Towards EURALO: A Proposed Roadmap
Hello everyone! I hope you have had a great Festive break and New Years celebrations. As so many regions are accelerating their work towards forming RALOs, an effort which has sped up in many regions following the launch of LACRALO in Sao Paulo, I thought I would make a few comments about how we could move forward in Europe. Firstly, On the incorporation of a legal entity for EURALO: As you all know, it has proven somewhat contentious to agree the country of incorporation. During the public forum in Sao Paulo, Paul Twomey, ICANN CEO, may have made this issue slightly easier to resolve by the following statement: ...I WOULD JUST MAKE ONE OTHER OBSERVATION ON THE ONE LANGUAGE ISSUE. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT -- AND I THINK THIS IS TRUE IN MANY INTERNATIONAL ENTITIES. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAINTAIN A SINGLE LANGUAGE FOR BUSINESS. THAT SORT OF FOR THE ACTUAL DOING OF BUSINESS AND FOR THE CONDUCTING OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, IT IS ACTUALLY VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO THAT IN ONE LANGUAGE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T TRANSLATE DOCUMENTS. BUT THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE -- THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE IN THAT ONE LANGUAGE... This is excerpted from the scribe of the session on Thursday - you can see the whole notes of the session at: http://sp.icann.org/ transcript/7dec06/public-forum It had already been the subject of consensus that the country of incorporation would be determined by: 1) legal documents could be filed in English 2) The cost of incorporation is low 3) The cost of operating the company is low There are only two countries we had explored incorporating in which allow ALL legal documents to be filed in English: The United Kingdom, and Switzerland. As a result, these are the two countries we must choose between. Secondly, on completing work on the Bylaws: There are still open points on the Bylaws as you know. Some of these can likely be resolved via online debate and discussion, but some of them may require a face-to-face discussion. Thirdly, the ALS community needs to agree on the contents of a Memorandum of Understanding As previously stated, I will produce a draft text incorporating the ideas from Africa, Latin America/Caribbean Islands, and Asia-Pacific, for review; this should be done in the next 10 days or so at most. Proposed Process to conclude work: What I suggested on the ALAC monthly teleconference yesterday was that we should borrow from the LAC region's experience on how to conclude these discussions. The model they used was as follows: 1) Work in advance had produced an MoU and Operating Principles which had a high degree of consensus, with only a few areas which were still the subject of discussion. 2) Arrangements were made for the ALS community to come to the ICANN International Meeting in Sao Paulo and meet for several hours to conclude work, over three separate sessions. ICANN staff prepared draft agendas and put forward proposals for discussion in relation to the remaining open areas, with the participants completely free to go in other directions with respect to those points, but with the staff proposals as a place to start 3) Agreement was reached on a text, which was reviewed onsite by the ICANN General Counsel's office to make sure that there were no problems with the MoU in that respect. After that was concluded, the regional ALS representatives elected the two representatives from the region to the ALAC. 4) A signing ceremony involving the press, and Vint Cerf and Paul Twomey, were conducted in the plenary hall, and a resolution of the board was adopted accepting the MoU subject to completion of a public comment period. If the region is willing, we can proceed on this basis, with the Lisbon ICANN meeting scheduled for 26-30 March 2007 as the venue for the F2F meetings(http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/ ). Part of the benefit of this approach is it also allows the ALS community to attend the ICANN international meeting and engage with other constituencies and policy development discussions. Of course your thoughts are much appreciated. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nashton@consensus.pro Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Nick In order to move forward on document creation, you might want to use the consensus wiki tool that Brandon Saunders helped the ALAC use for their self-review. It's very helpful to clarify differences and thrash them out as the group moves towards consensus. The remaining items can be thrashed out at the f2f. Jacqueline On 1/11/07, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton@spamcop.net> wrote:
Hello everyone!
I hope you have had a great Festive break and New Years celebrations.
As so many regions are accelerating their work towards forming RALOs, an effort which has sped up in many regions following the launch of LACRALO in Sao Paulo, I thought I would make a few comments about how we could move forward in Europe.
Firstly, On the incorporation of a legal entity for EURALO:
As you all know, it has proven somewhat contentious to agree the country of incorporation. During the public forum in Sao Paulo, Paul Twomey, ICANN CEO, may have made this issue slightly easier to resolve by the following statement:
...I WOULD JUST MAKE ONE OTHER OBSERVATION ON THE ONE LANGUAGE ISSUE. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT -- AND I THINK THIS IS TRUE IN MANY INTERNATIONAL ENTITIES. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAINTAIN A SINGLE LANGUAGE FOR BUSINESS. THAT SORT OF FOR THE ACTUAL DOING OF BUSINESS AND FOR THE CONDUCTING OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, IT IS ACTUALLY VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO THAT IN ONE LANGUAGE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T TRANSLATE DOCUMENTS. BUT THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE -- THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE IN THAT ONE LANGUAGE...
This is excerpted from the scribe of the session on Thursday - you can see the whole notes of the session at: http://sp.icann.org/transcript/7dec06/public-forum
It had already been the subject of consensus that the country of incorporation would be determined by:
1) legal documents could be filed in English 2) The cost of incorporation is low 3) The cost of operating the company is low
There are only two countries we had explored incorporating in which allow ALL legal documents to be filed in English: The United Kingdom, and Switzerland.
As a result, these are the two countries we must choose between.
Secondly, on completing work on the Bylaws:
There are still open points on the Bylaws as you know. Some of these can likely be resolved via online debate and discussion, but some of them may require a face-to-face discussion.
Thirdly, the ALS community needs to agree on the contents of a Memorandum of Understanding
As previously stated, I will produce a draft text incorporating the ideas from Africa, Latin America/Caribbean Islands, and Asia-Pacific, for review; this should be done in the next 10 days or so at most.
Proposed Process to conclude work:
What I suggested on the ALAC monthly teleconference yesterday was that we should borrow from the LAC region's experience on how to conclude these discussions. The model they used was as follows:
1) Work in advance had produced an MoU and Operating Principles which had a high degree of consensus, with only a few areas which were still the subject of discussion.
2) Arrangements were made for the ALS community to come to the ICANN International Meeting in Sao Paulo and meet for several hours to conclude work, over three separate sessions. ICANN staff prepared draft agendas and put forward proposals for discussion in relation to the remaining open areas, with the participants completely free to go in other directions with respect to those points, but with the staff proposals as a place to start
3) Agreement was reached on a text, which was reviewed onsite by the ICANN General Counsel's office to make sure that there were no problems with the MoU in that respect. After that was concluded, the regional ALS representatives elected the two representatives from the region to the ALAC.
4) A signing ceremony involving the press, and Vint Cerf and Paul Twomey, were conducted in the plenary hall, and a resolution of the board was adopted accepting the MoU subject to completion of a public comment period.
If the region is willing, we can proceed on this basis, with the Lisbon ICANN meeting scheduled for 26-30 March 2007 as the venue for the F2F meetings(http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/ ). Part of the benefit of this approach is it also allows the ALS community to attend the ICANN international meeting and engage with other constituencies and policy development discussions.
Of course your thoughts are much appreciated.
-- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nashton@consensus.pro Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
-- Jacqueline A. Morris www.jacquelinemorris.com www.trinidadcarnivalphotos.com
Dear Nick thanks for pushing things forward. Still ten weeks to go to Lisbon but time is running. First I agree fully with Paul Twomey statement with the "one language principle" with regard to official texts of subisdary bodies. However as I was told by some lawyers here in germany, it would not be a problem to have all the documentation and correspndence in English in case the EU-RALO is incorporated in germany. And again costs are low, procedures are very lightweight and felxible and there are some people - in form of recognized ALS - in Germany who can take care of this. Much easier than UK. Second: Text of MOU and Bylaws should be cleared as qwucik as possible. I do not see any big problems after the various meetings we had in Atehens and SP. However with reagrd to voting rights I think we need a final solution which would allow individuals to have full access to all procedures, including voting rights. Thirs: with regard to the European vacancy in the ALAC, I propose to look towards Eastern Europe, preferably a non-EU member. This would give the European group in the ALAC more representativeness and legitimacy and would be also a signal to the "forgotten countries". With "forgotten countries" I mean at large communities in Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbjdjan, Moldova, Georgia, Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia etc. which work under complicated conditions, fighting for freedom of expression in the Internet, doing very often a great job to help small communities to find a way into cyberspace. To strengthen these people and to bring them closer to the ICANN community would be an important signal. So far we have with Italy and germany two strong EU members represented in the ALAC, the third seat shpuld be reserved for somebody from the edges. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Nick Ashton-Hart Gesendet: Do 11.01.2007 09:07 An: euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: euro-staff@atlarge-lists.icann.org Betreff: [EURO-Discuss] Towards EURALO: A Proposed Roadmap Hello everyone! I hope you have had a great Festive break and New Years celebrations. As so many regions are accelerating their work towards forming RALOs, an effort which has sped up in many regions following the launch of LACRALO in Sao Paulo, I thought I would make a few comments about how we could move f rward in Europe. Firstly, On the incorporation of a legal entity for EURALO: As you all know, it has proven somewhat contentious to agree the country of incorporation. During the public forum in Sao Paulo, Paul Twomey, ICANN CEO, may have made this issue slightly easier to resolve by the following statement: ...I WOULD JUST MAKE ONE OTHER OBSERVATION ON THE ONE LANGUAGE ISSUE. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT -- AND I THINK THIS IS TRUE IN MANY INTERNATIONAL ENTITIES. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAINTAIN A SINGLE LANGUAGE FOR BUSINESS. THAT SORT OF FOR THE ACTUAL DOING OF BUSINESS AND FOR THE CONDUCTING OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, IT IS ACTUALLY VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO THAT IN ONE LANGUAGE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T TRANSLATE DOCUMENTS. BUT THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE -- THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE IN TH T ONE LANGUAGE... This is excerpted from the scribe of the session on Thursday - you can see the whole notes of the session at: http://sp.icann.org/transcript/7dec06/public-forum It had already been the subject of consensus that the country of incorporation would be determined by: 1) legal documents could be filed in English 2) The cost of incorporation is low 3) The cost of operating the company is low There are only two countries we had explored incorporating in which allow ALL legal documents to be filed in English: The United Kingdom, and Switzerland. As a result, these are the two countries we must choose between. Secondly, on completing work on the Bylaws: There are still open points on the Bylaws as you know. Some of these can likely be resolved via online debate and discussion, but some of them may require a face-to-face discussion. Thirdly, the ALS community needs to agree on the contents of a Memorandum of Understanding As previously stated, I will produce a draft text incorporating the ideas from Africa, Latin America/Caribbean Islands, and Asia-Pacific, for review; this should be done in the next 10 days or so at most. Proposed Process to conclude work: What I suggested on the ALAC monthly teleconference yesterday was that we should borrow from the LAC region's experience on how to conclude these discussions. The model they used was as follows: 1) Work in advance had produced an MoU and Operating Principles which had a high degree of consensus, with only a few areas which were still the subject of discussion. 2) Arrangements were made for the ALS community to come to the ICANN International Meeting in Sao Paulo and meet for several hours to conclude work, over three separate sessions. ICANN staff prepared draft agendas and put forward proposals for discussion in relation to the remaining open areas, with the participants completely free to go in other directions with respect to those points, but with the staff proposals as a place to start 3) Agreement was reached on a text, which was reviewed onsite by the ICANN General Counsel's office to make sure that there were no problems with the MoU in that respect. After that was concluded, the regional ALS representatives elected the two represe tatives from the region to the ALAC. 4) A signing ceremony involving the press, and Vint Cerf and Paul Twomey, were conducted in the plenary hall, and a resolution of the board was adopted accepting the MoU subject to completion of a public comment period. If the region is willing, we can proceed on this basis, with the Lisbon ICANN meeting scheduled for 26-30 March 2007 as the venue for the F2F meetings(http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/ ). Pa t of the benefit of this approach is it also allows the ALS community to attend the ICANN international meeting and engage with other constituencies and policy development discussions. Of course your thoughts are much appreciated. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY < SPAN>United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nashton@consensus.pro Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Thanks for your quick reply Wolfgang! On 11/01/07, Wolfgang Kleinwächter < wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
Dear Nick
thanks for pushing things forward. Still ten weeks to go to Lisbon but time is running.
