roberto's remark forced me to change my mind)
First of all, I have to say, that we are discussing now not "Board" report, but only "Chair" report - I saw it for the first time few minutes before teleconference call. This is extremely serious problem for me, and i will return to this issue later.
But regarding Roberto's comment, I would like to clear the problem just now.
I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction.
<OP> Roberto, you are now in Armenia, and you yourself raised the issue regarding Armenia allocation to ICANN region. Armenia IS in Europe, and HAS TO BE in EURALO. I am absolutely sure, that all Armenian representatives are or will be extremely successful and highly appreciated in APRALO. But it is EURALO's gap that WE can not use their potential in full capacity. Yes, Siranush and Narine are nearly the most regular participants of our teleconference calls (unlike majority of other members of EURALO), but it is not enough.
So, when I am talking about changes in the rules, I mean such exceptional cases. I am really ready to raise this issue within ALAC, at least to ask, if this problem with Armenia is unique, or there are some other similar cases. If there are, I will insist on broad discussion of this issue.
I am fully understand, how Wolf is frustrated with my obstinacy with this issue, but I would like to remember, that two years ago, when I tried to raise visa issues for the first time, I was indisputably said (again by Wolf), that ICANN is absolutely wrong place to discuss this issue. Now visa issues are on ICANN agenda. (Of course, I understand, that it's not my achievement, but rather Canada merit)))). But maybe, this time I will also receive some otherworldly help?)))
I am not sure that I will be on-line until the late evening, but I will follow this discussion.
Best regards, Oksana
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Just on 1 point, my comment below:
>In response to Oksana's suggestion that ALS *representatives* >should be able to be an ALS *representative* in another region, >this is forbidden in the ALAC bylaws for a reason to make sure >there might not be a possibility of manipulation/capture. It is >99.9% sure that this cannot change because any change to this >rule would need approval from the ALAC and approval from the >Board and I don't see this happening ever. > >Of course, there is no rule against being a simple member of >several ALSes. I am a member of 3 ALSes in 3 different regions; >some are members of more than 3, in different or in the same >region, it doesn't matter.
(WL) I explained this point in length and details already by making clear that we can be *simple members* of different ALSes inside and outside a region BUT we can NOT be *representatives* of more than one ALS (inside or outside a region), as you confirmed Olivier. And I repeatedly noted that we (at RALO level) cannot change this rule. IF anybody is still unhappy with this binding ALAC rule, the person can try to convince ALAC about a respective change of their Bylaws! This was my very last comment on this point.
I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction. Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
When you read the EURALO statement on the ICANN regions (not "ALAC regional model"!) carefully, Oksana, I sent to you (and the list) yesterday, you will realize that EURALO has a clear position on this by suggesting some elements of "self-determination" for special or border cases like Armenia and the like. Our advice was not considered at the time (early 2011) and ALAC cannot change the ICANN geo regions, just as they wish. And AGAIN: ALAC's representation rules, specified in their Bylaws, had to reflect and respect the ICANN regions (besides other basic requirements) but were made to avoid abuses (I mentioned below) and make sense. I don't see and share your "causality" on this and consider these as different issues. And to my knowledge, these are not our key problems. Best, Wolf EMP wrote Wed, 22 May 2013 22:43:
Wolf, Roberto,
It is not about confusion. It is about problem solving.
I don't know how to contribute to improving of ALAC regional model (I know about working group, but not about any practical results).
ALAC's representation is the consequences of this problem. If I can not influence on the problem itself, but there is a chance to influence on consequences - why not to try?
O.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wolf, I agree that they are separate issues. R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Wolf Ludwig Inviato: mercoledì 22 maggio 2013 23:58 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Cc: 'At-Large Staff' Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] R: R: Draft Board Report (2012-13) for Lisbon GA
Thanks Roberto for providing such a report! But as noted before (my reply to Oksana) the ICANN regional model with obvious inconsistencies (see Armenia etc.) and ALAC's representation rules are two different issues and shouldn't be confused.
Best, Wolf
Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 22 May 2013 08:55:
In the next couple of days I will circulate a short report of the meeting I had at ISOC Armenia, during which the issue of ICANN regions has been debated. I agree with Oksana, there are cases in which we have to change the rules, because there are good reasons for doing so. Re: the representative for multiple ALSes, I am just saying that I do not see such compelling reason. But if there is one (like the case for Armenia in EU rather than AP), I will change my mind. Cheers, R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di EMP Inviato: mercoledì 22 maggio 2013 08:35 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Cc: At-Large Staff Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] R: Draft Board Report (2012-13) for Lisbon GA
Dear all,
We will have today in our governmental agency round table on Cyrillic domain for Ukraine, so I was going to intervene into this discussion later, but Roberto's remark forced me to change my mind)
First of all, I have to say, that we are discussing now not "Board" report, but only "Chair" report - I saw it for the first time few minutes before teleconference call. This is extremely serious problem for me, and i will return to this issue later.
