A few comments. Comments on the statements/consultation I do appreciate the exhaustive report by Olivier, but I have the impression that we all are not contributing enough to the development of these statements. Can we make an effort and comment on the consultations that are currently open? Participation of ALSes Would it help to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes? Oksana already indicated that she would contact a couple of organizations, maybe we can all help in this direction. I think that I have heard at some point in time the name of Vittorio. I can check with him if the absence is due to a contingent situation or a loss of interest by ISOC Italy. We can all make a few calls or emails, it would be good to use the GA as a chance to give new life to our RALO. Participation of individuals (Disclaimer: I am an individual that does not belong to an ALS, so I may be in conflict of interest) I agree that to have one ALS for all loose individuals is a suboptimal solution. However, can we start from here and secure at least this result? We can move forward when we have this operational. I have always supported the importance of participation and ability to speak over ability to vote. Some other folks disagree. However, while we continue disagreeing on the need to revise the voting mechanism, can we agree on going forward with the "generic ALS" proposal that is on the table? Travel to Lisbon and invitation of guest speakers Following up to the discussion on the chat about Olivier participating to the EURALO GA, while I could share the astonishment of Oksana about the ALAC Chair not been funded for the trip, I have to admit that the rules are fairly clear: only delegates from the ALSes will be funded. This is connected to the participation of guest speakers: this requires additional funding. The problem arises exclusively from the fact that we chose to have the GA as a separate venue from an ICANN meeting. We discussed this in the past, I am not criticizing the choice of privileging an event that would give us more possibility of outreach like EuroDIG, I am only noting that this advantage has also a drawback. On one hand we can contact people that would not participate to an ICANN meeting, and do outreach. On the other hand, we have difficulties (or additional costs) for having people that would have been available without problems at an ICANN meeting. Incidentally, as I commented on the chat, Francisco da Silva, TLG Liaison to the ICANN Board, is based in Lisbon. Besides having another Board member as keynote speaker, we could invite Francisco as well, at zero cost, and maybe dedicate some time of our AGM to the communication between ALAC and the technical community, of which the TLG is a component. ICANN Regions The main reason why ICANN has regions is for Board elections. And the ICANN Board will never use an arbitrary designation of regions, to avoid problems. So, it will stick as much as possible with the UN Statistics definition, with minor adjustments only in the case of some powerful voice yelling loud. If this happens, we find ourselves with things like some Pacific Islands being in Europe. This said, other components of the ICANN community have some flexibility. In the chat we discussed the status of Armenia. Well, if you go to the site of the Armenian NIC (https://www.amnic.net/) you see that it is a member of RIPE (as Armenian addressing organization) and a member of CENTR (as Armenian TLD). Why cannot ALAC have the same flexibility in the allocation of an ALS to a RALO? This is a fight worth fighting, IMHO. Of course, there are limitations. If you look carefully at the ccNSO and ASO, you discover that the composition of the Councils and the election of the ICANN Board members do indeed respect rigorously the geographical distribution. Moreover, the ccNSO site shows the national ccTLD members as belonging to the ICANN Region (see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/members.htm), even if then they have the flexibility to join a regional organization that is not the one to which they belong geographically. I have always insisted on the fact that we have great potential for outreach and collaboration with ccTLDs: the regional organization is one example where this communication can be extremely useful. As a side note, I will most probably be in the Caucasus area around the second half of May, I will be ready to spend some time in visiting the ALSes and ccTLDs in the region. I believe we have an ALS in Armenia and one in Azerbaijan, but none in Georgia. Cheers, Roberto
Dear Roberto, thanks a lot for your spontaneous comments on our today's telconf. what is much appreciated. Please allow me to insert my remarks in your text below. Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:21:
A few comments.
Comments on the statements/consultation
I do appreciate the exhaustive report by Olivier, but I have the impression that we all are not contributing enough to the development of these statements.
Can we make an effort and comment on the consultations that are currently open?
(WL) Yes, you are right. it would be wishful and helpful for ALAC, if there would be more inputs from our ALSes (or ALSes in general) to current ICANN issues and ALAC consultations. This was - and still is - the basic idea behind the RALO and regional bottom-up structure to get ideas and advice from the representatives of the much-cited "end user". But to me, it was somehow clear from the beginning that good or even best ideas won't work the next day or in a short term. IMO, this is an empowering process (like in democratic societies) where people need encouragements, more than formal opportunities, enabling factors and environments to make use of their rights ... After five years at EURALO I have learned that this is a reciprocal process where both sides (let's say ICANN at the top, ALSes at the bottom line) have to match promises and expectations. And both is learning and work in process.
Participation of ALSes
Would it help to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes?
Oksana already indicated that she would contact a couple of organizations, maybe we can all help in this direction.
I think that I have heard at some point in time the name of Vittorio. I can check with him if the absence is due to a contingent situation or a loss of interest by ISOC Italy.
We can all make a few calls or emails, it would be good to use the GA as a chance to give new life to our RALO.
(WL) For reasons of politeness and discretion, I prefer not "to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes" via this list but to contact these people directly. In my 2nd GA reminder by the end of month these members who have not responded to repeated invitations may be listed. And YES, for the Lisbon F2F GA mobilization all of us are needed and can be supportive! If you have a direct contact to one of our ALS reps., please contact them directly (in the case of ISOC Italy perhaps Sébastien and you -- Make assurance double sure). And you are right, the next GA is a great chance "to give new life to our RALO"!
Participation of individuals
(Disclaimer: I am an individual that does not belong to an ALS, so I may be in conflict of interest)
I agree that to have one ALS for all loose individuals is a suboptimal solution. However, can we start from here and secure at least this result? We can move forward when we have this operational.
I have always supported the importance of participation and ability to speak over ability to vote. Some other folks disagree. However, while we continue disagreeing on the need to revise the voting mechanism, can we agree on going forward with the "generic ALS" proposal that is on the table?
(WL) As discussed tonight (there was an amazing exchange in the AC chat!), the current solution via the creation of a "home ALS" for floating individuals is "suboptimal" and won't be the end of discussion but just a next pragmatic step to improve EURALO's involvement and participation of individuals. Therefore, please move forward into this direction! And let's discuss improved options at the Lisbon GA. What I simply would like to avoid is the pre-EURALO hardcore dispute on *procedures* (2006-07) than on *substance and content* -- I guess, this may ring a bell to you ;-) But I think it's not so much about "ability to vote" and more about *equal opportunities* for people contributing on a regular and reliable level (either formal ALS reps or individuals).
Travel to Lisbon and invitation of guest speakers
Following up to the discussion on the chat about Olivier participating to the EURALO GA, while I could share the astonishment of Oksana about the ALAC Chair not been funded for the trip, I have to admit that the rules are fairly clear: only delegates from the ALSes will be funded. This is connected to the participation of guest speakers: this requires additional funding.
(WL) I always said, Olivier's participation as ALAC Chair at our GA is *indispensable" and I thought this question was solved tonight (as I am funded for Lisbon by EuroDIG, I offered "my" travel slot to Olivier to ensure his participation). Whether such funding rules could be improved is another question but can't be changed until next summer for sure.
The problem arises exclusively from the fact that we chose to have the GA as a separate venue from an ICANN meeting. We discussed this in the past, I am not criticizing the choice of privileging an event that would give us more possibility of outreach like EuroDIG, I am only noting that this advantage has also a drawback. On one hand we can contact people that would not participate to an ICANN meeting, and do outreach. On the other hand, we have difficulties (or additional costs) for having people that would have been available without problems at an ICANN meeting.
(WL) Well, this is the same old story again (what I think I have noted before already): After we always and repeatedly applied for F2F GAs in line with ICANN meetings in Europe (Brussels in 2010, Prague in 2012) and our proposals were not approved by ICANN, we decided to organize our (unfunded) GAs in line with other major IG events in Europe -- such as the global IGF 2010 in Vilnius, EuroDIG 2011 in Belgrade and 2012 in Stockholm. What was a sort of "stopgap" at the beginning showed some advantages for EURALO's outreach over these years -- enhanced by the fact that EURALO became a key driver for the EuroDIG process. I agree, both options (ICANN or EuroDIG) have advantages and disadvantages (to be further discussed).
Incidentally, as I commented on the chat, Francisco da Silva, TLG Liaison to the ICANN Board, is based in Lisbon. Besides having another Board member as keynote speaker, we could invite Francisco as well, at zero cost, and maybe dedicate some time of our AGM to the communication between ALAC and the technical community, of which the TLG is a component.