First I agree fully with Paul Twomey statement with the "one language principle" with regard to official texts of subisdary bodies. However as I was told by some lawyers here in germany, it would not be a problem to have all the documentation and correspndence in English in case the EU-RALO is incorporated in germany. And again costs are low, procedures are very lightweight and felxible and there are some people - in form of recognized ALS - in Germany who can take care of this. Much easier than UK.
I am informed by more than one lawyer in Germany that there are some legal documents associated with formation of a company that must be in German. Which is why we are left with Switzerland and the UK... Second: Text of MOU and Bylaws should be cleared as qwucik as possible. I do
not see any big problems after the various meetings we had in Atehens and SP. However with reagrd to voting rights I think we need a final solution which would allow individuals to have full access to all procedures, including voting rights.
Thirs: with regard to the European vacancy in the ALAC, I propose to look towards Eastern Europe, preferably a non-EU member. This would give the European group in the ALAC more representativeness and legitimacy and would be also a signal to the "forgotten countries". With "forgotten countries" I mean at large communities in Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbjdjan, Moldova, Georgia, Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia etc. which work under complicated conditions, fighting for freedom of expression in the Internet, doing very often a great job to help small communities to find a way into cyberspace. To strengthen these people and to bring them closer to the ICANN community would be an important signal. So far we have with Italy and germany two strong EU members represented in the ALAC, the third seat shpuld be reserved for somebody from the edges.
To date, I believe only one person has replied saying they are willing to serve, and that is Patrick Vandewalle. Have I missed an applicant? I draw your attention to the fact that the procedure announced in connection with filling the vacancy doesn't provide for reservation of the type you suggest though of course diversity of representation is of course very important. In connection with the nationality of the person filling the vacancy, I am presuming that the person who is ultimately recommended by ALAC from the pool of candidates who put themselves forward would take into account that Germany and Italy are currently represented and choose someone from other countries than those two. Best wishes
wolfgang
________________________________
Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Nick Ashton-Hart Gesendet: Do 11.01.2007 09:07 An: euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: euro-staff@atlarge-lists.icann.org Betreff: [EURO-Discuss] Towards EURALO: A Proposed Roadmap
Hello everyone!
I hope you have had a great Festive break and New Years celebrations.
As so many regions are accelerating their work towards forming RALOs, an effort which has sped up in many regions following the launch of LACRALO in Sao Paulo, I thought I would make a few comments about how we could move f rward in Europe.
Firstly, On the incorporation of a legal entity for EURALO:
As you all know, it has proven somewhat contentious to agree the country of incorporation. During the public forum in Sao Paulo, Paul Twomey, ICANN CEO, may have made this issue slightly easier to resolve by the following statement:
...I WOULD JUST MAKE ONE OTHER OBSERVATION ON THE ONE LANGUAGE ISSUE. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT -- AND I THINK THIS IS TRUE IN MANY INTERNATIONAL ENTITIES. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAINTAIN A SINGLE LANGUAGE FOR BUSINESS. THAT SORT OF FOR THE ACTUAL DOING OF BUSINESS AND FOR THE CONDUCTING OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, IT IS ACTUALLY VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO THAT IN ONE LANGUAGE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T TRANSLATE DOCUMENTS. BUT THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE -- THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE IN TH T ONE LANGUAGE...