But regarding Roberto's comment, I would like to clear the problem just now.
I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction.
<OP> Roberto, you are now in Armenia, and you yourself raised the issue regarding Armenia allocation to ICANN region. Armenia IS in Europe, and HAS TO BE in EURALO. I am absolutely sure, that all Armenian representatives are or will be extremely successful and highly appreciated in APRALO. But it is EURALO's gap that WE can not use their potential in full capacity. Yes, Siranush and Narine are nearly the most regular participants of our teleconference calls (unlike majority of other members of EURALO), but it is not enough.
So, when I am talking about changes in the rules, I mean such exceptional cases. I am really ready to raise this issue within ALAC, at least to ask, if this problem with Armenia is unique, or there are some other similar cases. If there are, I will insist on broad discussion of this issue.
I am fully understand, how Wolf is frustrated with my obstinacy with this issue, but I would like to remember, that two years ago, when I tried to raise visa issues for the first time, I was indisputably said (again by Wolf), that ICANN is absolutely wrong place to discuss this issue. Now visa issues are on ICANN agenda. (Of course, I understand, that it's not my achievement, but rather Canada merit)))). But maybe, this time I will also receive some otherworldly help?)))
I am not sure that I will be on-line until the late evening, but I will follow this discussion.
Best regards, Oksana
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Just on 1 point, my comment below:
> >In response to Oksana's suggestion that ALS *representatives* > >should be able to be an ALS *representative* in another region, > >this is forbidden in the ALAC bylaws for a reason to make sure > >there might not be a possibility of manipulation/capture. It is > >99.9% sure that this cannot change because any change to this > >rule would need approval from the ALAC and approval from the > >Board and I don't see this happening ever. > > > >Of course, there is no rule against being a simple member of > >several ALSes. I am a member of 3 ALSes in 3 different regions; > >some are members of more than 3, in different or in the same > >region, it doesn't matter. > > (WL) I explained this point in length and details already by > making clear that > we can be *simple members* of different ALSes inside and outside a > region BUT we can NOT be *representatives* of more than one ALS > (inside or outside a region), as you confirmed Olivier. And I > repeatedly noted that we > (at RALO level) cannot change this rule. IF anybody is still > unhappy with this > binding ALAC rule, the person can try to convince ALAC about a > respective change of their Bylaws! This was my very last comment > on this point.
I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction. Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Dear Wolf, you're absolutely right. And matters of Geographic Regions are still being worked out at ICANN. I agree it is taking a lot more time than it should - but the process examining geographic regions is very complex since it also associates ccNSO, the ASO (Regional Internet Registries etc.) as well as the meetings team. Changing Geo Regions has far reaching implications. The proposals which we made in http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-19dec11-en.htm appears to be the path which the Geo Regions Review WG is favouring. But these proposals have not been finalised nor ratified by the Board. So until then, we are under the *obligation* to follow the current ICANN Geographic Regions. Kind regards, Olivier On 23/05/2013 13:26, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
When you read the EURALO statement on the ICANN regions (not "ALAC regional model"!) carefully, Oksana, I sent to you (and the list) yesterday, you will realize that EURALO has a clear position on this by suggesting some elements of "self-determination" for special or border cases like Armenia and the like. Our advice was not considered at the time (early 2011) and ALAC cannot change the ICANN geo regions, just as they wish.
And AGAIN: ALAC's representation rules, specified in their Bylaws, had to reflect and respect the ICANN regions (besides other basic requirements) but were made to avoid abuses (I mentioned below) and make sense. I don't see and share your "causality" on this and consider these as different issues. And to my knowledge, these are not our key problems.
Best, Wolf
EMP wrote Wed, 22 May 2013 22:43:
Wolf, Roberto,
It is not about confusion. It is about problem solving.
I don't know how to contribute to improving of ALAC regional model (I know about working group, but not about any practical results).
ALAC's representation is the consequences of this problem. If I can not influence on the problem itself, but there is a chance to influence on consequences - why not to try?
