All, Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings Annette *** NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review by the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community. We believe that the ALAC Review process has been flawed from the very start of its process, and has produced recommendations which serve neither the multi-stakeholder goals of ICANN nor the needs of its at-large community. While the report indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to. The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible interpretation the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and responsible governance. Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards by requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of the Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak, opposing the recommendations of the Nominating Committee's own review. In rejecting the consultants' report, ALAC must offer creative and viable alternative recommendations which would increase accountability. while enhancing the bi-directional communications required between ICANN and its global grassroots communuty. What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, but also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation. For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review, as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the betterment of ICANN's public constituency.
Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings
Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive mode. If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report. Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and productive. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Vittorio, As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack of basic understanding of what At-Large actually is and what its status should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt to stay servile to BoD in order to have gotten their proposal passed. I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered currently. That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I see no any problem with it. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want
to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings
Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive mode. If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report. Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and productive. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
The next step, after delivery of the final version of the report by the contractor, will be to pass the ball to the WG, who will analyze the reaction of the community and include the comments that will be made. The WG is well served, at least I believe so, with people with a wide range of opinions, including Karl Auerbach, a champion of the direct election of Board members by the AtLarge. But the WG would be unable to deal with a "reject the whole thing" proposal or comment, while would be able to make good use of a "we need voting power" proposal or comment. Personally, my advice would be to take this into account before deciding the format and tone of the contribution. It will not guarantee the result, but will maximise chances. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik Filipp Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2008 10:48 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Vittorio,
As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack of basic understanding of what At-Large actually is and what its status should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt to stay servile to BoD in order to have gotten their proposal passed.
I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered currently. That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I see no any problem with it.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want
to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings
Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive mode.
If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report.
Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and productive.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lis ts.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Roberto, Perhaps, I do not understand your words correctly "But the WG would be unable to deal with a "reject the whole thing" proposal or comment, while would be able to make good use of a "we need voting power" proposal or comment." Sure, the WG is unable to reject the At-Large reform motion as such as it is the reason why the WG actually exists. But if you are suggesting the WG is unable to reject the Westlake's proposal then I am asking why? Who is mandating what the WG may or may not reject? Except the WG itself, of course. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:38 AM To: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe' Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review The next step, after delivery of the final version of the report by the contractor, will be to pass the ball to the WG, who will analyze the reaction of the community and include the comments that will be made. The WG is well served, at least I believe so, with people with a wide range of opinions, including Karl Auerbach, a champion of the direct election of Board members by the AtLarge. But the WG would be unable to deal with a "reject the whole thing" proposal or comment, while would be able to make good use of a "we need voting power" proposal or comment. Personally, my advice would be to take this into account before deciding the format and tone of the contribution. It will not guarantee the result, but will maximise chances. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik Filipp Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2008 10:48 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Vittorio,
As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack of basic understanding of what At-Large actually
is and what its status should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt
to stay servile to BoD in order to have gotten their proposal passed.
I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered currently. That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I see no any problem with it.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want
to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings
Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is
being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt,
you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in
defensive mode.
If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying
where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report.
Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial
draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be
much more useful and productive.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lis ts.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Dominik, The purpose of my comment was only to suggest what in my opinion could bring better results for the AtLarge. If the AtLarge has a different opinion, please go ahead with a different course of action. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik Filipp Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2008 13:13 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Roberto,
Perhaps, I do not understand your words correctly
"But the WG would be unable to deal with a "reject the whole thing" proposal or comment, while would be able to make good use of a "we need voting power" proposal or comment."
Sure, the WG is unable to reject the At-Large reform motion as such as it is the reason why the WG actually exists.
But if you are suggesting the WG is unable to reject the Westlake's proposal then I am asking why? Who is mandating what the WG may or may not reject? Except the WG itself, of course.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:38 AM To: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe' Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
The next step, after delivery of the final version of the report by the contractor, will be to pass the ball to the WG, who will analyze the reaction of the community and include the comments that will be made. The WG is well served, at least I believe so, with people with a wide range of opinions, including Karl Auerbach, a champion of the direct election of Board members by the AtLarge. But the WG would be unable to deal with a "reject the whole thing" proposal or comment, while would be able to make good use of a "we need voting power" proposal or comment.
Personally, my advice would be to take this into account before deciding the format and tone of the contribution. It will not guarantee the result, but will maximise chances.
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik Filipp Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2008 10:48 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Vittorio,
As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack of basic understanding of what At-Large actually
is and what its status should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt
to stay servile to BoD in order to have gotten their proposal passed.
I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered currently. That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I see no any problem with it.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want
to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings
Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is
being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt,
you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in
defensive mode.
If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying
where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report.
Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial
draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be
much more useful and productive.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lis ts.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lis ts.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
I fully support Dominik, Westlake does not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN context and in the broader context of Internet Governacne, which includes developments in WSIS, WGIG, IGF and recently in OECD. There is a need for a more strategically and politically oriented review and not for a review of how the management works and the day to day basis. The management issue is at this stage secondary in particular if you take into consideration that the MoUs with RALOs has just signed and there is no real data available and no best pratices has emerged so far how the various new established bodies work. Here it needs some time to come to real conclusions and then a review makes sense. The challenge at this moment would have been to define the role of ALAC in the more overall IG and DNS/IP policy development and decision making in ICANN. And this was totally ignored by Westlake. It is a pity. A lot of money for nothing. The money would have been better invested into enabling RALOs to do work on the gorund: Workshops, studies, outreach. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Dominik Filipp Gesendet: Di 24.06.2008 10:47 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review Vittorio, As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack of basic understanding of what At-Large actually is and what its status should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt to stay servile to BoD in order to have gotten their proposal passed. I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered currently. That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I see no any problem with it. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want
to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings
Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive mode. If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report. Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and productive. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/> _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i... Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
Wolfgang, I am not sure that the fora you mention are relevant to this discussion. They work in another context, on another set of issues. Seeing how "civil society" (whatever that means) is being treated in these bodies is certainly not an example I would like ICANN to follow. ICANN is a mostly operational body and should have processes in place that help get the job done. On the NARALO text, I am with Vittorio. We may disagree on the text and reply to its suggestions. But it does not seem useful to criticise the process as such. Patrick Kleinwächter wrote:
I fully support Dominik,
Westlake does not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN context and in the broader context of Internet Governacne, which includes developments in WSIS, WGIG, IGF and recently in OECD. There is a need for a more strategically and politically oriented review and not for a review of how the management works and the day to day basis. The management issue is at this stage secondary in particular if you take into consideration that the MoUs with RALOs has just signed and there is no real data available and no best pratices has emerged so far how the various new established bodies work. Here it needs some time to come to real conclusions and then a review makes sense.
The challenge at this moment would have been to define the role of ALAC in the more overall IG and DNS/IP policy development and decision making in ICANN. And this was totally ignored by Westlake. It is a pity. A lot of money for nothing. The money would have been better invested into enabling RALOs to do work on the gorund: Workshops, studies, outreach.
Wolfgang
________________________________
Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Dominik Filipp Gesendet: Di 24.06.2008 10:47 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Vittorio,
As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack of basic understanding of what At-Large actually is and what its status should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt to stay servile to BoD in order to have gotten their proposal passed.
I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered currently. That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I see no any problem with it.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want
to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings
Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive mode.
If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report.
Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and productive.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
Patrick, Could you please elaborate on your points more in detail? I somehow cannot see your point. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:18 PM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review Wolfgang, I am not sure that the fora you mention are relevant to this discussion. They work in another context, on another set of issues. Seeing how "civil society" (whatever that means) is being treated in these bodies is certainly not an example I would like ICANN to follow. ICANN is a mostly operational body and should have processes in place that help get the job done. On the NARALO text, I am with Vittorio. We may disagree on the text and reply to its suggestions. But it does not seem useful to criticise the process as such. Patrick Kleinwächter wrote:
I fully support Dominik,
Westlake does not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN context and in the broader context of Internet Governacne, which includes developments in WSIS, WGIG, IGF and recently in OECD. There is a need for a more strategically and politically oriented review and not for a review of how the management works and the day to day basis. The management issue is at this stage secondary in particular if you take into consideration that the MoUs with RALOs has just signed and there is no real data available and no best pratices has emerged so far how the various new established bodies work. Here it needs some time to come to real conclusions and then a review makes sense.
The challenge at this moment would have been to define the role of ALAC in the more overall IG and DNS/IP policy development and decision making in ICANN. And this was totally ignored by Westlake. It is a pity. A lot of money for nothing. The money would have been better invested into enabling RALOs to do work on the gorund: Workshops, studies, outreach.
Wolfgang
________________________________
Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Dominik Filipp Gesendet: Di 24.06.2008 10:47 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Vittorio,
As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack of basic understanding of what At-Large actually is and what its status should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt to stay servile to BoD in order to have gotten their proposal passed.
I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered currently. That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I see no any problem with it.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want
to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings
Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive mode.
If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report.
Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and productive.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-l is ts.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i... Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Dominik, My point is as follows: 1. WSIS and its sequels have used the "civil society" for cosmetic reasons, but are fundamentally government led. I personally have no problem with that. After all, we have elected these governments to represent us, at least in democratic countries. If we do not like the positions they defend, we have the choice of voting for others. 2. ICANN is an operational body that needs to sort out issues of importance to businesses and their customers. We are not in a philosophical approach. It is real world of bytes and dollars. 3. I personally have never found that making any party look a fool is the best way to gain support. Rejecting the report as a whole is not constructive way of working. Rather, we need to answer to each proposal and explain why we feel the suggestions are wrong. And BTW, I am not convinced there would be a consensus in Euralo and ALAC to reject the report totally. Patrick Dominik Filipp wrote:
Patrick,
Could you please elaborate on your points more in detail? I somehow cannot see your point.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:18 PM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Wolfgang,
I am not sure that the fora you mention are relevant to this discussion. They work in another context, on another set of issues. Seeing how "civil society" (whatever that means) is being treated in these bodies is certainly not an example I would like ICANN to follow. ICANN is a mostly operational body and should have processes in place that help get the job done.
On the NARALO text, I am with Vittorio. We may disagree on the text and reply to its suggestions. But it does not seem useful to criticise the process as such.
Patrick
Kleinwächter wrote:
I fully support Dominik,
Westlake does not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN context and in the broader context of Internet Governacne, which includes developments in WSIS, WGIG, IGF and recently in OECD. There is a need for a more strategically and politically oriented review and not for a review of how the management works and the day to day basis. The management issue is at this stage secondary in particular if you take into consideration that the MoUs with RALOs has just signed and there is no real data available and no best pratices has emerged so far how the various new established bodies work. Here it needs some time to come to real conclusions and then a review makes sense.
The challenge at this moment would have been to define the role of ALAC in the more overall IG and DNS/IP policy development and decision making in ICANN. And this was totally ignored by Westlake. It is a pity. A lot of money for nothing. The money would have been better invested into enabling RALOs to do work on the gorund: Workshops, studies, outreach.
Wolfgang
________________________________
Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Dominik Filipp Gesendet: Di 24.06.2008 10:47 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Vittorio,
As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack of basic understanding of what At-Large actually is and what its status should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt to stay servile to BoD in order to have gotten their proposal passed.
I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered currently. That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I see no any problem with it.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive mode.
If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report.
Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and productive.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-l is ts.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Patrick, Please see my notes below. seems like sort of philosophical posts today... -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Vande Walle [mailto:patrick@vande-walle.eu] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:40 PM To: Dominik Filipp Cc: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review Dominik, My point is as follows:
1. WSIS and its sequels have used the "civil society" for cosmetic reasons, but are fundamentally government led. I personally have no problem with that. After all, we have elected these governments to represent us, at least in democratic countries. If we do not like the positions they defend, we have the choice of voting for others.
Agree. We, however, are talking about a new structure of the At-Large community, which I guess has more ambitions than just to be here for cosmetic reasons.
2. ICANN is an operational body that needs to sort out issues of importance to businesses and their customers. We are not in a philosophical approach. It is real world of bytes and dollars.
Exactly. And to be more exact those are also my dollars as a Registrant. And as somebody who takes care about the invested money I do not want to see my dollars wasted by incompetent and unaccountable individuals with voting right, but rather want to invest to accountable people taking responsibility for their acts and decisions.
3. I personally have never found that making any party look a fool is the best way to gain support. Rejecting the report as a whole is not constructive way of working. Rather, we need to answer to each proposal and explain why we feel the suggestions are wrong. And BTW, I am not convinced there would be a consensus in Euralo and ALAC to reject the report totally.
A question. Are you satisfied with the current status of At-Large? Without voting power, without real influence on results, in the toothless second-class advisory position and pretending a large community support? If not, it then might happened that it was At-Large itself that was made look a fool by someone. However, if you are satisfied then it is ok, it is your choice. After all, we'll see what the consensus will look like. Dominik Dominik Filipp wrote:
Patrick,
Could you please elaborate on your points more in detail? I somehow cannot see your point.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:18 PM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Wolfgang,
I am not sure that the fora you mention are relevant to this discussion. They work in another context, on another set of issues. Seeing how "civil society" (whatever that means) is being treated in these bodies is certainly not an example I would like ICANN to follow. ICANN is a mostly operational body and should have processes in place that help get the job done.
On the NARALO text, I am with Vittorio. We may disagree on the text and reply to its suggestions. But it does not seem useful to criticise the process as such.
Patrick
Kleinwächter wrote:
I fully support Dominik,
Westlake does not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN context and in the broader context of Internet Governacne, which includes developments in WSIS, WGIG, IGF and recently in OECD. There is a need for a more strategically and politically oriented review and not for a review of how the management works and the day to day basis. The management issue is at this stage secondary in particular if you take into consideration that the MoUs with RALOs has just signed and there is no real data available and no best pratices has emerged so far how the various new established bodies work. Here it needs some time to come to real conclusions and then a review makes sense.
The challenge at this moment would have been to define the role of ALAC in the more overall IG and DNS/IP policy development and decision making in ICANN. And this was totally ignored by Westlake. It is a pity. A lot of money for nothing. The money would have been better invested into enabling RALOs to do work on the gorund: Workshops, studies, outreach.
Wolfgang
________________________________
Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Dominik Filipp Gesendet: Di 24.06.2008 10:47 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Vittorio,
As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack of basic understanding of what At-Large actually is and what its status should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt to stay servile to BoD in order to have gotten their proposal passed.
I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered currently. That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I see no any problem with it.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive mode.
If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report.
Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and productive.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ --------> <--------
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge- l is ts.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge- l ists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge- l ists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Patrick, I apologize for a bit manipulative wording in my 3rd point response as regards the 'if you are satisfied' option, which might be felt as a personal offense. The correct wording should have been something like 'If you feel the existing At-Large status fits your expectations then it is ok'. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik Filipp Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 4:44 PM To: patrick@vande-walle.eu Cc: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review Patrick, Please see my notes below. seems like sort of philosophical posts today... -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Vande Walle [mailto:patrick@vande-walle.eu] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:40 PM To: Dominik Filipp Cc: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review Dominik, My point is as follows:
1. WSIS and its sequels have used the "civil society" for cosmetic reasons, but are fundamentally government led. I personally have no problem with that. After all, we have elected these governments to represent us, at least in democratic countries. If we do not like the positions they defend, we have the choice of voting for others.
Agree. We, however, are talking about a new structure of the At-Large community, which I guess has more ambitions than just to be here for cosmetic reasons.
2. ICANN is an operational body that needs to sort out issues of importance to businesses and their customers. We are not in a philosophical approach. It is real world of bytes and dollars.
Exactly. And to be more exact those are also my dollars as a Registrant. And as somebody who takes care about the invested money I do not want to see my dollars wasted by incompetent and unaccountable individuals with voting right, but rather want to invest to accountable people taking responsibility for their acts and decisions.
3. I personally have never found that making any party look a fool is the best way to gain support. Rejecting the report as a whole is not constructive way of working. Rather, we need to answer to each proposal and explain why we feel the suggestions are wrong. And BTW, I am not convinced there would be a consensus in Euralo and ALAC to reject the report totally.
A question. Are you satisfied with the current status of At-Large? Without voting power, without real influence on results, in the toothless second-class advisory position and pretending a large community support? If not, it then might happened that it was At-Large itself that was made look a fool by someone. However, if you are satisfied then it is ok, it is your choice. After all, we'll see what the consensus will look like. Dominik Dominik Filipp wrote:
Patrick,
Could you please elaborate on your points more in detail? I somehow cannot see your point.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:18 PM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Wolfgang,
I am not sure that the fora you mention are relevant to this discussion. They work in another context, on another set of issues. Seeing how "civil society" (whatever that means) is being treated in these bodies is certainly not an example I would like ICANN to follow. ICANN is a mostly operational body and should have processes in place that help get the job done.
On the NARALO text, I am with Vittorio. We may disagree on the text and reply to its suggestions. But it does not seem useful to criticise the process as such.
Patrick
Kleinwächter wrote:
I fully support Dominik,
Westlake does not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN context and in the broader context of Internet Governacne, which includes developments in WSIS, WGIG, IGF and recently in OECD. There is a need for a more strategically and politically oriented review and not for a review of how the management works and the day to day basis. The management issue is at this stage secondary in particular if you take into consideration that the MoUs with RALOs has just signed and there is no real data available and no best pratices has emerged so far how the various new established bodies work. Here it needs some time to come to real conclusions and then a review makes sense.
The challenge at this moment would have been to define the role of ALAC in the more overall IG and DNS/IP policy development and decision making in ICANN. And this was totally ignored by Westlake. It is a pity. A lot of money for nothing. The money would have been better invested into enabling RALOs to do work on the gorund: Workshops, studies, outreach.
Wolfgang
________________________________
Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Dominik Filipp Gesendet: Di 24.06.2008 10:47 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Vittorio,
As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack of basic understanding of what At-Large actually is and what its status should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt to stay servile to BoD in order to have gotten their proposal passed.
I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered currently. That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I see no any problem with it.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive mode.
If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report.
Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and productive.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ --------> <--------
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge- l is ts.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge- l ists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge- l ists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i... Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Dominik Filipp wrote:
Patrick,
I apologize for a bit manipulative wording
Dominik, No offense. I will not reply point by point, but just notice we actually agree on a lot of things. As for the user representation in ICANN, I am of course not satisfied with the current situation. However, "civil society" type of arguments are not going to convince the other parties involved. We need another approach. I think it would be much more convincing to point out that domain name registrants, many of whom are natural persons or small businesses, are not properly represented, yet contribute to a large part of the ICANN budget through registrar and gTLD registry fees. This amounts to USD 40 million per year. At the very least, we should expect that representation on the board is proportional to the contribution to the budget, but this has been confiscated by the intermediaries: registries and registrars. I note that NomCom appointed members to the board are selected on their personal capacity, not as representatives of the "paying majority". Patrick
Patrick, That is fine we can agree on many points here. My remarks are below -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Vande Walle [mailto:patrick@vande-walle.eu] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:06 AM To: Dominik Filipp Cc: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
As for the user representation in ICANN, I am of course not satisfied with the current situation. However, "civil society" type of arguments are not going to convince the other parties involved. We need another approach.
Definitely.
I think it would be much more convincing to point out that domain name registrants, many of whom are natural persons or small businesses, are not properly represented, yet contribute to a large part of the ICANN budget through registrar and gTLD registry fees. This amounts to USD 40 million per year.
This has already been pointed out many times in the past. This fact is constantly being ignored by BoD.
At the very least, we should expect that representation on the board is proportional to the contribution to the budget...
Definitely.
...but this has been confiscated by the intermediaries: registries and registrars. I note that NomCom appointed members to the board are selected on their personal capacity, not as representatives of the "paying majority".
That is why the At-Large reform should be about. Patrick
Oops...
At the very least, we should expect that representation on the board is proportional to the contribution to the budget...
Yes, but up to a certain level. We have to consider the majority of non-paying standard Internet users. -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Vande Walle [mailto:patrick@vande-walle.eu] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:06 AM To: Dominik Filipp Cc: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review Dominik Filipp wrote:
Patrick,
I apologize for a bit manipulative wording
Dominik, No offense. I will not reply point by point, but just notice we actually agree on a lot of things. As for the user representation in ICANN, I am of course not satisfied with the current situation. However, "civil society" type of arguments are not going to convince the other parties involved. We need another approach. I think it would be much more convincing to point out that domain name registrants, many of whom are natural persons or small businesses, are not properly represented, yet contribute to a large part of the ICANN budget through registrar and gTLD registry fees. This amounts to USD 40 million per year. At the very least, we should expect that representation on the board is proportional to the contribution to the budget, but this has been confiscated by the intermediaries: registries and registrars. I note that NomCom appointed members to the board are selected on their personal capacity, not as representatives of the "paying majority". Patrick
At 13:39 24/06/2008, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
Dominik, My point is as follows:
1. WSIS and its sequels have used the "civil society" for cosmetic reasons, but are fundamentally government led. I personally have no problem with that. After all, we have elected these governments to represent us, at least in democratic countries. If we do not like the positions they defend, we have the choice of voting for others.
Dear all, I will first react to this remark, however my point is about all the other post as well. This also follows a private talk that I had with Westlake on the matter. There is confusion that is progressively clarifying over the WSIS positions. This confusion results from the blocking of the WSIS process by the JPA issue. The way ICANN is blocking that process is through the confusion surrounding the ALAC that we are all helping. Therefore, the point is not to say who is at fault: we all are. The WISI stated that the Information Society that the world wants to build is "people centered, à caractèe humain, centrada en la persona", and that it should develop on an equal footing between the regalian domain (govs, local admin, etc.), civil society, private sector, international entities, and the technical/normative area. It also agreed that the existing American structures were to continue to manage the Internet Legacy and that the emergent issues and management solutions were to be discussed through dynamic coalitions (open WGs) leading to a management through (governments [Geneva] and then stakeholders [Tunis]) enhanced cooperation. The gap between that clear, simple, and widely accepted proposition and the current Internet legacy community's vision is seen in three main points: USA, nature of the @large, and ICANN's role. 1) USA. This is the "pachyderm in the marigold" syndrome. Where is it going to sit? Because, if it continues to sit in the middle, everyone will switch the marigolds for water and clean water. I.e. in plain text from a pseudo-internationalized no presentation layer Internet to a Multilingualized Internet. This is what france@large put forth to be voted on last year by ISO, wherein its position was only opposed by the UK, IE, and US. This depends on the NTIA, which appears to be far more open minded and pragmatic than the "over-southpacificated" ICANN. What is at stake is the post-JPA. As Betrand de la Chapelle (GAC VP for France) explained it: the outcome MUST be a plus for everyone, including the USA. 2) nature of the @larges. As the france@large incident has shown it, ALAC is NOT representative of the whole @large community. As in every current user community, @large are split into two main categories: users and lead users. The additional problem is that the "lead user" concept was first observed in the Internet and Free Software areas and, therefore, is more mature than in any other industrial sector. "Lead users" are (average) 1 to 2% of the user population, which adapts the products that they buy to their individual needs. This is due to the technical and educational possibilities that are available to them as well as the progressive increase of anti-technolocracy and ecologic reactions throuought the world. This in a significant trend and in some industrial areas, such as the Internet, this is _the_ innovation track. Industry follows the lead users' quality in order to produce what the user will purchase in quantity. The well observed Internet process is clear: everything has been (1) developed by lead users [DNS, P2P, Voice over IP, etc.], (2) checked and amalgamated by the Industry reps [IETF] and (3) put on the market at low, for both sides, affordable prices. The best example that we have of a functionning ALAC is the IETF. They were the @large users of the mid-1980s, owning and controlling their IMP and computers, having to make them work together. Now, they specify for others, and they meet the same kind of ethical/organizational difficulties that the ALAC does. This is the same way that they carried important reviews on their role and nature (RFC 3844, 3869, 3935) that every one of us should know rather well. Jeannette Hofman co-authored the key RFC 3844. The WSIS understanding of the five Internet poles makes that the ALAC's scope is much wider than the IETF's, including new technolgies like politics, citizenship and human sciences, business, international affairs, and cultural/lingual diversity. If Govs still gain the main focus it is because they have far better training than others to assume a leading role - and because they are sovereign entities (as each of us are). However, my personal experience as an @large for 30 years has shown me that individuals can do the same. To think otherwise would be to believe that the people in Govs are more intelligent, more educated, more related, etc. than we are. If that was the case, I think we would have known this for some time now :-) Two last points that Westlake and ICANN seem to miss : - ALAC lead users are not voluntaries. They are here to protect the interests of their property (whole internet which supports their own system). - as such they carry a policy; which usually seaking a peaceful equilbered stability. But they are to be convinced by ICANN, the sameway as they make their own opinions and decisions at the FGI? 3) ICANN's role is the main issue. The WSIS/IGF is calling for enhanced cooperation to replace ICANN. ICANN is a candidate to be its own successor. (a) it attempts to play the status quo in many areas where it feels it is rooted enough. (b) it attempts to indebt large and long-term enough interests so that these interests will demand its continuation after Aug 31, 2009. The gTLDs campaign and IDNccTLD selective Fast Track are good examples. (c) it attempts to consolidate its current structure, including the ALAC. This is where Westlake fits in. What the French Minister Besson said yesterday after the OECD meeting and on behalf of Europe is: this is not enough. And what has been explained and understood by Peter Dungate Trush is that ICANN just wanted to consolidate its existing achitecture and is now interested in clearly understanding which architectural changes should be considered. france@large position over the Westlake report This report is unacceptable. This is not due to the Westlake people but rather to ICANN. They made them work on an inappropriate mission. There is no need for wasting our time and Westlake's time in discussing its conclusions as long as it does not get real. This is why I left the meeting room yesterday and talked with Westlake. (1) Westlake must be told that this is a clean slate situation and must be told as to who the real world Internet @larges are, not only the ICANN accredited @larges. This means not only france@large, but all the individuals and corporations that co-develop the Internet and influence and/or compete with ICANN decisions, credibility, and interests. People who consider themselves as the owners of their own global system and the co-owners of the Internet. I would reasonably evaluate them as at least 20 million (2% of all users) that have the necessary competences in their specific or in many areas. (2) Then, Westlake must contribute in first discovering what the ICANN products are for the market that they say they address (cf. Twomey, Friday(?) last), and then how they address the needs of the users and be appropriated by lead users; in order to root itself in their digital neighborhood. Then, and only then, can Westlake's report be worth reading. From what we can grasp today, it could be interesting once the very basis is totally open to them. I will only advise them to communicate with the other Internet poles in order to see how their propositions could be received by ALAC's counterparts (GAC, BC, IETF, and WSIS dynamic coalitions. jfc PS. I expect Westlake to lurke on this list?
Kleinwächter ha scritto:
I fully support Dominik,
Westlake does not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN context
More precisely, Westlake has been instructed to review the effectiveness of the current structure in reaching the purpose of the ALAC as described in the ICANN Bylaws: "to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users". The idea that the At Large has a role "in the broader context of Internet Governance", or that the purpose of the ALAC includes ensuring the accountability and democracy of ICANN, is entirely yours (Jeanette's, etc.), and while the accountability of ICANN to the general public is a fundamental issue which I too find very important, it is not what is written in the ICANN Bylaws as the purpose of the ALAC. To a certain extent, it is you and Dominik who do not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN structure :-) (seriously, I think that one of the issues is that different people have very different understandings of the purpose of the ALAC) As I said today in the meeting, the issue about the accountability of ICANN pertains more to the discussions about the post-JPA status and structure of ICANN. Perhaps the ALAC would do more good in making better use of its representative on the President's Strategy Committee, and in advocating for a broader and more open discussion in that process. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Vittorio, I appreciate your clear and straightforward view expressed here. Let me elaborate a little. You are right that 'the idea that the At Large has a role in the broader context of Internet Governance, or that the purpose of the ALAC includes ensuring the accountability and democracy of ICANN' is not written in the ICANN Bylaws. And you are also right that 'the accountability of ICANN to the general public is a fundamental issue', this time written in the ICANN Bylaws. The fact, however, is that the fundamental issue mentioned above is from time to time very far from the reality. Just have a look at the Core Values how far is ICANN from the methodologies written there with respect to the public interests. There were issues where the public was de facto excluded from active participation although they were prominently public oriented (e.g. Verisign agreement, some other registry agreements, Domain Tasting). I am talking about real participation with real results, not working groups often doing great job, which is eventually spoiled by final voting of few. This all makes the bylaws just a sheet of paper being waved with. And I hope you can see this is not the best way where ICANN should be directed. As regards the At-Large community. There are voices here not satisfied with the undignified status of the body as written in the bylaws. No wonder. They feel as being already competent enough to conduct their own affaires more effectively than to delegate the affaires to unaccountable people somewhere else. And it is a natural progress of a community that is gradually getting matured capable of taking responsibility for their affaires and logically expecting more rights. If this happened I would see no problem to change the respective bylaws. This situation is usually referred to as 'evolution'. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:29 PM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review Kleinwächter ha scritto:
I fully support Dominik,
Westlake does not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN context
More precisely, Westlake has been instructed to review the effectiveness of the current structure in reaching the purpose of the ALAC as described in the ICANN Bylaws: "to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users". The idea that the At Large has a role "in the broader context of Internet Governance", or that the purpose of the ALAC includes ensuring the accountability and democracy of ICANN, is entirely yours (Jeanette's, etc.), and while the accountability of ICANN to the general public is a fundamental issue which I too find very important, it is not what is written in the ICANN Bylaws as the purpose of the ALAC. To a certain extent, it is you and Dominik who do not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN structure :-) (seriously, I think that one of the issues is that different people have very different understandings of the purpose of the ALAC) As I said today in the meeting, the issue about the accountability of ICANN pertains more to the discussions about the post-JPA status and structure of ICANN. Perhaps the ALAC would do more good in making better use of its representative on the President's Strategy Committee, and in advocating for a broader and more open discussion in that process. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i... Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Vittorio More precisely, Westlake has been instructed to review the effectiveness of the current structure in reaching the purpose of the ALAC as described in the ICANN Bylaws: "to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users". Wolfgang: This is correct but it makes no or only little sense to review a mechanism which has started its work just 12 months ago Vittorio: The idea that the At Large has a role "in the broader context of Internet Governance", or that the purpose of the ALAC includes ensuring the accountability and democracy of ICANN, is entirely yours (Jeanette's, etc.), and while the accountability of ICANN to the general public is a fundamental issue which I too find very important, it is not what is written in the ICANN Bylaws as the purpose of the ALAC. To a certain extent, it is you and Dominik who do not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN structure :-) Wolfgang: This is nonsense Vittorio and you should know it better. The issue is very complex and is rooted in the foundation of ICANN (as an alternative to the IAHC). I recoemmend to go back to the report of the MAC (Membership Advisory Committee) from 1999, the report of the Bild Commission and the NAIS-Study / Markle Foundation from 2001. I agree that there ws also a controversial understanding about the role of At Large from the very early beginning. Rremember the argument of the late Hans Krajenbrink . To be clear this was not a MIS-understanding because the two groups knew what they wanted. This was a different understanding and this continuos that there are two controversial posiions. But again I am surprised to hear such argumetns from you, Vittorio, who very often agve the impression that you have another position(and earned trust for this frm the community). In WGIG yo havr argued in a different way. Do you really believe you can seperate social and political processes in different boxes and say this is IGF, this is ICANN and this is OECD? Probably there is a wide misunderstanding, misinformation and misinterpreation around an old question which is now presented as a reinvented (and misconfigured) wheel. Because there is such a high level of confusion I propose to have a special workshop in the next ICANN meeting in ALAC about "The Role of At Large and individual Internert Users in the Post-JPA-ICANN". I am volunteering to co-organize such a workshop. Best wolfgang As I said today in the meeting, the issue about the accountability of ICANN pertains more to the discussions about the post-JPA status and structure of ICANN. Perhaps the ALAC would do more good in making better use of its representative on the President's Strategy Committee, and in advocating for a broader and more open discussion in that process. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i... Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
Kleinwächter ha scritto:
Vittorio
More precisely, Westlake has been instructed to review the effectiveness of the current structure in reaching the purpose of the ALAC as described in the ICANN Bylaws: "to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users".
Wolfgang: This is correct but it makes no or only little sense to review a mechanism which has started its work just 12 months ago
Which is why they are recommending minor changes for now, and further possible changes in the next review cycle.
This was a different understanding and this continuos that there are two controversial posiions. But again I am surprised to hear such argumetns from you, Vittorio, who very often agve the impression that you have another position(and earned trust for this frm the community). In WGIG yo havr argued in a different way. Do you really believe you can seperate social and political processes in different boxes and say this is IGF, this is ICANN and this is OECD?
No, I think that you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that ICANN is technical so there is no need for the public, at all. I am just saying that the ALAC Review is a specific assessment of the functioning of a particular mechanism, while the balance between industry and users, the accountability to the general public etc. are absolutely fundamental, but need to be considered inside a broader discussion that examines the entire institutional architecture of ICANN. To be honest, sometimes I think that this "box by box" review mechanism is (purposedly or not) by design preventing that broader discussion from happening. Of all current processes, however, the one of the PSC on the post-JPA arrangements seems to me the best place where to have that discussion, as long as it can be made more open and transparent (and again, ALAC has a representative in that committee, can the community make better use of it and raise this issue?).
Probably there is a wide misunderstanding, misinformation and misinterpreation around an old question which is now presented as a reinvented (and misconfigured) wheel. Because there is such a high level of confusion I propose to have a special workshop in the next ICANN meeting in ALAC about "The Role of At Large and individual Internert Users in the Post-JPA-ICANN". I am volunteering to co-organize such a workshop.
I support this wholeheartedly, it seems exactly the kind of discussion we need to have, at least if we can involve all parts of the community in it. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Hi All in Paris, Could someone from EURALO be contributing from time to time to the list as to what actually is happening in Paris? Or at least some short minutes, if possible. Thanks Dominik -----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:46 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review I fully support Dominik, Westlake does not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN context and in the broader context of Internet Governacne, which includes developments in WSIS, WGIG, IGF and recently in OECD. There is a need for a more strategically and politically oriented review and not for a review of how the management works and the day to day basis. The management issue is at this stage secondary in particular if you take into consideration that the MoUs with RALOs has just signed and there is no real data available and no best pratices has emerged so far how the various new established bodies work. Here it needs some time to come to real conclusions and then a review makes sense. The challenge at this moment would have been to define the role of ALAC in the more overall IG and DNS/IP policy development and decision making in ICANN. And this was totally ignored by Westlake. It is a pity. A lot of money for nothing. The money would have been better invested into enabling RALOs to do work on the gorund: Workshops, studies, outreach. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Dominik Filipp Gesendet: Di 24.06.2008 10:47 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review Vittorio, As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack of basic understanding of what At-Large actually is and what its status should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt to stay servile to BoD in order to have gotten their proposal passed. I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered currently. That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I see no any problem with it. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want
to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings
Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive mode. If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report. Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and productive. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/> _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i... Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/> _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i... Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Hi Dominik, we were all busy in various meetings (ALAC, GNSO, with Board, GAC etc.) yesterday and today. Today before lunch, the EURALO folks met to discuss and draft a EURALO statement on the ALAC Review. Bill will do the final editing and post it to the list afterwards for further comments. Heading for another meeting... Best regards, Wolf Dominik Filipp wrote Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:35:
Hi All in Paris,
Could someone from EURALO be contributing from time to time to the list as to what actually is happening in Paris? Or at least some short minutes, if possible.
Thanks
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:46 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
I fully support Dominik,
Westlake does not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN context and in the broader context of Internet Governacne, which includes developments in WSIS, WGIG, IGF and recently in OECD. There is a need for a more strategically and politically oriented review and not for a review of how the management works and the day to day basis. The management issue is at this stage secondary in particular if you take into consideration that the MoUs with RALOs has just signed and there is no real data available and no best pratices has emerged so far how the various new established bodies work. Here it needs some time to come to real conclusions and then a review makes sense.
The challenge at this moment would have been to define the role of ALAC in the more overall IG and DNS/IP policy development and decision making in ICANN. And this was totally ignored by Westlake. It is a pity. A lot of money for nothing. The money would have been better invested into enabling RALOs to do work on the gorund: Workshops, studies, outreach.
Wolfgang
________________________________
Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Dominik Filipp Gesendet: Di 24.06.2008 10:47 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Vittorio,
As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack of basic understanding of what At-Large actually is and what its status should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt to stay servile to BoD in order to have gotten their proposal passed.
I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered currently. That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I see no any problem with it.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want
to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings
Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive mode.
If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report.
Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and productive.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allemd http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe
Hi Wolf, Sure, I know :-) Thank you Dominik -----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wolf Ludwig Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:48 PM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review Hi Dominik, we were all busy in various meetings (ALAC, GNSO, with Board, GAC etc.) yesterday and today. Today before lunch, the EURALO folks met to discuss and draft a EURALO statement on the ALAC Review. Bill will do the final editing and post it to the list afterwards for further comments. Heading for another meeting... Best regards, Wolf Dominik Filipp wrote Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:35:
Hi All in Paris,
Could someone from EURALO be contributing from time to time to the list as to what actually is happening in Paris? Or at least some short minutes, if possible.
Thanks
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:46 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
I fully support Dominik,
Westlake does not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN context and in the broader context of Internet Governacne, which includes developments in WSIS, WGIG, IGF and recently in OECD. There is a need for a more strategically and politically oriented review and not for a review of how the management works and the day to day basis. The management issue is at this stage secondary in particular if you take into consideration that the MoUs with RALOs has just signed and there is no real data available and no best pratices has emerged so far how the various new established bodies work. Here it needs some time to come to real conclusions and then a review makes sense.
The challenge at this moment would have been to define the role of ALAC in the more overall IG and DNS/IP policy development and decision making in ICANN. And this was totally ignored by Westlake. It is a pity. A lot of money for nothing. The money would have been better invested into enabling RALOs to do work on the gorund: Workshops, studies, outreach.
Wolfgang
________________________________
Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Dominik Filipp Gesendet: Di 24.06.2008 10:47 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Vittorio,
As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack of basic understanding of what At-Large actually is and what its status should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt to stay servile to BoD in order to have gotten their proposal passed.
I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered currently. That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I see no any problem with it.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want
to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings
Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive mode.
If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report.
Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and productive.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-li s ts.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-li sts.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-li sts.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-li sts.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allemd http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i... Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Hello, An update on the below. We did have a noon-time brainstorming meeting to discuss a Euralo response to the draft review, and we put down some ideas with the intent that these could later be elaborated and edited into a presentable document. However, input statements were solicited at the outset of the public forum a few hours later, before we were able to do an editing meeting. Frankly, this was ok, since it anyway would be much better to send a well crafted response reflecting consensus among Euralo members who've read through the entire report, rather than a quickie statement by just those who happened to be in Paris, few of whom had read more than the executive summary. So from here, I would suggest that people read the full draft ALAC Review at http://www.icann.org/reviews/alac/alac-independent-review-final-draft-13jun0... and share any thoughts on the list that they propose be incorporated into a response, which presumably should be sent reasonably quickly. Wolf, et al, if you have any suggestions on timing, process management. etc please chime in. Best, Bill On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> wrote:
Hi Dominik,
we were all busy in various meetings (ALAC, GNSO, with Board, GAC etc.) yesterday and today. Today before lunch, the EURALO folks met to discuss and draft a EURALO statement on the ALAC Review. Bill will do the final editing and post it to the list afterwards for further comments.
Heading for another meeting...
Best regards, Wolf
Dominik Filipp wrote Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:35:
Hi All in Paris,
Could someone from EURALO be contributing from time to time to the list as to what actually is happening in Paris? Or at least some short minutes, if possible.
Thanks
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:46 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
I fully support Dominik,
Westlake does not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN context and in the broader context of Internet Governacne, which includes developments in WSIS, WGIG, IGF and recently in OECD. There is a need for a more strategically and politically oriented review and not for a review of how the management works and the day to day basis. The management issue is at this stage secondary in particular if you take into consideration that the MoUs with RALOs has just signed and there is no real data available and no best pratices has emerged so far how the various new established bodies work. Here it needs some time to come to real conclusions and then a review makes sense.
The challenge at this moment would have been to define the role of ALAC in the more overall IG and DNS/IP policy development and decision making in ICANN. And this was totally ignored by Westlake. It is a pity. A lot of money for nothing. The money would have been better invested into enabling RALOs to do work on the gorund: Workshops, studies, outreach.
Wolfgang
________________________________
Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Dominik Filipp Gesendet: Di 24.06.2008 10:47 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Vittorio,
As I see it, the Westlake's review has failed in recognizing and identifying the crucial point of the At-Large reform, which is the actual voting power represented on the BoD. The consequences of this flawed position are then interspersed in some other places in the document, e.g. the NomComm appointees within the ALAC and keeping the status quo in this. The document in fact prefers a subordinate At-Large position within ICANN, which, in my opinion, is a demonstration of lack of basic understanding of what At-Large actually is and what its status should be like. Or, in a worse case, an attempt to stay servile to BoD in order to have gotten their proposal passed.
I do not think that a document keeping the status quo in such important points can ever be considered reformatory in any way, as should be logically expected from the At-Large reform concept being considered currently. That is why a new document should be drafted and, yes, some or more useful ideas/proposals/views can be taken from the Westlake's review. I see no any problem with it.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
All,
Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want
to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings
Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; it sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, we're ready to conclude that it is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive mode.
If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't fly very well, and won't get them to change their report.
Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and productive.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net
Digitale Allemd http://blog.allmend.ch -
EURALO https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- *********************************************************** William J. Drake Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch http://tinyurl.com/38dcxf ***********************************************************
William Drake ha scritto:
Hello,
An update on the below. We did have a noon-time brainstorming meeting to discuss a Euralo response to the draft review, and we put down some ideas with the intent that these could later be elaborated and edited into a presentable document. However, input statements were solicited at the outset of the public forum a few hours later, before we were able to do an editing meeting. Frankly, this was ok, since it anyway would be much better to send a well crafted response reflecting consensus among Euralo members who've read through the entire report, rather than a quickie statement by just those who happened to be in Paris, few of whom had read more than the executive summary.
So from here, I would suggest that people read the full draft ALAC Review at http://www.icann.org/reviews/alac/alac-independent-review-final-draft-13jun0... and share any thoughts on the list that they propose be incorporated into a response, which presumably should be sent reasonably quickly. Wolf, et al, if you have any suggestions on timing, process management. etc please chime in.
Nonetheless, it would be good to use the list of points that we produced during the meeting - it seemed to be a good starting point. Perhaps whoever has it could post it to the list? Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Hi Bill and Vittorio,
William Drake ha scritto:
So from here, I would suggest that people read the full draft ALAC Review at http://www.icann.org/reviews/alac/alac-independent-review-final-draft-13jun0... and share any thoughts on the list that they propose be incorporated into a response, which presumably should be sent reasonably quickly. Wolf, et al, if you have any suggestions on timing, process management. etc please chime in.
Vittorio Bertola wrote Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:49: Nonetheless, it would be good to use the list of points that we produced during the meeting - it seemed to be a good starting point. Perhaps whoever has it could post it to the list? Thanks,
I agree with Vittorio that it would be much easier - especially for those who haven't been in Paris - to have some starting points already (otherwise it would habe been rather useless to sit together in Paris for almost two hours). We could use the "starting points" as a basis for further considerations and suggestions on the list. I suggest that afterwards we give about 10-14 days for discussion to come up with a consolidated and final EURALO Statement around 15 July. Thanks and regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allemd http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe
Hi, On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> wrote:
I agree with Vittorio that it would be much easier - especially for those who haven't been in Paris - to have some starting points already (otherwise it would habe been rather useless to sit together in Paris for almost two hours). We could use the "starting points" as a basis for further considerations and suggestions on the list.
Ok then, by popular demand, below are the notes I received on the initial discussion. I've left them in their raw state---there are some general cross-cutting points about overall thrust and balance and the target audience (believe we settled on the board wg) followed by issue-specific points grouped under the section headings of the draft summary report. Perhaps as a first step people could read the full draft report and then provide any comments using these headings for easy identification. After everything's on the table a few of us could form a drafting group to massage the inputs into an integrated text. I'll volunteer to be part of that group.