This is excerpted from the scribe of the session on Thursday - you can see the whole notes of the session at: http://sp.icann.org/transcript/7dec06/public-forum
It had already been the subject of consensus that the country of incorporation would be determined by:
1) legal documents could be filed in English 2) The cost of incorporation is low 3) The cost of operating the company is low
There are only two countries we had explored incorporating in which allow ALL legal documents to be filed in English: The United Kingdom, and Switzerland.
As a result, these are the two countries we must choose between.
Secondly, on completing work on the Bylaws:
There are still open points on the Bylaws as you know. Some of these can likely be resolved via online debate and discussion, but some of them may require a face-to-face discussion.
Thirdly, the ALS community needs to agree on the contents of a Memorandum of Understanding
As previously stated, I will produce a draft text incorporating the ideas from Africa, Latin America/Caribbean Islands, and Asia-Pacific, for review; this should be done in the next 10 days or so at most.
Proposed Process to conclude work:
What I suggested on the ALAC monthly teleconference yesterday was that we should borrow from the LAC region's experience on how to conclude these discussions. The model they used was as follows:
1) Work in advance had produced an MoU and Operating Principles which had a high degree of consensus, with only a few areas which were still the subject of discussion.
2) Arrangements were made for the ALS community to come to the ICANN International Meeting in Sao Paulo and meet for several hours to conclude work, over three separate sessions. ICANN staff prepared draft agendas and put forward proposals for discussion in relation to the remaining open areas, with the participants completely free to go in other directions with respect to those points, but with the staff proposals as a place to start
3) Agreement was reached on a text, which was reviewed onsite by the ICANN General Counsel's office to make sure that there were no problems with the MoU in that respect. After that was concluded, the regional ALS representatives elected the two represe tatives from the region to the ALAC.
4) A signing ceremony involving the press, and Vint Cerf and Paul Twomey, were conducted in the plenary hall, and a resolution of the board was adopted accepting the MoU subject to completion of a public comment period.
If the region is willing, we can proceed on this basis, with the Lisbon ICANN meeting scheduled for 26-30 March 2007 as the venue for the F2F meetings(http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/ ). Pa t of the benefit of this approach is it also allows the ALS community to attend the ICANN international meeting and engage with other constituencies and policy development discussions.
Of course your thoughts are much appreciated.
-- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY < SPAN>United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nashton@consensus.pro Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
_______________________________________________ EURO-Staff mailing list EURO-Staff@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-staff_atlarge-lists.ica...
-- -- 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 FESTIVE GREETINGS! As per usual, in lieu of cards for friends and colleagues, I have made a donation in your name to Medecins Sans Frontieres, to help them provide medical care to those much less fortunate than ourselves.
On 2007-01-11 14:42:27 +0000, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
I am informed by more than one lawyer in Germany that there are some legal documents associated with formation of a company that must be in German. Which is why we are left with Switzerland and the UK...
May I suggest applying the procedure outlined in RFC 2777 to the choice of country, and being done with it, then? This discussion doesn't lead *anywhere*. -- Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
Thomas Roessler ha scritto:
On 2007-01-11 14:42:27 +0000, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
I am informed by more than one lawyer in Germany that there are some legal documents associated with formation of a company that must be in German. Which is why we are left with Switzerland and the UK...
May I suggest applying the procedure outlined in RFC 2777 to the choice of country, and being done with it, then? This discussion doesn't lead *anywhere*.