(WL) I am much in favor of inviting a "guest speaker" to our GA (Sébastien wouldn't be a guest at EURALO but a founding member ;-) and let's reflect about and suggest wishful candidates. But what I really would like to avoid is a "row of eminences" (like at other RALO GAs in the past) or the usual "show cases" where NO space and time is left for our own community discussions and interaction -- what is a top priority to me at the moment!
ICANN Regions
The main reason why ICANN has regions is for Board elections. And the ICANN Board will never use an arbitrary designation of regions, to avoid problems. So, it will stick as much as possible with the UN Statistics definition, with minor adjustments only in the case of some powerful voice yelling loud. If this happens, we find ourselves with things like some Pacific Islands being in Europe.
This said, other components of the ICANN community have some flexibility. In the chat we discussed the status of Armenia. Well, if you go to the site of the Armenian NIC (https://www.amnic.net/) you see that it is a member of RIPE (as Armenian addressing organization) and a member of CENTR (as Armenian TLD). Why cannot ALAC have the same flexibility in the allocation of an ALS to a RALO? This is a fight worth fighting, IMHO.
Of course, there are limitations. If you look carefully at the ccNSO and ASO, you discover that the composition of the Councils and the election of the ICANN Board members do indeed respect rigorously the geographical distribution. Moreover, the ccNSO site shows the national ccTLD members as belonging to the ICANN Region (see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/members.htm), even if then they have the flexibility to join a regional organization that is not the one to which they belong geographically.
I have always insisted on the fact that we have great potential for outreach and collaboration with ccTLDs: the regional organization is one example where this communication can be extremely useful.
(WL) The rubbery and unrewarding discussion on ICANN's regional model is always reaffirming where the model comes from and why it's stupid and inflexible as it is ... and when nothing changes, it's getting boring. In fact, we drafted a EURALO statement on the regions (what was in vain again -- see attachment) where we highlighted other European perceptions (like CoE and other models) and special cases like Armenia etc. IMO, it would bring NO harm to the ICANN model to provide a certain flexibility for special cases to choose and decide about their regional affiliation ...
As a side note, I will most probably be in the Caucasus area around the second half of May, I will be ready to spend some time in visiting the ALSes and ccTLDs in the region. I believe we have an ALS in Armenia and one in Azerbaijan, but none in Georgia.
(WL) Your support is always welcome, Roberto! Thanks again and kind regards, Wolf EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Thanks Wolf & Roberto for the very inspiring Q&A. Good questions, good answers. It is - as Bill Clinton has said - stumbling forward and EURALO us still struggling with the structural and procedural problems which were created in the 2002 reform and its follow up. My experiences tell me that to create a "sporot" of a group like EURALO you have to have regular F2F meetings and an agenda with issues (research papers, conferences, actions) and clear specified responsibilities. And I agree with Wolf: Some of the issue and problems are linked to the simple fact, that without funding it is difficult to build bottom up an organisation of volunteers and to form such a "EUERALO spirit" among all members. My hope is that Losbion will move us one step foreward and thatz ICANN will recognoze that it makes sense to give EURALO a regular budget to organoze an annual emeting either in connection with the annual EURODIG or an ICANN meeting if the regular ICANN meeting is held in Europe (this would be for 2014 eiother Berlin/EURODIG or London). wolfgang ________________________________ Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Wolf Ludwig Gesendet: Mi 23.01.2013 02:30 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Follow up on today's teleconference Dear Roberto, thanks a lot for your spontaneous comments on our today's telconf. what is much appreciated. Please allow me to insert my remarks in your text below. Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:21:
A few comments.
Comments on the statements/consultation
I do appreciate the exhaustive report by Olivier, but I have the impression that we all are not contributing enough to the development of these statements.
Can we make an effort and comment on the consultations that are currently open?
(WL) Yes, you are right. it would be wishful and helpful for ALAC, if there would be more inputs from our ALSes (or ALSes in general) to current ICANN issues and ALAC consultations. This was - and still is - the basic idea behind the RALO and regional bottom-up structure to get ideas and advice from the representatives of the much-cited "end user". But to me, it was somehow clear from the beginning that good or even best ideas won't work the next day or in a short term. IMO, this is an empowering process (like in democratic societies) where people need encouragements, more than formal opportunities, enabling factors and environments to make use of their rights ... After five years at EURALO I have learned that this is a reciprocal process where both sides (let's say ICANN at the top, ALSes at the bottom line) have to match promises and expectations. And both is learning and work in process.
Participation of ALSes
Would it help to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes?
Oksana already indicated that she would contact a couple of organizations, maybe we can all help in this direction.
I think that I have heard at some point in time the name of Vittorio. I can check with him if the absence is due to a contingent situation or a loss of interest by ISOC Italy.
We can all make a few calls or emails, it would be good to use the GA as a chance to give new life to our RALO.
(WL) For reasons of politeness and discretion, I prefer not "to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes" via this list but to contact these people directly. In my 2nd GA reminder by the end of month these members who have not responded to repeated invitations may be listed. And YES, for the Lisbon F2F GA mobilization all of us are needed and can be supportive! If you have a direct contact to one of our ALS reps., please contact them directly (in the case of ISOC Italy perhaps Sébastien and you -- Make assurance double sure). And you are right, the next GA is a great chance "to give new life to our RALO"!
Participation of individuals
(Disclaimer: I am an individual that does not belong to an ALS, so I may be in conflict of interest)
I agree that to have one ALS for all loose individuals is a suboptimal solution. However, can we start from here and secure at least this result? We can move forward when we have this operational.
I have always supported the importance of participation and ability to speak over ability to vote. Some other folks disagree. However, while we continue disagreeing on the need to revise the voting mechanism, can we agree on going forward with the "generic ALS" proposal that is on the table?
(WL) As discussed tonight (there was an amazing exchange in the AC chat!), the current solution via the creation of a "home ALS" for floating individuals is "suboptimal" and won't be the end of discussion but just a next pragmatic step to improve EURALO's involvement and participation of individuals. Therefore, please move forward into this direction! And let's discuss improved options at the Lisbon GA. What I simply would like to avoid is the pre-EURALO hardcore dispute on *procedures* (2006-07) than on *substance and content* -- I guess, this may ring a bell to you ;-) But I think it's not so much about "ability to vote" and more about *equal opportunities* for people contributing on a regular and reliable level (either formal ALS reps or individuals).
Travel to Lisbon and invitation of guest speakers
Following up to the discussion on the chat about Olivier participating to the EURALO GA, while I could share the astonishment of Oksana about the ALAC Chair not been funded for the trip, I have to admit that the rules are fairly clear: only delegates from the ALSes will be funded. This is connected to the participation of guest speakers: this requires additional funding.
(WL) I always said, Olivier's participation as ALAC Chair at our GA is *indispensable" and I thought this question was solved tonight (as I am funded for Lisbon by EuroDIG, I offered "my" travel slot to Olivier to ensure his participation). Whether such funding rules could be improved is another question but can't be changed until next summer for sure.
The problem arises exclusively from the fact that we chose to have the GA as a separate venue from an ICANN meeting. We discussed this in the past, I am not criticizing the choice of privileging an event that would give us more possibility of outreach like EuroDIG, I am only noting that this advantage has also a drawback. On one hand we can contact people that would not participate to an ICANN meeting, and do outreach. On the other hand, we have difficulties (or additional costs) for having people that would have been available without problems at an ICANN meeting.
(WL) Well, this is the same old story again (what I think I have noted before already): After we always and repeatedly applied for F2F GAs in line with ICANN meetings in Europe (Brussels in 2010, Prague in 2012) and our proposals were not approved by ICANN, we decided to organize our (unfunded) GAs in line with other major IG events in Europe -- such as the global IGF 2010 in Vilnius, EuroDIG 2011 in Belgrade and 2012 in Stockholm. What was a sort of "stopgap" at the beginning showed some advantages for EURALO's outreach over these years -- enhanced by the fact that EURALO became a key driver for the EuroDIG process. I agree, both options (ICANN or EuroDIG) have advantages and disadvantages (to be further discussed).
Incidentally, as I commented on the chat, Francisco da Silva, TLG Liaison to the ICANN Board, is based in Lisbon. Besides having another Board member as keynote speaker, we could invite Francisco as well, at zero cost, and maybe dedicate some time of our AGM to the communication between ALAC and the technical community, of which the TLG is a component.
(WL) I am much in favor of inviting a "guest speaker" to our GA (Sébastien wouldn't be a guest at EURALO but a founding member ;-) and let's reflect about and suggest wishful candidates. But what I really would like to avoid is a "row of eminences" (like at other RALO GAs in the past) or the usual "show cases" where NO space and time is left for our own community discussions and interaction -- what is a top priority to me at the moment!
