See below. On 08/05/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> wrote:

On 2007-05-08 13:05:50 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

...

I don't know what was the past correspondence, and I assume that this is a question that ultimately will end, for a change :<(, with the lawyers, but my understanding since the beginning was that the relationship between ICANN and EURALO, including the modus operandi of EURALO within ALAC, was going to be governed by the MoU.

I'm amazed by the role that, supposedly, the lawyers and the rules are playing here.

On the one hand, there still isn't a clear indication what the status of the MoU really is -- is it binding, on whom, and so on. That would have been a set of questions that should have been resolved before the MoU was formally signed.

I'm afraid the above isn't a correct statement. The MoU is binding upon those who signed it. It is not binding upon those who have not.

On the other hand, some folks are so in love with the idea that there is a binding MoU that they now start calling lawyers to interpret the text that they wrote themselves just a month ago.

Frankly, this style of discussion speaks badly of the things that are to come in the European RALO.

Can't we have the discussion how to best represent the diverse perspectives that are present here in ICANN -- instead of talking about what diversity rules are in the MoU and what aren't?

Can't we talk about how the different perspectives can collaborate constructively -- instead of having the current style of discussion which is, quite frankly, divisive to the point that I'm tempted to write all this off as an exercise in futility?

-- Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>

-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart