Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws
It is the whole procedure of the last weeks I do not want "to live with". Below I tried to reunite all ALSes and volunteers for functions so that we could focus on constructive work. It implicated that we accept all those who were nominated for the board without any further voting. (Thank you Stefan, for your support.) If instead voting does take place my proposal implies that for this first phase we should have a board of ten plus the three non-voting ALAC members. Apart from that, there has to be a transparent and democratic procedure in place if the rights of some ALSes are supposed to be changed. We could get rid of all these discussions if we were implementing my proposal below and follow our own bylaws. Best Annette
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Gesendet: 09.05.07 13:45:15 An: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@icann.org> CC: "Discussion for At-Large Europe" <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Annette Muehlberg" <annette.muehlberg@web.de> Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws
It is worth pointing out that every other region managed to take the steps which Roberto mentions in respect of LAC with the same results, and little controversy.
I would urge you all, once again, to use maximum flexibility and to give everyone else the benefit of the doubt to the maximum extent possible.
I am encouraged to see that, so far, since the strong recommendations of the last teleconference was published, there have been some statements which disagree with one element or another to an extent, but none of you have said "this element I cannot live with".
On 09/05/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Maybe we should follow the example of the LAC colleagues. I arrived earlier in Sao Paulo, to participate in their workshop, pretty much as I arrived earlier in Lisbon, to participate in the EURALO workshop.
It was a very intense experience. In spite of the additional difficulty to keep documents in two languages synchronized, and the interpretation interface, work proceeded smoothly. At the end, all documents, including the LACRALO-ICANN MoU, were ready. They were signed on the spot, no ALS did raise any issue or reservation about the signature, the representatives were elected (all ALSes who had signed the MoU participated in the election), there were more candidates than seats but the election process was concluded without problems, and with the best compliments to the winners coming from the ones that did not make it that time, but that expressed their willingness to help anyway.
We started very well, with the "spirit of Frankfurt", as Annette mentions, then something started getting wrong. I hoped things were back on track when I assisted to the very collaborative and energetic meeting, that ended with the final drafting of the documents, including the EURALO-ICANN MoU, and the very touching signature ceremony, with all ALSes present and signing on stage. Then something started again getting wrong: holiday period, delays in getting the candidate list, "I signed it but I thought it meant something different", "I am not confortable in signing it", "I don't see why we should sign it", "I don't understand why we are rushing (?!?) it", "Why don't we wait some more", "there should be consensus, not a voting (but of course the consensus must be on what I say, not on something different)", and so on.
Yes, the problem is to find this collaborative spirit again. At this time we do have an agreed set of documents, including the EURALO-ICANN MoU, a set of procedures for electing officers, and deadlines. While a modification of the documents and of the rules is always possible in the future, I have to note that the European Region lacks a member since December 2006, when Annette was not replaced because the formation of EURALO was imminent, and the replacement had better be elected by the new organization, and that any further delay in making EURALO operational would be ununderstandable and unacceptable.
As I said in a previos message, I am still confident that the MoU is signed by the few residual ALSes in due time to participate in the elections, that the elected officers will hold their office in the interest of the whole community, and that those who do not get elected this time still contribute and get prepared to provide a good alternative for the next future election. This is how it works in other parts of the ICANN family (the ASO has just concluded its voting, and Raimundo Beca has been appointed for a second term to the Board), how it did work for the LACRALO, and I don't see why it should not work for EURALO.
Cheers, Roberto
________________________________ From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stefan Hügel Sent: 09 May 2007 12:38 To: Annette Muehlberg; EURALO Discussion Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws
Dear colleagues,
first of all, thanks to Annette for your statement I fully agree with.
Having been silent most of the time up to now (I may have to apologize for that), it is exactly the spirit of working together in a cooperative manner, which I miss in many of the discussions here.
It sometimes seems to me like it is all about legal issues - and nothing else. How can participation work, if you have to go through pages of legal arguments to follow any discussion?
As Annette said - let us start working together on content, on outreach, on issues significant for ICANN policies. And let's stop these formal arguments, which do not let us achieve any progress.
Best Stefan
Am 08.05.2007 um 19:12 schrieb Annette Muehlberg:
Dear all,
We started off to build the EURALO in such a good spirit that we even called our report on our kick off Meeting in Frankfurt May 2006 "The spirit of Frankfurt".
Where are we now? After Lisbon an absurd discussion about deadlines of nomination periods started which almost lead to the exclusion of those ALS representatives who were in easter vacation.
Now, a legal advice is asked for on a nomination of a candidate as if it matters if someone became a member of an ALS during nomination period or at the first day of the period of discussion of the nominations - both definately before the actual decision taking/voting on the candidates.
All this is such a bureaucratic argy-bargy (german: Hickhack).