O.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wolf, I agree that they are separate issues. R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Wolf Ludwig Inviato: mercoledì 22 maggio 2013 23:58 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Cc: 'At-Large Staff' Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] R: R: Draft Board Report (2012-13) for Lisbon GA Thanks Roberto for providing such a report! But as noted before (my reply to Oksana) the ICANN regional model with obvious inconsistencies (see Armenia etc.) and ALAC's representation rules are two different issues and shouldn't be confused.
Best, Wolf
Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 22 May 2013 08:55:
In the next couple of days I will circulate a short report of the meeting I had at ISOC Armenia, during which the issue of ICANN regions has been debated. I agree with Oksana, there are cases in which we have to change the rules, because there are good reasons for doing so. Re: the representative for multiple ALSes, I am just saying that I do not see such compelling reason. But if there is one (like the case for Armenia in EU rather than AP), I will change my mind. Cheers, R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di EMP Inviato: mercoledì 22 maggio 2013 08:35 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Cc: At-Large Staff Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] R: Draft Board Report (2012-13) for Lisbon GA
Dear all,
We will have today in our governmental agency round table on Cyrillic domain for Ukraine, so I was going to intervene into this discussion later, but Roberto's remark forced me to change my mind)
First of all, I have to say, that we are discussing now not "Board" report, but only "Chair" report - I saw it for the first time few minutes before teleconference call. This is extremely serious problem for me, and i will return to this issue later.
But regarding Roberto's comment, I would like to clear the problem just now. I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction.
<OP> Roberto, you are now in Armenia, and you yourself raised the issue regarding Armenia allocation to ICANN region. Armenia IS in Europe, and HAS TO BE in EURALO. I am absolutely sure, that all Armenian representatives are or will be extremely successful and highly appreciated in APRALO. But it is EURALO's gap that WE can not use their potential in full capacity. Yes, Siranush and Narine are nearly the most regular participants of our teleconference calls (unlike majority of other members of EURALO), but it is not enough.
So, when I am talking about changes in the rules, I mean such exceptional cases. I am really ready to raise this issue within ALAC, at least to ask, if this problem with Armenia is unique, or there are some other similar cases. If there are, I will insist on broad discussion of this issue.
I am fully understand, how Wolf is frustrated with my obstinacy with this issue, but I would like to remember, that two years ago, when I tried to raise visa issues for the first time, I was indisputably said (again by Wolf), that ICANN is absolutely wrong place to discuss this issue. Now visa issues are on ICANN agenda. (Of course, I understand, that it's not my achievement, but rather Canada merit)))). But maybe, this time I will also receive some otherworldly help?)))
I am not sure that I will be on-line until the late evening, but I will follow this discussion.
Best regards, Oksana
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote: > Just on 1 point, my comment below: > >>> In response to Oksana's suggestion that ALS *representatives* >>> should be able to be an ALS *representative* in another region, >>> this is forbidden in the ALAC bylaws for a reason to make sure >>> there might not be a possibility of manipulation/capture. It is >>> 99.9% sure that this cannot change because any change to this >>> rule would need approval from the ALAC and approval from the >>> Board and I don't see this happening ever. >>> Of course, there is no rule against being a simple member of >>> several ALSes. I am a member of 3 ALSes in 3 different regions; >>> some are members of more than 3, in different or in the same >>> region, it doesn't matter. >> (WL) I explained this point in length and details already by >> making clear > that >> we can be *simple members* of different ALSes inside and outside a >> region BUT we can NOT be *representatives* of more than one ALS >> (inside or outside a region), as you confirmed Olivier. And I >> repeatedly noted that > we >> (at RALO level) cannot change this rule. IF anybody is still >> unhappy with > this >> binding ALAC rule, the person can try to convince ALAC about a >> respective change of their Bylaws! This was my very last comment >> on this point. > I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to > change the bylaws on this point. > But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* > need for > such change? > Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, > and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple > ALSes, whether > in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. > We should favour more individuals to get leadership > responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. > So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity > of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction. > Cheers, > R. > > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Hi Oksana, please see my comments inserted below. EMP wroteTue, 21 May 2013 21:35:
Dear all,
We will have today in our governmental agency round table on Cyrillic domain for Ukraine, so I was going to intervene into this discussion later, but Roberto's remark forced me to change my mind)
First of all, I have to say, that we are discussing now not "Board" report, but only "Chair" report - I saw it for the first time few minutes before teleconference call. This is extremely serious problem for me, and i will return to this issue later.