ICANN Regions
The main reason why ICANN has regions is for Board elections. And the ICANN Board will never use an arbitrary designation of regions, to avoid problems. So, it will stick as much as possible with the UN Statistics definition, with minor adjustments only in the case of some powerful voice yelling loud. If this happens, we find ourselves with things like some Pacific Islands being in Europe.
This said, other components of the ICANN community have some flexibility. In the chat we discussed the status of Armenia. Well, if you go to the site of the Armenian NIC (https://www.amnic.net/) you see that it is a member of RIPE (as Armenian addressing organization) and a member of CENTR (as Armenian TLD). Why cannot ALAC have the same flexibility in the allocation of an ALS to a RALO? This is a fight worth fighting, IMHO.
Of course, there are limitations. If you look carefully at the ccNSO and ASO, you discover that the composition of the Councils and the election of the ICANN Board members do indeed respect rigorously the geographical distribution. Moreover, the ccNSO site shows the national ccTLD members as belonging to the ICANN Region (see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/members.htm), even if then they have the flexibility to join a regional organization that is not the one to which they belong geographically.
I have always insisted on the fact that we have great potential for outreach and collaboration with ccTLDs: the regional organization is one example where this communication can be extremely useful.
(WL) The rubbery and unrewarding discussion on ICANN's regional model is always reaffirming where the model comes from and why it's stupid and inflexible as it is ... and when nothing changes, it's getting boring. In fact, we drafted a EURALO statement on the regions (what was in vain again -- see attachment) where we highlighted other European perceptions (like CoE and other models) and special cases like Armenia etc. IMO, it would bring NO harm to the ICANN model to provide a certain flexibility for special cases to choose and decide about their regional affiliation ...
As a side note, I will most probably be in the Caucasus area around the second half of May, I will be ready to spend some time in visiting the ALSes and ccTLDs in the region. I believe we have an ALS in Armenia and one in Azerbaijan, but none in Georgia.
(WL) Your support is always welcome, Roberto! Thanks again and kind regards, Wolf EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org <http://euralo.org/> Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Oh no, not again the structural and procedural problems! ;>) I believe that we only have to trim the details, going forward in the direction that we all agreed years ago, i.e. to be open to more participation. Your point on F2F meetings as being very important is extremely well taken. I believe that we have to make the maximum out of this event. Going in this direction, I observe that Lisbon is not Frankfurt. I mean by this that travelling might take quite some time. I did a quick check, the earlier flight combination (there's no direct one) from Vienna arrives at 13:15. And it is not the cheapest flight. To this you have to add the time to get to the meeting place. I checked another couple of possible origin points that I could guess would cause problems, and the result is, if I am not mistaken, that the earliest arrival from Kiev is at 14:35 and from Helsinki even at 15:25. None of those are direct flights, nor are the cheapest solutions. I would guess that other north or eastern European cities might have similar problems. So, it seems to me that we are squeezing the time for EURALO plenary discussion a bit thin: a large number of people will not be in the meeting room before 15:00, some arriving as late as 17:00. Considering that by having wider choices for airlines people might very well have less expensive flights, wouldn't it be better to spend more on hotels, allowing people to arrive in the evening of the 18th? Maybe staff could do a quick check on whether my quick estimate is right or wrong. If we do this, we can have a full day of meeting, and not just a couple of hours with moreover some folks with a reduced span of attention because they had to wake up very early to take a red-eye flight at 6:00 AM? It just seems not to make a lot of sense to me to invest a high amount of money if we do not have an adequate time for discussion. Cheers, Roberto -----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Inviato: mercoledì 23 gennaio 2013 17:09 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe; Discussion for At-Large Europe Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Follow up on today's teleconference Thanks Wolf & Roberto for the very inspiring Q&A. Good questions, good answers. It is - as Bill Clinton has said - stumbling forward and EURALO us still struggling with the structural and procedural problems which were created in the 2002 reform and its follow up. My experiences tell me that to create a "sporot" of a group like EURALO you have to have regular F2F meetings and an agenda with issues (research papers, conferences, actions) and clear specified responsibilities. And I agree with Wolf: Some of the issue and problems are linked to the simple fact, that without funding it is difficult to build bottom up an organisation of volunteers and to form such a "EUERALO spirit" among all members. My hope is that Losbion will move us one step foreward and thatz ICANN will recognoze that it makes sense to give EURALO a regular budget to organoze an annual emeting either in connection with the annual EURODIG or an ICANN meeting if the regular ICANN meeting is held in Europe (this would be for 2014 eiother Berlin/EURODIG or London). wolfgang ________________________________ Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Wolf Ludwig Gesendet: Mi 23.01.2013 02:30 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Follow up on today's teleconference Dear Roberto, thanks a lot for your spontaneous comments on our today's telconf. what is much appreciated. Please allow me to insert my remarks in your text below. Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:21:
A few comments.
Comments on the statements/consultation
I do appreciate the exhaustive report by Olivier, but I have the impression that we all are not contributing enough to the development of these statements.
Can we make an effort and comment on the consultations that are currently open?
(WL) Yes, you are right. it would be wishful and helpful for ALAC, if there would be more inputs from our ALSes (or ALSes in general) to current ICANN issues and ALAC consultations. This was - and still is - the basic idea behind the RALO and regional bottom-up structure to get ideas and advice from the representatives of the much-cited "end user". But to me, it was somehow clear from the beginning that good or even best ideas won't work the next day or in a short term. IMO, this is an empowering process (like in democratic societies) where people need encouragements, more than formal opportunities, enabling factors and environments to make use of their rights ... After five years at EURALO I have learned that this is a reciprocal process where both sides (let's say ICANN at the top, ALSes at the bottom line) have to match promises and expectations. And both is learning and work in process.
Participation of ALSes
Would it help to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes?
Oksana already indicated that she would contact a couple of organizations, maybe we can all help in this direction.
I think that I have heard at some point in time the name of Vittorio. I can check with him if the absence is due to a contingent situation or a loss of interest by ISOC Italy.
We can all make a few calls or emails, it would be good to use the GA as a chance to give new life to our RALO.
(WL) For reasons of politeness and discretion, I prefer not "to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes" via this list but to contact these people directly. In my 2nd GA reminder by the end of month these members who have not responded to repeated invitations may be listed. And YES, for the Lisbon F2F GA mobilization all of us are needed and can be supportive! If you have a direct contact to one of our ALS reps., please contact them directly (in the case of ISOC Italy perhaps Sébastien and you -- Make assurance double sure). And you are right, the next GA is a great chance "to give new life to our RALO"!
Participation of individuals
(Disclaimer: I am an individual that does not belong to an ALS, so I may be in conflict of interest)
I agree that to have one ALS for all loose individuals is a suboptimal solution. However, can we start from here and secure at least this result? We can move forward when we have this operational.
I have always supported the importance of participation and ability to speak over ability to vote. Some other folks disagree. However, while we continue disagreeing on the need to revise the voting mechanism, can we agree on going forward with the "generic ALS" proposal that is on the table?
(WL) As discussed tonight (there was an amazing exchange in the AC chat!), the current solution via the creation of a "home ALS" for floating individuals is "suboptimal" and won't be the end of discussion but just a next pragmatic step to improve EURALO's involvement and participation of individuals. Therefore, please move forward into this direction! And let's discuss improved options at the Lisbon GA. What I simply would like to avoid is the pre-EURALO hardcore dispute on *procedures* (2006-07) than on *substance and content* -- I guess, this may ring a bell to you ;-) But I think it's not so much about "ability to vote" and more about *equal opportunities* for people contributing on a regular and reliable level (either formal ALS reps or individuals).
Travel to Lisbon and invitation of guest speakers
Following up to the discussion on the chat about Olivier participating to the EURALO GA, while I could share the astonishment of Oksana about the ALAC Chair not been funded for the trip, I have to admit that the rules are fairly clear: only delegates from the ALSes will be funded. This is connected to the participation of guest speakers: this requires additional funding.
(WL) I always said, Olivier's participation as ALAC Chair at our GA is *indispensable" and I thought this question was solved tonight (as I am funded for Lisbon by EuroDIG, I offered "my" travel slot to Olivier to ensure his participation). Whether such funding rules could be improved is another question but can't be changed until next summer for sure.
The problem arises exclusively from the fact that we chose to have the GA as a separate venue from an ICANN meeting. We discussed this in the past, I am not criticizing the choice of privileging an event that would give us more possibility of outreach like EuroDIG, I am only noting that this advantage has also a drawback. On one hand we can contact people that would not participate to an ICANN meeting, and do outreach. On the other hand, we have difficulties (or additional costs) for having people that would have been available without problems at an ICANN meeting.
(WL) Well, this is the same old story again (what I think I have noted before already): After we always and repeatedly applied for F2F GAs in line with ICANN meetings in Europe (Brussels in 2010, Prague in 2012) and our proposals were not approved by ICANN, we decided to organize our (unfunded) GAs in line with other major IG events in Europe -- such as the global IGF 2010 in Vilnius, EuroDIG 2011 in Belgrade and 2012 in Stockholm. What was a sort of "stopgap" at the beginning showed some advantages for EURALO's outreach over these years -- enhanced by the fact that EURALO became a key driver for the EuroDIG process. I agree, both options (ICANN or EuroDIG) have advantages and disadvantages (to be further discussed).
Incidentally, as I commented on the chat, Francisco da Silva, TLG Liaison to the ICANN Board, is based in Lisbon. Besides having another Board member as keynote speaker, we could invite Francisco as well, at zero cost, and maybe dedicate some time of our AGM to the communication between ALAC and the technical community, of which the TLG is a component.
(WL) I am much in favor of inviting a "guest speaker" to our GA (Sébastien wouldn't be a guest at EURALO but a founding member ;-) and let's reflect about and suggest wishful candidates. But what I really would like to avoid is a "row of eminences" (like at other RALO GAs in the past) or the usual "show cases" where NO space and time is left for our own community discussions and interaction -- what is a top priority to me at the moment!
ICANN Regions
The main reason why ICANN has regions is for Board elections. And the ICANN Board will never use an arbitrary designation of regions, to avoid problems. So, it will stick as much as possible with the UN Statistics definition, with minor adjustments only in the case of some powerful voice yelling loud. If this happens, we find ourselves with things like some Pacific Islands being in Europe.
This said, other components of the ICANN community have some flexibility. In the chat we discussed the status of Armenia. Well, if you go to the site of the Armenian NIC (https://www.amnic.net/) you see that it is a member of RIPE (as Armenian addressing organization) and a member of CENTR (as Armenian TLD). Why cannot ALAC have the same flexibility in the allocation of an ALS to a RALO? This is a fight worth fighting, IMHO.
Of course, there are limitations. If you look carefully at the ccNSO and ASO, you discover that the composition of the Councils and the election of the ICANN Board members do indeed respect rigorously the geographical distribution. Moreover, the ccNSO site shows the national ccTLD members as belonging to the ICANN Region (see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/members.htm), even if then they have the flexibility to join a regional organization that is not the one to which they belong geographically.
I have always insisted on the fact that we have great potential for outreach and collaboration with ccTLDs: the regional organization is one example where this communication can be extremely useful.
(WL) The rubbery and unrewarding discussion on ICANN's regional model is always reaffirming where the model comes from and why it's stupid and inflexible as it is ... and when nothing changes, it's getting boring. In fact, we drafted a EURALO statement on the regions (what was in vain again -- see attachment) where we highlighted other European perceptions (like CoE and other models) and special cases like Armenia etc. IMO, it would bring NO harm to the ICANN model to provide a certain flexibility for special cases to choose and decide about their regional affiliation ...
As a side note, I will most probably be in the Caucasus area around the second half of May, I will be ready to spend some time in visiting the ALSes and ccTLDs in the region. I believe we have an ALS in Armenia and one in Azerbaijan, but none in Georgia.
(WL) Your support is always welcome, Roberto! Thanks again and kind regards, Wolf EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org <http://euralo.org/> Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Thanks, Roberto, I have reflected on the points and concerns you raised already. And due to the fact and probability that certain destinations inside Europe are still difficult, troublesome (or PITA), we considered already not to begin with our GA before 17.00 PM -- to allow people even coming from edge points to arrive in time. Fortunately, we can count on the support from ICANN Constituency Travel (proven experts) for arrangements of flights (there may be some difficult cases, like Vienna or Eastern Europ. destination but many are less complicate and may be cheaper as well). If we calculate (as I do so far) 3 hours for our GA plus an option for an Outreach party (= 4.5 to 5 hours), this provides some useful time for our GA and members already. And the GA invitation covers the subsequent two days of EuroDIG as well, offering an interesting topic related event and plenty of opportunities for discussions, networking etc. ... That's why we calculated in our budget: flights, two nights (19 and 20 June) and per diems for three days -- what I think is fair. As I said before (announcement and 1st reminder), we have to deal with a limited budget but let's try to make the best out of it! I believe, the very fact to have another F2F meeting (like Paris and Mexico-City) and participating at EuroDIG offers good opportunities to promote EURALO's "community spirit", as Wolfgang said today, in a promising way. We dealt with various limitations over the past years, I would like to concentrate on the opportunities at our front door now and invite everybody to make the best out of it! About further improvements we can always discuss -- preferably under the summer sun in Lisbon :-) Best, Wolf Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:10:
Oh no, not again the structural and procedural problems! ;>) I believe that we only have to trim the details, going forward in the direction that we all agreed years ago, i.e. to be open to more participation. Your point on F2F meetings as being very important is extremely well taken. I believe that we have to make the maximum out of this event. Going in this direction, I observe that Lisbon is not Frankfurt. I mean by this that travelling might take quite some time. I did a quick check, the earlier flight combination (there's no direct one) from Vienna arrives at 13:15. And it is not the cheapest flight. To this you have to add the time to get to the meeting place. I checked another couple of possible origin points that I could guess would cause problems, and the result is, if I am not mistaken, that the earliest arrival from Kiev is at 14:35 and from Helsinki even at 15:25. None of those are direct flights, nor are the cheapest solutions. I would guess that other north or eastern European cities might have similar problems. So, it seems to me that we are squeezing the time for EURALO plenary discussion a bit thin: a large number of people will not be in the meeting room before 15:00, some arriving as late as 17:00. Considering that by having wider choices for airlines people might very well have less expensive flights, wouldn't it be better to spend more on hotels, allowing people to arrive in the evening of the 18th? Maybe staff could do a quick check on whether my quick estimate is right or wrong. If we do this, we can have a full day of meeting, and not just a couple of hours with moreover some folks with a reduced span of attention because they had to wake up very early to take a red-eye flight at 6:00 AM? It just seems not to make a lot of sense to me to invest a high amount of money if we do not have an adequate time for discussion. Cheers, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Inviato: mercoledì 23 gennaio 2013 17:09 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe; Discussion for At-Large Europe Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Follow up on today's teleconference
Thanks Wolf & Roberto for the very inspiring Q&A. Good questions, good answers. It is - as Bill Clinton has said - stumbling forward and EURALO us still struggling with the structural and procedural problems which were created in the 2002 reform and its follow up.
My experiences tell me that to create a "sporot" of a group like EURALO you have to have regular F2F meetings and an agenda with issues (research papers, conferences, actions) and clear specified responsibilities. And I agree with Wolf: Some of the issue and problems are linked to the simple fact, that without funding it is difficult to build bottom up an organisation of volunteers and to form such a "EUERALO spirit" among all members.
My hope is that Losbion will move us one step foreward and thatz ICANN will recognoze that it makes sense to give EURALO a regular budget to organoze an annual emeting either in connection with the annual EURODIG or an ICANN meeting if the regular ICANN meeting is held in Europe (this would be for 2014 eiother Berlin/EURODIG or London).
wolfgang
________________________________
Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Wolf Ludwig Gesendet: Mi 23.01.2013 02:30 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Follow up on today's teleconference
Dear Roberto,
thanks a lot for your spontaneous comments on our today's telconf. what is much appreciated. Please allow me to insert my remarks in your text below.
Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:21:
A few comments.
Comments on the statements/consultation
I do appreciate the exhaustive report by Olivier, but I have the impression that we all are not contributing enough to the development of these statements.
Can we make an effort and comment on the consultations that are currently open?
(WL) Yes, you are right. it would be wishful and helpful for ALAC, if there would be more inputs from our ALSes (or ALSes in general) to current ICANN issues and ALAC consultations. This was - and still is - the basic idea behind the RALO and regional bottom-up structure to get ideas and advice from the representatives of the much-cited "end user". But to me, it was somehow clear from the beginning that good or even best ideas won't work the next day or in a short term. IMO, this is an empowering process (like in democratic societies) where people need encouragements, more than formal opportunities, enabling factors and environments to make use of their rights ... After five years at EURALO I have learned that this is a reciprocal process where both sides (let's say ICANN at the top, ALSes at the bottom line) have to match promises and expectations. And both is learning and work in process.
Participation of ALSes
Would it help to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes?
Oksana already indicated that she would contact a couple of organizations, maybe we can all help in this direction.
I think that I have heard at some point in time the name of Vittorio. I can check with him if the absence is due to a contingent situation or a loss of interest by ISOC Italy.
We can all make a few calls or emails, it would be good to use the GA as a chance to give new life to our RALO.
(WL) For reasons of politeness and discretion, I prefer not "to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes" via this list but to contact these people directly. In my 2nd GA reminder by the end of month these members who have not responded to repeated invitations may be listed. And YES, for the Lisbon F2F GA mobilization all of us are needed and can be supportive! If you have a direct contact to one of our ALS reps., please contact them directly (in the case of ISOC Italy perhaps Sébastien and you -- Make assurance double sure). And you are right, the next GA is a great chance "to give new life to our RALO"!
Participation of individuals
(Disclaimer: I am an individual that does not belong to an ALS, so I may be in conflict of interest)
I agree that to have one ALS for all loose individuals is a suboptimal solution. However, can we start from here and secure at least this result? We can move forward when we have this operational.
I have always supported the importance of participation and ability to speak over ability to vote. Some other folks disagree. However, while we continue disagreeing on the need to revise the voting mechanism, can we agree on going forward with the "generic ALS" proposal that is on the table?
(WL) As discussed tonight (there was an amazing exchange in the AC chat!), the current solution via the creation of a "home ALS" for floating individuals is "suboptimal" and won't be the end of discussion but just a next pragmatic step to improve EURALO's involvement and participation of individuals. Therefore, please move forward into this direction! And let's discuss improved options at the Lisbon GA. What I simply would like to avoid is the pre-EURALO hardcore dispute on *procedures* (2006-07) than on *substance and content* -- I guess, this may ring a bell to you ;-) But I think it's not so much about "ability to vote" and more about *equal opportunities* for people contributing on a regular and reliable level (either formal ALS reps or individuals).
Travel to Lisbon and invitation of guest speakers
Following up to the discussion on the chat about Olivier participating to the EURALO GA, while I could share the astonishment of Oksana about the ALAC Chair not been funded for the trip, I have to admit that the rules are fairly clear: only delegates from the ALSes will be funded. This is connected to the participation of guest speakers: this requires additional funding.
(WL) I always said, Olivier's participation as ALAC Chair at our GA is *indispensable" and I thought this question was solved tonight (as I am funded for Lisbon by EuroDIG, I offered "my" travel slot to Olivier to ensure his participation). Whether such funding rules could be improved is another question but can't be changed until next summer for sure.
The problem arises exclusively from the fact that we chose to have the GA as a separate venue from an ICANN meeting. We discussed this in the past, I am not criticizing the choice of privileging an event that would give us more possibility of outreach like EuroDIG, I am only noting that this advantage has also a drawback. On one hand we can contact people that would not participate to an ICANN meeting, and do outreach. On the other hand, we have difficulties (or additional costs) for having people that would have been available without problems at an ICANN meeting.
(WL) Well, this is the same old story again (what I think I have noted before already): After we always and repeatedly applied for F2F GAs in line with ICANN meetings in Europe (Brussels in 2010, Prague in 2012) and our proposals were not approved by ICANN, we decided to organize our (unfunded) GAs in line with other major IG events in Europe -- such as the global IGF 2010 in Vilnius, EuroDIG 2011 in Belgrade and 2012 in Stockholm. What was a sort of "stopgap" at the beginning showed some advantages for EURALO's outreach over these years -- enhanced by the fact that EURALO became a key driver for the EuroDIG process. I agree, both options (ICANN or EuroDIG) have advantages and disadvantages (to be further discussed).
Incidentally, as I commented on the chat, Francisco da Silva, TLG Liaison to the ICANN Board, is based in Lisbon. Besides having another Board member as keynote speaker, we could invite Francisco as well, at zero cost, and maybe dedicate some time of our AGM to the communication between ALAC and the technical community, of which the TLG is a component.
(WL) I am much in favor of inviting a "guest speaker" to our GA (Sébastien wouldn't be a guest at EURALO but a founding member ;-) and let's reflect about and suggest wishful candidates. But what I really would like to avoid is a "row of eminences" (like at other RALO GAs in the past) or the usual "show cases" where NO space and time is left for our own community discussions and interaction -- what is a top priority to me at the moment!
ICANN Regions
The main reason why ICANN has regions is for Board elections. And the ICANN Board will never use an arbitrary designation of regions, to avoid problems. So, it will stick as much as possible with the UN Statistics definition, with minor adjustments only in the case of some powerful voice yelling loud. If this happens, we find ourselves with things like some Pacific Islands being in Europe.
This said, other components of the ICANN community have some flexibility. In the chat we discussed the status of Armenia. Well, if you go to the site of the Armenian NIC (https://www.amnic.net/) you see that it is a member of RIPE (as Armenian addressing organization) and a member of CENTR (as Armenian TLD). Why cannot ALAC have the same flexibility in the allocation of an ALS to a RALO? This is a fight worth fighting, IMHO.
Of course, there are limitations. If you look carefully at the ccNSO and ASO, you discover that the composition of the Councils and the election of the ICANN Board members do indeed respect rigorously the geographical distribution. Moreover, the ccNSO site shows the national ccTLD members as belonging to the ICANN Region (see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/members.htm), even if then they have the flexibility to join a regional organization that is not the one to which they belong geographically.
I have always insisted on the fact that we have great potential for outreach and collaboration with ccTLDs: the regional organization is one example where this communication can be extremely useful.
(WL) The rubbery and unrewarding discussion on ICANN's regional model is always reaffirming where the model comes from and why it's stupid and inflexible as it is ... and when nothing changes, it's getting boring. In fact, we drafted a EURALO statement on the regions (what was in vain again -- see attachment) where we highlighted other European perceptions (like CoE and other models) and special cases like Armenia etc. IMO, it would bring NO harm to the ICANN model to provide a certain flexibility for special cases to choose and decide about their regional affiliation ...
As a side note, I will most probably be in the Caucasus area around the second half of May, I will be ready to spend some time in visiting the ALSes and ccTLDs in the region. I believe we have an ALS in Armenia and one in Azerbaijan, but none in Georgia.
(WL) Your support is always welcome, Roberto!
Thanks again and kind regards, Wolf
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org <http://euralo.org/>
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Dear all, Sorry for not answering earlier. Just yesterday we had meeting with Desiree Miloshevic, who organized focus group in Kiev for RIPE NCC survey. The only one my contact with RIPE before was in Odessa, when we participated in ENOG with Sebastien. It was extremely difficult to cut with our multistakeholder bla-bla-bla in their pure technical jargon, but it was extremely fruitful) We had extremely interesting discussion with Desiree. I hope she will write about it from her side, but it would be great to organize such survey from ICANN. But the main conclusion for me just now is that WCIT12 helped to consolidate all healthy forces in IG, such as ICANN, ISOC, RIPE and so on. On the other side, I am affraid that all these consolidated healthy forces will reject all "ill" parts of IG body, and we (Ukrainians, particularly) will be on the other side of New Digital Iron Curtain (or Chinese FireWall). And near months or even weeks will be crucial for this process. For example, just today we will have ISOC Ukraine chapter initiative group. I tried to initiate discussion of WCIT12 during our previous meeting in December, but I was said, that I have "no rights" to raise such issues. Unfortunately, I did not know, that Desiree is involved in ISOC process - we had yesterday option for ISOC Ukraine meeting in our Doodle. Wolfgang, we also discussed Moldova meeting with Desiree.The main problem for my participation in it is money. It is extremely cheap to go to Moldova from Ukraine, but now I really have no money for this trip. My participation in Baku (on my own expences) was nearly deadly for our family budget( I talked to high-level Ukrainian official representative, who has to be in Moldova. He refused to discuss with me these issues unofficially. I will send to his office official letter, but I don't expect a lot from it. During yesterday meeting we also touched GA issue. I would like to thank Wolf for his insistence to have GA in line with EuroDIG. I understand that it is cheaper for ICANN to have GA RALO in line with ICANN meetings. But EuroDIG is the best place to promote EURALO (as an entity of ICANN) as one of key actors on European scene (as well as energize EURALO itself). I can't understand, why ICANN leadership missed such opportunity before. Of course we need Olivier at EuroDIG, Sebastien, Nigel, Veni and as much as possible other top-level representatives of ICANN. Roberto, thank you very much for all your support and understanding - I have to answer you in separate letter. Just now a few words on geographic regions. I did some attempts to work on EURALO dashboard, but each time I was stumped by the number of "European countries" - 76, if I am not wrong. I don't want to do any political incorrectness, but I have no idea what to do with "countries and territoties" behind Council of Europe list (plus Belorussia). I am the member of Capacity Building Working Group, and I proposed to collect as much as possible information on all IG process and structures within each COUNTRY (participation in GAC, At-Large, national IGF, national ISOC chapter, preparation and voting in Dubai, and so on). Sorry for very long letter, Best regards, Oksana 2013/1/24 Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net>
Thanks, Roberto, I have reflected on the points and concerns you raised already. And due to the fact and probability that certain destinations inside Europe are still difficult, troublesome (or PITA), we considered already not to begin with our GA before 17.00 PM -- to allow people even coming from edge points to arrive in time. Fortunately, we can count on the support from ICANN Constituency Travel (proven experts) for arrangements of flights (there may be some difficult cases, like Vienna or Eastern Europ. destination but many are less complicate and may be cheaper as well).