We do not need to love each other but should be able to respect and work with each other: cooperative, not trying to exclude but to integrate different positions. In short, we should start to follow our own bylaws:
- as stated for Board and General assembly we should operate "to the maximum extent possible via consensus" (9.2.21 and 9.4.17.1)
- "The Association shall at all times act in an open, accountable and transparent manner and is committed to cultural and geographic diversity and gender balance in its work internally and externally." (3.4)
The current state is:
- We have one candidate seconded by the european consumer protection/civil liberties ALSes who are not ISOC members. This candidate comes from Moldova, is female, comes from a non-EU country with a rather developing IT-infrastructure.
We have two candidates from Luxembourg and France, both male, both EU, both western region, both members of the same umbrella organisation, seconded by all the members of the very same organisation - ISOC).
Let us take our bylaws serious concerning diversity and reaching consensus among us. In this case the latter means, let us both accept, that there are more or less two equally strong opinions expressed and try to have a fair representation of both postions.
- We have nine nominees for the board and agreed to have the one join, who will not make it in the selection for the ALAC (and all three ALAC members will join as non-voting members).
This is great!
Instead of trying to put each other down and vote out, we should be happy that we have these great people who are willing to serve the EURALO board and stop all this destructive stuff. Let us welcome all to the EURALO Board!
Let us start working together on content, on outreach, on issues significant for ICANN policies.
Best
Annette
-- Stefan Hügel (sh@fiff.de)
FIfF - Forum InformatikerInnen für Frieden und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung e.V. Geschäftsstelle: Goetheplatz 4, D-28203 Bremen Telefon +49 421 33659255 - Fax +49 421 33659256 - http://www.fiff.de - fiff@fiff.de
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
-- -- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
--
Hi all,
Below I tried to reunite all ALSes and volunteers for functions so that we could focus on constructive work. It implicated that we accept all those who were nominated for the board without any further voting. (Thank you Stefan, for your support.) If instead voting does take place my proposal implies that for this first phase we should have a board of ten plus the three non-voting ALAC members.
I agree.
Apart from that, there has to be a transparent and democratic procedure in place if the rights of some ALSes are supposed to be changed.
Indeed. Greetings, //Rena Tangens FoeBuD e.V. Marktstr. 18 D-33602 Bielefeld Phone: +49-521-175254 Fax : +49-521-61172 Mail : mail@foebud.org Web : www.foebud.org www.bigbrotherawards.de www.stoprfid.de -------------------------------------------------------------- Independent advocacy work needs independent money Please donate to FoeBuD Account No. 2129799 -- Sparkasse Bielefeld -- BLZ 480 501 61 -------------------------------------------------------------- Online donations: https://www.foebud.org/spende
Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
It is the whole procedure of the last weeks I do not want "to live with".
Below I tried to reunite all ALSes and volunteers for functions so that we could focus on constructive work. It implicated that we accept all those who were nominated for the board without any further voting.
I want to restate what I said in the call: my personal opinion is that a board of more than seven people will be unworkable and ineffective, especially seeing how hard it is to get consensus on anything on this list. I think that the Board should be a small and practical group of people that can agree and manage to do things in practice. Seven is already quite a number. Twelve is simply unworkable. Also, I have to point out that the other Regions have one or two officers at most (one Chairperson and one Secretariat, for example). We are the only ones having a full Board, and we want to make it even bigger - there must be something wrong, IMHO.
Apart from that, there has to be a transparent and democratic procedure in place if the rights of some ALSes are supposed to be changed.
I am not sure where you see any change. There is a written agreement through which ICANN gives some rights to the organizations that sign it, in exchange for some duties. Before it existed, no one had any right to participate in the selection of ALAC members. Then, it was created, so that when you sign it, you acquire the additional rights stated in the document. If you don't sign it, you don't acquire those additional rights - you stay on the list as before, and so on. It's your choice, but you can't get the rights without signing the contract and agreeing to (very few) duties as well. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Agree with Vittorio on that. Better have a smaller board that works, than a board that doesn't. veni At 22:37 5/9/2007 +0200, you wrote:
Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
It is the whole procedure of the last weeks I do not want "to live with".
Below I tried to reunite all ALSes and volunteers for functions so that we could focus on constructive work. It implicated that we accept all those who were nominated for the board without any further voting.
I want to restate what I said in the call: my personal opinion is that a board of more than seven people will be unworkable and ineffective, especially seeing how hard it is to get consensus on anything on this list. I think that the Board should be a small and practical group of people that can agree and manage to do things in practice. Seven is already quite a number. Twelve is simply unworkable.
participants (4)
-
Annette Muehlberg -
FoeBuD e.V. -
Veni Markovski -
Vittorio Bertola