I don't know RFC 2777 so I'll go and read it, but I want to support Thomas's point about letting this discussion go - personally, any country with reasonable costs and legislation is fine with me (including Germany). My requisite is that there are adequate provisions for geographical diversity in the Bylaws - if they are there, then the country of incorporation has little relevance (even if it is true that most of us wouldn't be able to read legal documents in German, so having everything in English is an advantage to be considered - but then, let's see pros and cons of all options we have). -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
Wolfgang Kleinwächter said the following on 11/01/07 15:20:
Thirs: with regard to the European vacancy in the ALAC, I propose to look towards Eastern Europe, preferably a non-EU member. This would give the European group in the ALAC more representativeness and legitimacy and would be also a signal to the "forgotten countries". Dear Wolfgang,
It seems I am the only one to date standing to fill the vacancy. This is somewhat unfortunate, because it does not give ALAC a choice. If you know any potential candidate from these "forgotten" countries, please tell them they should contact the ALAC committee. If they do not stand, they have no chance of being selected. Our current membership is mostly in Western Europe. I agree that representation from Central and Eastern Europe should be enhanced in Euralo, perhaps with more ALSes from these countries. This is something Euralo should work on. However, it is a long-ranging goal. I am not convinced we can solve that before the launch of Euralo, even less before the 16 January deadline. We need realistic goals to prevent being frustrated in the end. Best regards, Patrick
Dear Patrick I agree that we have to be realistic but I am glad to see that you share my strategic visions. With regards the CEEC countries: I worked with the Diplo Foundation in the preparation for our last ICANN Studienkreis meeting in Prague (www.icann-studienkreis.net) and we were succesful to bring a handfull of people from Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, Serbia, Moldova and Russia to the meeting, some of them also potential members of the ATL community like Veronica from Moldova or the student from Belgrade who also came to the IGF in Athens. We should encourage this newcomers and help them to get settled in the broader At Large Community in Europe. I am preparing now the next ICANN-Studienkreis meeting for Warsaw (October 11 - 12, 2007) where I am planning to bring people from Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania etc. to the meeting. This could become a potential source for new recruitments for EU_RALO. But I agree this is hard work and needs time. Regards wolfgang ________________________________ Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Patrick Vande Walle Gesendet: Fr 12.01.2007 19:59 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Cc: euro-staff@atlarge-lists.icann.org Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Towards EURALO: A Proposed Roadmap Wolfgang Kleinwächter said the following on 11/01/07 15:20: Thirs: with regard to the European vacancy in the ALAC, I propose to look towards Eastern Europe, preferably a non-EU member. This would give the European group in the ALAC more representativeness and legitimacy and would be also a signal to the "forgotten countries". Dear Wolfgang, It seems I am the only one to date standing to fill the vacancy. This is somewhat unfortunate, because it does not give ALAC a choice. If you know any potential candidate from these "forgotten" countries, please tell them they should contact the ALAC committee. If they do not stand, they have no chance of being selected. Our current membership is mostly in Western Europe. I agree that representation from Central and Eastern Europe should be enhanced in Euralo, perhaps with more ALSes from these countries. This is something Euralo should work on. However, it is a long-ranging goal. I am not convinced we can solve that before the launch of Euralo, even less before the 16 January deadline. We need realistic goals to prevent being frustrated in the end. Best regards, Patrick
Dear Patrick, dear Wolfgang, I agree with you, it is essential that we actively work on meaningful regional representation within Europe especially of regions with very different political and infrastructural backgrounds. The good part is, that we not only discussed the importance of this issue in our past EURALO-prep. meetings but already took action running a subregional outreach meeting in Prague. This, and our large outreach meeting in Athens were very fruitful and we can build on these efforts. There were at least two people from eastern Europe, Vladimir from Serbia and Veronica from Moldova, who expressed strong interest in joining the EURALO initiative and helping to build up an organisational structure for a better representation of individual internet users, especially in eastern Europe. Both of them have already been working on the issue of internet infrastructure, domain name registration and new services in Central and Eastern Europe. Both attended the two ALAC outreach meetings and I think they have the potential to serve the At-Large well. Best Annette Wolfgang Kleinwächter schrieb:
Dear Patrick
I agree that we have to be realistic but I am glad to see that you share my strategic visions. With regards the CEEC countries: I worked with the Diplo Foundation in the preparation for our last ICANN Studienkreis meeting in Prague (www.icann-studienkreis.net) and we were succesful to bring a handfull of people from Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, Serbia, Moldova and Russia to the meeting, some of them also potential members of the ATL community like Veronica from Moldova or the student from Belgrade who also came to the IGF in Athens. We should encourage this newcomers and help them to get settled in the broader At Large Community in Europe. I am preparing now the next ICANN-Studienkreis meeting for Warsaw (October 11 - 12, 2007) where I am planning to bring people from Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania etc. to the meeting. This could become a potential source for new recruitments for EU_RALO.