If we calculate (as I do so far) 3 hours for our GA plus an option for an Outreach party (= 4.5 to 5 hours), this provides some useful time for our GA and members already. And the GA invitation covers the subsequent two days of EuroDIG as well, offering an interesting topic related event and plenty of opportunities for discussions, networking etc. ...
That's why we calculated in our budget: flights, two nights (19 and 20 June) and per diems for three days -- what I think is fair.
As I said before (announcement and 1st reminder), we have to deal with a limited budget but let's try to make the best out of it!
I believe, the very fact to have another F2F meeting (like Paris and Mexico-City) and participating at EuroDIG offers good opportunities to promote EURALO's "community spirit", as Wolfgang said today, in a promising way.
We dealt with various limitations over the past years, I would like to concentrate on the opportunities at our front door now and invite everybody to make the best out of it! About further improvements we can always discuss -- preferably under the summer sun in Lisbon :-)
Best, Wolf
Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:10:
Oh no, not again the structural and procedural problems! ;>) I believe that we only have to trim the details, going forward in the direction that we all agreed years ago, i.e. to be open to more participation. Your point on F2F meetings as being very important is extremely well taken. I believe that we have to make the maximum out of this event. Going in this direction, I observe that Lisbon is not Frankfurt. I mean by this that travelling might take quite some time. I did a quick check, the earlier flight combination (there's no direct one) from Vienna arrives at 13:15. And it is not the cheapest flight. To this you have to add the time to get to the meeting place. I checked another couple of possible origin points that I could guess would cause problems, and the result is, if I am not mistaken, that the earliest arrival from Kiev is at 14:35 and from Helsinki even at 15:25. None of those are direct flights, nor are the cheapest solutions. I would guess that other north or eastern European cities might have similar problems. So, it seems to me that we are squeezing the time for EURALO plenary discussion a bit thin: a large number of people will not be in the meeting room before 15:00, some arriving as late as 17:00. Considering that by having wider choices for airlines people might very well have less expensive flights, wouldn't it be better to spend more on hotels, allowing people to arrive in the evening of the 18th? Maybe staff could do a quick check on whether my quick estimate is right or wrong. If we do this, we can have a full day of meeting, and not just a couple of hours with moreover some folks with a reduced span of attention because they had to wake up very early to take a red-eye flight at 6:00 AM? It just seems not to make a lot of sense to me to invest a high amount of money if we do not have an adequate time for discussion. Cheers, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Inviato: mercoledì 23 gennaio 2013 17:09 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe; Discussion for At-Large Europe Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Follow up on today's teleconference
Thanks Wolf & Roberto for the very inspiring Q&A. Good questions, good answers. It is - as Bill Clinton has said - stumbling forward and EURALO us still struggling with the structural and procedural problems which were created in the 2002 reform and its follow up.
My experiences tell me that to create a "sporot" of a group like EURALO you have to have regular F2F meetings and an agenda with issues (research papers, conferences, actions) and clear specified responsibilities. And I agree with Wolf: Some of the issue and problems are linked to the simple fact, that without funding it is difficult to build bottom up an organisation of volunteers and to form such a "EUERALO spirit" among all members.
My hope is that Losbion will move us one step foreward and thatz ICANN will recognoze that it makes sense to give EURALO a regular budget to organoze an annual emeting either in connection with the annual EURODIG or an ICANN meeting if the regular ICANN meeting is held in Europe (this would be for 2014 eiother Berlin/EURODIG or London).
wolfgang
________________________________
Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Wolf Ludwig Gesendet: Mi 23.01.2013 02:30 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Follow up on today's teleconference
Dear Roberto,
thanks a lot for your spontaneous comments on our today's telconf. what is much appreciated. Please allow me to insert my remarks in your text below.
Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:21:
A few comments.
Comments on the statements/consultation
I do appreciate the exhaustive report by Olivier, but I have the impression that we all are not contributing enough to the development of these statements.
Can we make an effort and comment on the consultations that are currently open?
(WL) Yes, you are right. it would be wishful and helpful for ALAC, if there would be more inputs from our ALSes (or ALSes in general) to current ICANN issues and ALAC consultations. This was - and still is - the basic idea behind the RALO and regional bottom-up structure to get ideas and advice from the representatives of the much-cited "end user". But to me, it was somehow clear from the beginning that good or even best ideas won't work the next day or in a short term. IMO, this is an empowering process (like in democratic societies) where people need encouragements, more than formal opportunities, enabling factors and environments to make use of their rights ... After five years at EURALO I have learned that this is a reciprocal process where both sides (let's say ICANN at the top, ALSes at the bottom line) have to match promises and expectations. And both is learning and work in process.
Participation of ALSes
Would it help to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes?
Oksana already indicated that she would contact a couple of organizations, maybe we can all help in this direction.
I think that I have heard at some point in time the name of Vittorio. I can check with him if the absence is due to a contingent situation or a loss of interest by ISOC Italy.
We can all make a few calls or emails, it would be good to use the GA as a chance to give new life to our RALO.
(WL) For reasons of politeness and discretion, I prefer not "to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes" via this list but to contact these people directly. In my 2nd GA reminder by the end of month these members who have not responded to repeated invitations may be listed. And YES, for the Lisbon F2F GA mobilization all of us are needed and can be supportive! If you have a direct contact to one of our ALS reps., please contact them directly (in the case of ISOC Italy perhaps Sébastien and you -- Make assurance double sure). And you are right, the next GA is a great chance "to give new life to our RALO"!
Participation of individuals
(Disclaimer: I am an individual that does not belong to an ALS, so I may be in conflict of interest)
I agree that to have one ALS for all loose individuals is a suboptimal solution. However, can we start from here and secure at least this result? We can move forward when we have this operational.
I have always supported the importance of participation and ability to speak over ability to vote. Some other folks disagree. However, while we continue disagreeing on the need to revise the voting mechanism, can we agree on going forward with the "generic ALS" proposal that is on the table?
(WL) As discussed tonight (there was an amazing exchange in the AC chat!), the current solution via the creation of a "home ALS" for floating individuals is "suboptimal" and won't be the end of discussion but just a next pragmatic step to improve EURALO's involvement and participation of individuals. Therefore, please move forward into this direction! And let's discuss improved options at the Lisbon GA. What I simply would like to avoid is the pre-EURALO hardcore dispute on *procedures* (2006-07) than on *substance and content* -- I guess, this may ring a bell to you ;-) But I think it's not so much about "ability to vote" and more about *equal opportunities* for people contributing on a regular and reliable level (either formal ALS reps or individuals).
Travel to Lisbon and invitation of guest speakers
Following up to the discussion on the chat about Olivier participating to the EURALO GA, while I could share the astonishment of Oksana about the ALAC Chair not been funded for the trip, I have to admit that the rules are fairly clear: only delegates from the ALSes will be funded. This is connected to the participation of guest speakers: this requires additional funding.
(WL) I always said, Olivier's participation as ALAC Chair at our GA is *indispensable" and I thought this question was solved tonight (as I am funded for Lisbon by EuroDIG, I offered "my" travel slot to Olivier to ensure his participation). Whether such funding rules could be improved is another question but can't be changed until next summer for sure.
The problem arises exclusively from the fact that we chose to have the GA as a separate venue from an ICANN meeting. We discussed this in the past, I am not criticizing the choice of privileging an event that would give us more possibility of outreach like EuroDIG, I am only noting that this advantage has also a drawback. On one hand we can contact people that would not participate to an ICANN meeting, and do outreach. On the other hand, we have difficulties (or additional costs) for having people that would have been available without problems at an ICANN meeting.
(WL) Well, this is the same old story again (what I think I have noted before already): After we always and repeatedly applied for F2F GAs in line with ICANN meetings in Europe (Brussels in 2010, Prague in 2012) and our proposals were not approved by ICANN, we decided to organize our (unfunded) GAs in line with other major IG events in Europe -- such as the global IGF 2010 in Vilnius, EuroDIG 2011 in Belgrade and 2012 in Stockholm. What was a sort of "stopgap" at the beginning showed some advantages for EURALO's outreach over these years -- enhanced by the fact that EURALO became a key driver for the EuroDIG process. I agree, both options (ICANN or EuroDIG) have advantages and disadvantages (to be further discussed).