(WL) Since 2008 it became a sort of habit that the Chair provided a first draft of a "Board report", sent it to Board members and the list for review, comments, modifications etc. weeks before the GA. And every comment was considered. After this prior review period, the Chair's draft was seen as "consolidated version" to be submitted to the GA as "Board report". And so far, this procedure and "Board reports" were adopted by the previous GAs. Anyone - you (Secretariat) or Board member - can step in and draft an alternate report or say "this is NOT a Board but a Chair's report" -- Then we can rename it accordingly ("Chair report" or whatever you suggest). To me, it's not so much the naming that counts but the content or substance of such draft reports, and again, you are free to suggest inputs.
But regarding Roberto's comment, I would like to clear the problem just now.
I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction.
(WL) When I read your arguments carefully, you are contradicting yourself: "To include more and more people" or "to favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC" is just a reconfirmation of the current ALAC rule (and Olivier's and my argument): Once people could *represent more than one ALS*, as you suggest, we would hamper this diversity of people and representations. The current rule enforces your demand "to include more" or other people (than always the same suspects)!
<OP> Roberto, you are now in Armenia, and you yourself raised the issue regarding Armenia allocation to ICANN region. Armenia IS in Europe, and HAS TO BE in EURALO. I am absolutely sure, that all Armenian representatives are or will be extremely successful and highly appreciated in APRALO. But it is EURALO's gap that WE can not use their potential in full capacity. Yes, Siranush and Narine are nearly the most regular participants of our teleconference calls (unlike majority of other members of EURALO), but it is not enough.
So, when I am talking about changes in the rules, I mean such exceptional cases. I am really ready to raise this issue within ALAC, at least to ask, if this problem with Armenia is unique, or there are some other similar cases. If there are, I will insist on broad discussion of this issue.
(WL) You are mixing up two IMO different issues: ONE is the ICANN regional model and the special case of Armenia what we contested some years ago already by demanding readjustments etc. (see the attached EURALO input to the on-going ICANN consultation process on the Interim Report of the Geographic Regions Review WG from January 2011). The OTHER one is the ALAC rule on ALS representation what is trying to prevent certain abuses like captioning or usurpation by certain people or groups -- what is a well considered rule (what you may not like).
I am fully understand, how Wolf is frustrated with my obstinacy with this issue, but I would like to remember, that two years ago, when I tried to raise visa issues for the first time, I was indisputably said (again by Wolf), that ICANN is absolutely wrong place to discuss this issue. Now visa issues are on ICANN agenda. (Of course, I understand, that it's not my achievement, but rather Canada merit)))). But maybe, this time I will also receive some otherworldly help?)))
(WL) Over many years I learned to live with "frustrations" or "obstinacies" but in the given case I still insist that Visa issues are usually NOT in the ICANN remit -- with exceptional cases like "Toronto" when EURALO contested the over-restrictive Canadian consular procedures preventing several NomCom reps. to join the Toronto meeting in time. But this is AGAIN a mere event org. and consular issue or problem and NOT an ICANN and Internet Governance concern (and not on the ICANN agenda, as you wrongly claim). Just my 2 cents, Best regards, Wolf
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Just on 1 point, my comment below:
In response to Oksana's suggestion that ALS *representatives* should be able to be an ALS *representative* in another region, this is forbidden in the ALAC bylaws for a reason to make sure there might not be a possibility of manipulation/capture. It is 99.9% sure that this cannot change because any change to this rule would need approval from the ALAC and approval from the Board and I don't see this happening ever.
Of course, there is no rule against being a simple member of several ALSes. I am a member of 3 ALSes in 3 different regions; some are members of more than 3, in different or in the same region, it doesn't matter.
(WL) I explained this point in length and details already by making clear that we can be *simple members* of different ALSes inside and outside a region BUT we can NOT be *representatives* of more than one ALS (inside or outside a region), as you confirmed Olivier. And I repeatedly noted that we (at RALO level) cannot change this rule. IF anybody is still unhappy with this binding ALAC rule, the person can try to convince ALAC about a respective change of their Bylaws! This was my very last comment on this point.
I agree with Wolf and Olivier that it will be very difficult to change the bylaws on this point. But besides the difficulty and complexity, what would be the *real* need for such change? Honestly, I believe that our aim should be to include more and more people, and electing the same representative as a leader for multiple ALSes, whether in the same or different region, is going in the opposite direction. We should favour more individuals to get leadership responsibilities in ALAC, not have the same set of people speaking in name of more ALSes. So, I am personally against this proposal, not for the complexity of the change, but because it will move us in the wrong direction. Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
participants (5)
-
EMP -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Silvia Vivanco -
Wolf Ludwig