But I agree this is hard work and needs time.
Regards
wolfgang
________________________________
Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Patrick Vande Walle Gesendet: Fr 12.01.2007 19:59 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Cc: euro-staff@atlarge-lists.icann.org Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Towards EURALO: A Proposed Roadmap
Wolfgang Kleinwächter said the following on 11/01/07 15:20:
Thirs: with regard to the European vacancy in the ALAC, I propose to look towards Eastern Europe, preferably a non-EU member. This would give the European group in the ALAC more representativeness and legitimacy and would be also a signal to the "forgotten countries".
Dear Wolfgang,
It seems I am the only one to date standing to fill the vacancy. This is somewhat unfortunate, because it does not give ALAC a choice. If you know any potential candidate from these "forgotten" countries, please tell them they should contact the ALAC committee. If they do not stand, they have no chance of being selected.
Our current membership is mostly in Western Europe. I agree that representation from Central and Eastern Europe should be enhanced in Euralo, perhaps with more ALSes from these countries. This is something Euralo should work on. However, it is a long-ranging goal. I am not convinced we can solve that before the launch of Euralo, even less before the 16 January deadline. We need realistic goals to prevent being frustrated in the end.
Best regards,
Patrick
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Hi everyone, Many of us have stressed time and again the goal of having diverse countries and subregions represented, so this seems a good opportunity to follow through with this approach. All other things being equal, I think it also vital to increase women's meaningful participaton in ALAC and ICANN. Since it looks like this might be a viable option in the present case, I think the European constitutency should send out that signal as well. Heike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Annette Muehlberg" <annette.muehlberg@web.de> To: "Discussion for At-Large Europe" <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: <euro-staff@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Towards EURALO: A Proposed Roadmap Dear Patrick, dear Wolfgang, I agree with you, it is essential that we actively work on meaningful regional representation within Europe especially of regions with very different political and infrastructural backgrounds. The good part is, that we not only discussed the importance of this issue in our past EURALO-prep. meetings but already took action running a subregional outreach meeting in Prague. This, and our large outreach meeting in Athens were very fruitful and we can build on these efforts. There were at least two people from eastern Europe, Vladimir from Serbia and Veronica from Moldova, who expressed strong interest in joining the EURALO initiative and helping to build up an organisational structure for a better representation of individual internet users, especially in eastern Europe. Both of them have already been working on the issue of internet infrastructure, domain name registration and new services in Central and Eastern Europe. Both attended the two ALAC outreach meetings and I think they have the potential to serve the At-Large well. Best Annette Wolfgang Kleinwächter schrieb:
Dear Patrick
I agree that we have to be realistic but I am glad to see that you share my strategic visions. With regards the CEEC countries: I worked with the Diplo Foundation in the preparation for our last ICANN Studienkreis meeting in Prague (www.icann-studienkreis.net) and we were succesful to bring a handfull of people from Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, Serbia, Moldova and Russia to the meeting, some of them also potential members of the ATL community like Veronica from Moldova or the student from Belgrade who also came to the IGF in Athens. We should encourage this newcomers and help them to get settled in the broader At Large Community in Europe. I am preparing now the next ICANN-Studienkreis meeting for Warsaw (October 11 - 12, 2007) where I am planning to bring people from Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania etc. to the meeting. This could become a potential source for new recruitments for EU_RALO.