I suggest that afterwards we give about 10-14 days for discussion to come up with a consolidated and final EURALO Statement around 15 July.
Some time is needed between discussion/inputs and production of a statement, so unless there's some urgency relating to the board wg/Westlake production schedule I'd suggest we think in terms of the week of the 21st for the latter. If others will be in Meissen for Wolfgang's Internet governance summer school, we could even finalize in person. And of course the resulting text should be cleared through list before sending it off. In any event, since this will be Euralo's first substantive output we should ensure we get the process right and help set a foundation for future work. Cheers, Bill ------------ Express concerns: Staff – several layers of indirectness Budget independence Positive, points we agree with What should have been looked at Giving some recommendations Individual memberships Participation of users Voting rights on supporting organizations (gnso) and board… Surprise about statements the range is not wide – ahistorical… Who to address: The Westlake group? The Board? Process: Conflict of interests the very staff who is responsible You did not examine the role of staff: The procedure of the selection of the reviewer was not transparent. Although the review was mandated by the bylaws, the date of reviewing was unlucky because it reviewed the interim alac. 1. The way the contract was done. 2. Allocation in management of the contract 3. Timing of the report (mandated by bylaws) 4. Relationship to staff – dependency conflict of interests 5. Not everyone has been interviewed 6. Skope: Terms of reference Assessment of key factors affecting alac s effectiveness: Staff, History, individual membership Constitutional question of role of alac At-Large structure participation Democratizing icann Budget Focus on the committee itself The skope is weak in terms analyzing of the relationship of the committee board and constituent membership at-large Promote web Did they not get it by accident or did they not get it because they were instructed to not get it. Introduction: Procedural points: History of the ALAC starts in 1999. That means you cannot look at the ALAC without looking at the At-Large. Purpose of alac The good part of the review is they mention – accountability of icann Give representation of the users in icann Terms of reference… Structural options: The range of options considered where at some place excentric, and other options promoting the bottom up involvement of users (which make more sense were not mentioned.) They should be transparent about the options chosen from the data they collected. As it is clear that other options have been mentioned. Geography: Positive, that they looked at the population and to find a way of good user´s representation. It would be adv Problem of pure numeric representation should be mentioned. Different cultures, languages, political structures. A very non-scientific approach. Methodologically unsophisticated. Resolution premature, and it would be best to take that issue up in icanns larger regional represantation. No reference had been made to former studies on geographic regional representation (sub-organisations). Future developments of growing number of ALSes were not taken into account. ALAC influence: Ok Board liaison: Voting: We find that the logic is amusing/ flawed. If having a vote hampers consensus building on the board than all of the stakeholders should… All board members should be treated equally A vote on the board While we understand the concern that giving a vote to a committee that might change its status of the ALAC this will not change the procedure of consensus building. The gac was offered voting rights, they did not want. (Later: maybe a clear statement: We would like to have it.) The quote: "`to act in what [directors] reasonably believe ar the best interests of ICANN and not as….`" Secondly we find the conclusion that giving alac a vote would dilute rather than increase its influence because of the duty to serve the interest of Icann Is based on a false dichotomy. Alac members are fully invested in ICANN's mission and tasks. There is no contradiction between serving ICANN's interests and representing At Large interests. We support the suggestion to allocate staff support on a regional basis. The effectiveness of staff support is more depend on quality than quantity. In addition, we have further observations. 1. The consultant should review the processes of appointing staff for ALAC and RALOs to see whether those processes are in line with the goal to create a supporting structure for ALAC and REALOS. 2. The consultant should look into the matter of budget allocation and particularly review the procedure of decision making to allocate the budget and investigate whether those structures allows ALAC and RALOs to fulfill their function. Due to the late delivery of the report, there was no time to consult with all of our members. For this reason, we reserve the right to prepare further statements in the next few days.
Thanks for posting the notes, Bill, but is that really the latest version? I thought that you had reworked the text to make it more coherent? The below, I think, is hard to understand for people who were not present at the meeting. A point that I would like to reiterate in terms of our approach to the review is that I think it would be important to distinguish between content (are they suggesting what we would like them to suggest?) and methodology (does their review make sense, and do they arrive at their conclusions in a logical manner?). I think our criticism is most credible when concerned with the latter. As for the former, I think we need to discuss whether we would like to reiterate our suggestions, but in any case they should be clearly set apart from our methodological critique. Heike ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Drake" <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Discussion for At-Large Europe" <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review Hi, On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> wrote:
I agree with Vittorio that it would be much easier - especially for those who haven't been in Paris - to have some starting points already (otherwise it would habe been rather useless to sit together in Paris for almost two hours). We could use the "starting points" as a basis for further considerations and suggestions on the list.
Ok then, by popular demand, below are the notes I received on the initial discussion. I've left them in their raw state---there are some general cross-cutting points about overall thrust and balance and the target audience (believe we settled on the board wg) followed by issue-specific points grouped under the section headings of the draft summary report. Perhaps as a first step people could read the full draft report and then provide any comments using these headings for easy identification. After everything's on the table a few of us could form a drafting group to massage the inputs into an integrated text. I'll volunteer to be part of that group.
I suggest that afterwards we give about 10-14 days for discussion to come up with a consolidated and final EURALO Statement around 15 July.
Some time is needed between discussion/inputs and production of a statement, so unless there's some urgency relating to the board wg/Westlake production schedule I'd suggest we think in terms of the week of the 21st for the latter. If others will be in Meissen for Wolfgang's Internet governance summer school, we could even finalize in person. And of course the resulting text should be cleared through list before sending it off. In any event, since this will be Euralo's first substantive output we should ensure we get the process right and help set a foundation for future work. Cheers, Bill ------------ Express concerns: Staff – several layers of indirectness Budget independence Positive, points we agree with What should have been looked at Giving some recommendations Individual memberships Participation of users Voting rights on supporting organizations (gnso) and board… Surprise about statements the range is not wide – ahistorical… Who to address: The Westlake group? The Board? Process: Conflict of interests the very staff who is responsible You did not examine the role of staff: The procedure of the selection of the reviewer was not transparent. Although the review was mandated by the bylaws, the date of reviewing was unlucky because it reviewed the interim alac. 1. The way the contract was done. 2. Allocation in management of the contract 3. Timing of the report (mandated by bylaws) 4. Relationship to staff – dependency conflict of interests 5. Not everyone has been interviewed 6. Skope: Terms of reference Assessment of key factors affecting alac s effectiveness: Staff, History, individual membership Constitutional question of role of alac At-Large structure participation Democratizing icann Budget Focus on the committee itself The skope is weak in terms analyzing of the relationship of the committee board and constituent membership at-large Promote web Did they not get it by accident or did they not get it because they were instructed to not get it. Introduction: Procedural points: History of the ALAC starts in 1999. That means you cannot look at the ALAC without looking at the At-Large. Purpose of alac The good part of the review is they mention – accountability of icann Give representation of the users in icann Terms of reference… Structural options: The range of options considered where at some place excentric, and other options promoting the bottom up involvement of users (which make more sense were not mentioned.) They should be transparent about the options chosen from the data they collected. As it is clear that other options have been mentioned. Geography: Positive, that they looked at the population and to find a way of good user´s representation. It would be adv Problem of pure numeric representation should be mentioned. Different cultures, languages, political structures. A very non-scientific approach. Methodologically unsophisticated. Resolution premature, and it would be best to take that issue up in icanns larger regional represantation. No reference had been made to former studies on geographic regional representation (sub-organisations). Future developments of growing number of ALSes were not taken into account. ALAC influence: Ok Board liaison: Voting: We find that the logic is amusing/ flawed. If having a vote hampers consensus building on the board than all of the stakeholders should… All board members should be treated equally A vote on the board While we understand the concern that giving a vote to a committee that might change its status of the ALAC this will not change the procedure of consensus building. The gac was offered voting rights, they did not want. (Later: maybe a clear statement: We would like to have it.) The quote: "`to act in what [directors] reasonably believe ar the best interests of ICANN and not as….`" Secondly we find the conclusion that giving alac a vote would dilute rather than increase its influence because of the duty to serve the interest of Icann Is based on a false dichotomy. Alac members are fully invested in ICANN's mission and tasks. There is no contradiction between serving ICANN's interests and representing At Large interests. We support the suggestion to allocate staff support on a regional basis. The effectiveness of staff support is more depend on quality than quantity. In addition, we have further observations. 1. The consultant should review the processes of appointing staff for ALAC and RALOs to see whether those processes are in line with the goal to create a supporting structure for ALAC and REALOS. 2. The consultant should look into the matter of budget allocation and particularly review the procedure of decision making to allocate the budget and investigate whether those structures allows ALAC and RALOs to fulfill their function. Due to the late delivery of the report, there was no time to consult with all of our members. For this reason, we reserve the right to prepare further statements in the next few days. _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i... Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Hi Heike, On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Heike Jensen <dr.heike.jensen@web.de> wrote:
Thanks for posting the notes, Bill, but is that really the latest version? I thought that you had reworked the text to make it more coherent? The below,
Per previous, we were going to meet at 16:30 to do this when people got out of other appointments but as it turned out comments had been invited just at the outset of the public forum that commenced 16:00 so there was no longer any point to a rushed drafting meeting and statement. Given that nobody had actually read the full draft report, this wasn't a bad outcome in my view.