Incidentally, as I commented on the chat, Francisco da Silva, TLG Liaison to the ICANN Board, is based in Lisbon. Besides having another Board member as keynote speaker, we could invite Francisco as well, at zero cost, and maybe dedicate some time of our AGM to the communication between ALAC and the technical community, of which the TLG is a component.
(WL) I am much in favor of inviting a "guest speaker" to our GA (Sébastien wouldn't be a guest at EURALO but a founding member ;-) and let's reflect about and suggest wishful candidates. But what I really would like to avoid is a "row of eminences" (like at other RALO GAs in the past) or the usual "show cases" where NO space and time is left for our own community discussions and interaction -- what is a top priority to me at the moment!
ICANN Regions
The main reason why ICANN has regions is for Board elections. And the ICANN Board will never use an arbitrary designation of regions, to avoid problems. So, it will stick as much as possible with the UN Statistics definition, with minor adjustments only in the case of some powerful voice yelling loud. If this happens, we find ourselves with things like some Pacific Islands being in Europe.
This said, other components of the ICANN community have some flexibility. In the chat we discussed the status of Armenia. Well, if you go to the site of the Armenian NIC (https://www.amnic.net/) you see that it is a member of RIPE (as Armenian addressing organization) and a member of CENTR (as Armenian TLD). Why cannot ALAC have the same flexibility in the allocation of an ALS to a RALO? This is a fight worth fighting, IMHO.
Of course, there are limitations. If you look carefully at the ccNSO and ASO, you discover that the composition of the Councils and the election of the ICANN Board members do indeed respect rigorously the geographical distribution. Moreover, the ccNSO site shows the national ccTLD members as belonging to the ICANN Region (see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/members.htm), even if then they have the flexibility to join a regional organization that is not the one to which they belong geographically.
I have always insisted on the fact that we have great potential for outreach and collaboration with ccTLDs: the regional organization is one example where this communication can be extremely useful.
(WL) The rubbery and unrewarding discussion on ICANN's regional model is always reaffirming where the model comes from and why it's stupid and inflexible as it is ... and when nothing changes, it's getting boring. In fact, we drafted a EURALO statement on the regions (what was in vain again -- see attachment) where we highlighted other European perceptions (like CoE and other models) and special cases like Armenia etc. IMO, it would bring NO harm to the ICANN model to provide a certain flexibility for special cases to choose and decide about their regional affiliation ...
As a side note, I will most probably be in the Caucasus area around the second half of May, I will be ready to spend some time in visiting the ALSes and ccTLDs in the region. I believe we have an ALS in Armenia and one in Azerbaijan, but none in Georgia.
(WL) Your support is always welcome, Roberto!
Thanks again and kind regards, Wolf
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org <http://euralo.org/>
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Wolf, Your point on response from ALSes is well taken. Can we do it this way, can we keep an updated list of the confirmed participants to the GA somewhere accessible to EURALO? For other points, like for instance the ICANN regions, maybe better to have separate threads, so that we could get all the comments in a compact way. Cheers, Roberto -----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Wolf Ludwig Inviato: mercoledì 23 gennaio 2013 02:31 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Follow up on today's teleconference Dear Roberto, thanks a lot for your spontaneous comments on our today's telconf. what is much appreciated. Please allow me to insert my remarks in your text below. Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:21:
A few comments.
Comments on the statements/consultation
I do appreciate the exhaustive report by Olivier, but I have the impression that we all are not contributing enough to the development of these statements.
Can we make an effort and comment on the consultations that are currently open?
(WL) Yes, you are right. it would be wishful and helpful for ALAC, if there would be more inputs from our ALSes (or ALSes in general) to current ICANN issues and ALAC consultations. This was - and still is - the basic idea behind the RALO and regional bottom-up structure to get ideas and advice from the representatives of the much-cited "end user". But to me, it was somehow clear from the beginning that good or even best ideas won't work the next day or in a short term. IMO, this is an empowering process (like in democratic societies) where people need encouragements, more than formal opportunities, enabling factors and environments to make use of their rights ... After five years at EURALO I have learned that this is a reciprocal process where both sides (let's say ICANN at the top, ALSes at the bottom line) have to match promises and expectations. And both is learning and work in process.
Participation of ALSes
Would it help to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes?
Oksana already indicated that she would contact a couple of organizations, maybe we can all help in this direction.
I think that I have heard at some point in time the name of Vittorio. I can check with him if the absence is due to a contingent situation or a loss of interest by ISOC Italy.
We can all make a few calls or emails, it would be good to use the GA as a chance to give new life to our RALO.
(WL) For reasons of politeness and discretion, I prefer not "to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes" via this list but to contact these people directly. In my 2nd GA reminder by the end of month these members who have not responded to repeated invitations may be listed. And YES, for the Lisbon F2F GA mobilization all of us are needed and can be supportive! If you have a direct contact to one of our ALS reps., please contact them directly (in the case of ISOC Italy perhaps Sébastien and you -- Make assurance double sure). And you are right, the next GA is a great chance "to give new life to our RALO"!
Participation of individuals
(Disclaimer: I am an individual that does not belong to an ALS, so I may be in conflict of interest)
I agree that to have one ALS for all loose individuals is a suboptimal solution. However, can we start from here and secure at least this result? We can move forward when we have this operational.
I have always supported the importance of participation and ability to speak over ability to vote. Some other folks disagree. However, while we continue disagreeing on the need to revise the voting mechanism, can we agree on going forward with the "generic ALS" proposal that is on the table?
(WL) As discussed tonight (there was an amazing exchange in the AC chat!), the current solution via the creation of a "home ALS" for floating individuals is "suboptimal" and won't be the end of discussion but just a next pragmatic step to improve EURALO's involvement and participation of individuals. Therefore, please move forward into this direction! And let's discuss improved options at the Lisbon GA. What I simply would like to avoid is the pre-EURALO hardcore dispute on *procedures* (2006-07) than on *substance and content* -- I guess, this may ring a bell to you ;-) But I think it's not so much about "ability to vote" and more about *equal opportunities* for people contributing on a regular and reliable level (either formal ALS reps or individuals).
Travel to Lisbon and invitation of guest speakers
Following up to the discussion on the chat about Olivier participating to the EURALO GA, while I could share the astonishment of Oksana about the ALAC Chair not been funded for the trip, I have to admit that the rules are fairly clear: only delegates from the ALSes will be funded. This is connected to the participation of guest speakers: this requires additional funding.
(WL) I always said, Olivier's participation as ALAC Chair at our GA is *indispensable" and I thought this question was solved tonight (as I am funded for Lisbon by EuroDIG, I offered "my" travel slot to Olivier to ensure his participation). Whether such funding rules could be improved is another question but can't be changed until next summer for sure.
The problem arises exclusively from the fact that we chose to have the GA as a separate venue from an ICANN meeting. We discussed this in the past, I am not criticizing the choice of privileging an event that would give us more possibility of outreach like EuroDIG, I am only noting that this advantage has also a drawback. On one hand we can contact people that would not participate to an ICANN meeting, and do outreach. On the other hand, we have difficulties (or additional costs) for having people that would have been available without problems at an ICANN meeting.
(WL) Well, this is the same old story again (what I think I have noted before already): After we always and repeatedly applied for F2F GAs in line with ICANN meetings in Europe (Brussels in 2010, Prague in 2012) and our proposals were not approved by ICANN, we decided to organize our (unfunded) GAs in line with other major IG events in Europe -- such as the global IGF 2010 in Vilnius, EuroDIG 2011 in Belgrade and 2012 in Stockholm. What was a sort of "stopgap" at the beginning showed some advantages for EURALO's outreach over these years -- enhanced by the fact that EURALO became a key driver for the EuroDIG process. I agree, both options (ICANN or EuroDIG) have advantages and disadvantages (to be further discussed).
Incidentally, as I commented on the chat, Francisco da Silva, TLG Liaison to the ICANN Board, is based in Lisbon. Besides having another Board member as keynote speaker, we could invite Francisco as well, at zero cost, and maybe dedicate some time of our AGM to the communication between ALAC and the technical community, of which the TLG is a component.
(WL) I am much in favor of inviting a "guest speaker" to our GA (Sébastien wouldn't be a guest at EURALO but a founding member ;-) and let's reflect about and suggest wishful candidates. But what I really would like to avoid is a "row of eminences" (like at other RALO GAs in the past) or the usual "show cases" where NO space and time is left for our own community discussions and interaction -- what is a top priority to me at the moment!
ICANN Regions
The main reason why ICANN has regions is for Board elections. And the ICANN Board will never use an arbitrary designation of regions, to avoid problems. So, it will stick as much as possible with the UN Statistics definition, with minor adjustments only in the case of some powerful voice yelling loud. If this happens, we find ourselves with things like some Pacific Islands being in Europe.