But I agree this is hard work and needs time.
Regards
wolfgang
________________________________
Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Patrick Vande Walle Gesendet: Fr 12.01.2007 19:59 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Cc: euro-staff@atlarge-lists.icann.org Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Towards EURALO: A Proposed Roadmap
Wolfgang Kleinwächter said the following on 11/01/07 15:20:
Thirs: with regard to the European vacancy in the ALAC, I propose to look towards Eastern Europe, preferably a non-EU member. This would give the European group in the ALAC more representativeness and legitimacy and would be also a signal to the "forgotten countries".
Dear Wolfgang,
It seems I am the only one to date standing to fill the vacancy. This is somewhat unfortunate, because it does not give ALAC a choice. If you know any potential candidate from these "forgotten" countries, please tell them they should contact the ALAC committee. If they do not stand, they have no chance of being selected.
Our current membership is mostly in Western Europe. I agree that representation from Central and Eastern Europe should be enhanced in Euralo, perhaps with more ALSes from these countries. This is something Euralo should work on. However, it is a long-ranging goal. I am not convinced we can solve that before the launch of Euralo, even less before the 16 January deadline. We need realistic goals to prevent being frustrated in the end.
Best regards,
Patrick
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i cann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i cann.org
Dear all, I do not want to be misunderstood. While I am sympathetic to taking into account the need for better representation of Eastern Europe countries and women, I do not wish to discriminate against the Western European male either. Also, we should remember we are choosing two individuals, not a whole parliament. Hence, hard quotas might be counter-productive. For me, the prime criteria that should apply is competence, knowledge of ICANN decision mechanisms, past achievements, etc. Basically, I would apply the criteria as defined by the ICANN nomcom for selecting board members (http://www.icann.org/committees/nomcom/#criteria ), maybe by lowering the bar somewhat. The details can be discussed, but you get the idea. Now, if those who fit the bill are women and/or from Eastern Europe, fine. In short, we should encourage the participation of women and Eastern countries but it should not be the main driving force behind the selection. In the end, there will be an election anyway. Whoever is elected will have to represent the whole RALO, not a particular sub-region or gender. Best regards, Patrick Heike Jensen wrote, On 16/01/2007 12:14:
Many of us have stressed time and again the goal of having diverse countries and subregions represented
I think it also vital to increase women's meaningful participaton in ALAC and ICANN.
Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto:
Dear all,
I do not want to be misunderstood. While I am sympathetic to taking into account the need for better representation of Eastern Europe countries and women, I do not wish to discriminate against the Western European male either. Also, we should remember we are choosing two individuals, not a whole parliament. Hence, hard quotas might be counter-productive.
I'm taking your suggestion: if we like, we might want to focus this discussion on picking two names, not just one. We will have to elect two people in Lisbon anyway, and the optimum would be that one of them is the same that the Board will pick for this interim period between now and Lisbon. In this context, perhaps a good couple could be made by one man and one woman from two different parts of Europe. However, it is also true that it would be unfair to "pre-judge" the outcome of a vote that we will hold in two months from now, possibly including some new orgs that are currently in the process of accrediting, and new people volunteering. And also, in the end, it will be the ICANN Board to make the selection for this interim period, and I'm not sure whether they will share the same priority ranking that we adopt, whatever it is. Anyway, let's see how many nominations we get, and then adapt to the situation. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
Sorry, I posted a link to the wrong page. It is actually at: http://www.icann.org/committees/nom-comm/formalcall-22apr05.htm#d Apologies, Patrick
participants (9)
-
Annette Muehlberg -
Heike Jensen -
Jacqueline Morris -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Roberto Gaetano -
Thomas Roessler -
Vittorio Bertola -
Wolfgang Kleinwächter