I think, is hard to understand for people who were not present at the meeting.
Which is why I didn't send it originally, but then Wolf and Vittorio asked that it be sent.
A point that I would like to reiterate in terms of our approach to the review is that I think it would be important to distinguish between content (are they suggesting what we would like them to suggest?) and methodology (does their review make sense, and do they arrive at their conclusions in a logical manner?). I think our criticism is most credible when concerned with the latter. As for the former, I think we need to discuss whether we would like to reiterate our suggestions, but in any case they should be clearly set apart from our methodological critique.
I'm all for being clear, good to keep this in mind. On the other hand, sometimes the binary breaks down, e.g. the reasoning in the board liaison bit is contorted and the recommendation is problematic in consequence, etc. Cheers, Bill
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Drake" <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Discussion for At-Large Europe" <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> wrote:
I agree with Vittorio that it would be much easier - especially for those who haven't been in Paris - to have some starting points already (otherwise it would habe been rather useless to sit together in Paris for almost two hours). We could use the "starting points" as a basis for further considerations and suggestions on the list.
Ok then, by popular demand, below are the notes I received on the initial discussion. I've left them in their raw state---there are some general cross-cutting points about overall thrust and balance and the target audience (believe we settled on the board wg) followed by issue-specific points grouped under the section headings of the draft summary report. Perhaps as a first step people could read the full draft report and then provide any comments using these headings for easy identification. After everything's on the table a few of us could form a drafting group to massage the inputs into an integrated text. I'll volunteer to be part of that group.
I suggest that afterwards we give about 10-14 days for discussion to come up with a consolidated and final EURALO Statement around 15 July.
Some time is needed between discussion/inputs and production of a statement, so unless there's some urgency relating to the board wg/Westlake production schedule I'd suggest we think in terms of the week of the 21st for the latter. If others will be in Meissen for Wolfgang's Internet governance summer school, we could even finalize in person. And of course the resulting text should be cleared through list before sending it off. In any event, since this will be Euralo's first substantive output we should ensure we get the process right and help set a foundation for future work.
Cheers,
Bill
------------
Express concerns: Staff – several layers of indirectness Budget independence Positive, points we agree with What should have been looked at Giving some recommendations Individual memberships Participation of users Voting rights on supporting organizations (gnso) and board… Surprise about statements the range is not wide – ahistorical…
Who to address: The Westlake group? The Board?
Process: Conflict of interests the very staff who is responsible
You did not examine the role of staff:
The procedure of the selection of the reviewer was not transparent.
Although the review was mandated by the bylaws, the date of reviewing was unlucky because it reviewed the interim alac.
1. The way the contract was done. 2. Allocation in management of the contract 3. Timing of the report (mandated by bylaws) 4. Relationship to staff – dependency conflict of interests 5. Not everyone has been interviewed 6. Skope: Terms of reference
Assessment of key factors affecting alac s effectiveness: Staff, History, individual membership Constitutional question of role of alac At-Large structure participation Democratizing icann Budget Focus on the committee itself The skope is weak in terms analyzing of the relationship of the committee board and constituent membership at-large
Promote web Did they not get it by accident or did they not get it because they were instructed to not get it.
Introduction: Procedural points:
History of the ALAC starts in 1999. That means you cannot look at the ALAC without looking at the At-Large.
Purpose of alac The good part of the review is they mention – accountability of icann Give representation of the users in icann Terms of reference…
Structural options: The range of options considered where at some place excentric, and other options promoting the bottom up involvement of users (which make more sense were not mentioned.) They should be transparent about the options chosen from the data they collected. As it is clear that other options have been mentioned.
Geography: Positive, that they looked at the population and to find a way of good user´s representation. It would be adv Problem of pure numeric representation should be mentioned. Different cultures, languages, political structures. A very non-scientific approach. Methodologically unsophisticated. Resolution premature, and it would be best to take that issue up in icanns larger regional represantation. No reference had been made to former studies on geographic regional representation (sub-organisations).
Future developments of growing number of ALSes were not taken into account.
ALAC influence: Ok
Board liaison: Voting: We find that the logic is amusing/ flawed. If having a vote hampers consensus building on the board than all of the stakeholders should… All board members should be treated equally A vote on the board While we understand the concern that giving a vote to a committee that might change its status of the ALAC this will not change the procedure of consensus building. The gac was offered voting rights, they did not want. (Later: maybe a clear statement: We would like to have it.)
The quote: "`to act in what [directors] reasonably believe ar the best interests of ICANN and not as….`"
Secondly we find the conclusion that giving alac a vote would dilute rather than increase its influence because of the duty to serve the interest of Icann Is based on a false dichotomy. Alac members are fully invested in ICANN's mission and tasks. There is no contradiction between serving ICANN's interests and representing At Large interests. We support the suggestion to allocate staff support on a regional basis. The effectiveness of staff support is more depend on quality than quantity. In addition, we have further observations. 1. The consultant should review the processes of appointing staff for ALAC and RALOs to see whether those processes are in line with the goal to create a supporting structure for ALAC and REALOS. 2. The consultant should look into the matter of budget allocation and particularly review the procedure of decision making to allocate the budget and investigate whether those structures allows ALAC and RALOs to fulfill their function.
Due to the late delivery of the report, there was no time to consult with all of our members. For this reason, we reserve the right to prepare further statements in the next few days.
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- *********************************************************** William J. Drake Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch http://tinyurl.com/38dcxf ***********************************************************
participants (10)
-
Annette Muehlberg -
Dominik Filipp -
Heike Jensen -
JFC Morfin -
Kleinwächter, Wolfgang -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Roberto Gaetano -
Vittorio Bertola -
William Drake -
Wolf Ludwig