This said, other components of the ICANN community have some flexibility. In the chat we discussed the status of Armenia. Well, if you go to the site of the Armenian NIC (https://www.amnic.net/) you see that it is a member of RIPE (as Armenian addressing organization) and a member of CENTR (as Armenian TLD). Why cannot ALAC have the same flexibility in the allocation of an ALS to a RALO? This is a fight worth fighting, IMHO.
Of course, there are limitations. If you look carefully at the ccNSO and ASO, you discover that the composition of the Councils and the election of the ICANN Board members do indeed respect rigorously the geographical distribution. Moreover, the ccNSO site shows the national ccTLD members as belonging to the ICANN Region (see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/members.htm), even if then they have the flexibility to join a regional organization that is not the one to which they belong geographically.
I have always insisted on the fact that we have great potential for outreach and collaboration with ccTLDs: the regional organization is one example where this communication can be extremely useful.
(WL) The rubbery and unrewarding discussion on ICANN's regional model is always reaffirming where the model comes from and why it's stupid and inflexible as it is ... and when nothing changes, it's getting boring. In fact, we drafted a EURALO statement on the regions (what was in vain again -- see attachment) where we highlighted other European perceptions (like CoE and other models) and special cases like Armenia etc. IMO, it would bring NO harm to the ICANN model to provide a certain flexibility for special cases to choose and decide about their regional affiliation ...
As a side note, I will most probably be in the Caucasus area around the second half of May, I will be ready to spend some time in visiting the ALSes and ccTLDs in the region. I believe we have an ALS in Armenia and one in Azerbaijan, but none in Georgia.
(WL) Your support is always welcome, Roberto! Thanks again and kind regards, Wolf EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Dear Roberto, excellent replies from Wolf. Just a few additional points I wanted to add in-line: On 23/01/2013 02:30, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
Dear Roberto,
thanks a lot for your spontaneous comments on our today's telconf. what is much appreciated. Please allow me to insert my remarks in your text below.
Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:21:
A few comments.
Comments on the statements/consultation
I do appreciate the exhaustive report by Olivier, but I have the impression that we all are not contributing enough to the development of these statements.
Can we make an effort and comment on the consultations that are currently open? (WL) Yes, you are right. it would be wishful and helpful for ALAC, if there would be more inputs from our ALSes (or ALSes in general) to current ICANN issues and ALAC consultations. This was - and still is - the basic idea behind the RALO and regional bottom-up structure to get ideas and advice from the representatives of the much-cited "end user". But to me, it was somehow clear from the beginning that good or even best ideas won't work the next day or in a short term. IMO, this is an empowering process (like in democratic societies) where people need encouragements, more than formal opportunities, enabling factors and environments to make use of their rights ... After five years at EURALO I have learned that this is a reciprocal process where both sides (let's say ICANN at the top, ALSes at the bottom line) have to match promises and expectations. And both is learning and work in process.
Yes, there is a lot of work still to be done on this, especially in Capacity Building. You will note that the ALAC's policy development ( https://community.icann.org/x/bwFO ) mostly has a small number of pen-holders and I am always asking for more people to hold the pen. Agreed, a lot of people like to comment on a text that has already been drafted by someone else, and this is great, but having a more diverse set of pen-holders would be even better! And let me say this one more time, you do not need to be an ALAC member to hold the pen. In order to get more involvement from ALSes on many of the subjects discussed a lot of capacity building needs to be undertaken to teach them about the issues at hand. This is why I am now pushing the At-Large Capacity Building WG to start its work as soon as possible. We need to act NOW! And we need to act at ALL levels: ALAC, RALOs, ALSes.
(WL) As discussed tonight (there was an amazing exchange in the AC chat!), the current solution via the creation of a "home ALS" for floating individuals is "suboptimal" and won't be the end of discussion but just a next pragmatic step to improve EURALO's involvement and participation of individuals. Therefore, please move forward into this direction! And let's discuss improved options at the Lisbon GA. What I simply would like to avoid is the pre-EURALO hardcore dispute on *procedures* (2006-07) than on *substance and content* -- I guess, this may ring a bell to you ;-) But I think it's not so much about "ability to vote" and more about *equal opportunities* for people contributing on a regular and reliable level (either formal ALS reps or individuals).
Yes! And remember that the current solution has found consensus at the EURALO General Assembly in Stockholm in 2012. So it's full green light ahead. Please get this ship sailing!
Travel to Lisbon and invitation of guest speakers
Following up to the discussion on the chat about Olivier participating to the EURALO GA, while I could share the astonishment of Oksana about the ALAC Chair not been funded for the trip, I have to admit that the rules are fairly clear: only delegates from the ALSes will be funded. This is connected to the participation of guest speakers: this requires additional funding. (WL) I always said, Olivier's participation as ALAC Chair at our GA is *indispensable" and I thought this question was solved tonight (as I am funded for Lisbon by EuroDIG, I offered "my" travel slot to Olivier to ensure his participation). Whether such funding rules could be improved is another question but can't be changed until next summer for sure.
I'll do a "mea culpa" on this since I have still not managed to get my organisation, ISOC England, so apply as an At-Large Structure. Long story. We are still in the process of getting all parts of our "house" in order and I feel it would distract the structure if it focussed on ICANN at the moment when there are several things it needs to focus on at home. I am thankful to Wolf for having given up his space for me. For the record, I attended the Stockholm EURODIG on my own costs. In fact, ICANN never paid for my travels to EURODIG, whether in Geneva, Madrid nor in Belgrade. This is all to do with the fact that travel funding would need to be asked by the RALO as an additional request and until this year, such requests were refused. Now this year is very innovative since a GA was funded to take place at EuroDIG. Wolf has very well explained the point in his reply to you. This is a real shift by ICANN to start funding such activities. I also think that this year there will be a further shift and for future years too. At-Large is not considered a waste of time/money by the Board any more.
Incidentally, as I commented on the chat, Francisco da Silva, TLG Liaison to the ICANN Board, is based in Lisbon. Besides having another Board member as keynote speaker, we could invite Francisco as well, at zero cost, and maybe dedicate some time of our AGM to the communication between ALAC and the technical community, of which the TLG is a component. (WL) I am much in favor of inviting a "guest speaker" to our GA (Sébastien wouldn't be a guest at EURALO but a founding member ;-) and let's reflect about and suggest wishful candidates. But what I really would like to avoid is a "row of eminences" (like at other RALO GAs in the past) or the usual "show cases" where NO space and time is left for our own community discussions and interaction -- what is a top priority to me at the moment!
I think that in any case, whether it is during the GA or during the rest of EuroDIG, we should invite Francisco to attend. He is a great guy and since he is from industry, he might also be able to open the door to more sponsors for our activities in the future. We should also ask for Nigel Hickson, VP for Europe (based in Brussels), to attend too, since EuroDIG is becoming such an important forum. And perhaps should Sally Costerton, VP for Global Stakeholder engagement (based in London & Brussels) also be there, to witness the wide scope of our ALSes. Note that I am not saying they should be speakers or make a speech, but I think they should be in attendance. Witnessing the bottom-up process.
ICANN Regions
The main reason why ICANN has regions is for Board elections. And the ICANN Board will never use an arbitrary designation of regions, to avoid problems. So, it will stick as much as possible with the UN Statistics definition, with minor adjustments only in the case of some powerful voice yelling loud. If this happens, we find ourselves with things like some Pacific Islands being in Europe.
Huge discussion which we have already contributed to, but it looks as though nothing is moving from the Board and until the Board moves on this, we are tied to the current regions. We cannot change the regions to our liking. For your information, the ICANN Geographic Regions WG page is on: https://community.icann.org/x/voFb The ALAC submitted a statement based on the input from many, including EURALO: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-19dec11-en.htm The At-Large Workspace which led to this statement had a LOT of input from all our regions: https://community.icann.org/x/GQS5AQ The battle for geo-regions is therefore behind us. But we are all expecting the Board to *do something*. But the Board has been busy with new gTLDs, no as far as I know, there has been no decision made so far. Would anyone like me to raise this with Staff to find out what has happened for the past year?
As a side note, I will most probably be in the Caucasus area around the second half of May, I will be ready to spend some time in visiting the ALSes and ccTLDs in the region. I believe we have an ALS in Armenia and one in Azerbaijan, but none in Georgia.
Two in Armenia (ISOC Armenia & Media Education Center). There might even be a third one in Armenia soon! http://www.atlarge.icann.org/maps/#apralo Kindest regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
participants (5)
-
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" -
EMP -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Wolf Ludwig