Dear EURALOs, sorry for being silent for a couple of days. I was travelling (Access to Knowledge Conference at Yale University and Computer Freedom and Privacy Conference in Montreal) and had only frequently access to the net. Reading the discussion on the ALAC election I am both perplexed and confused. The debate is formal and buerocratic and driven by individual interests. My understanding is that the issue is a political one and should be driven by common interests. Let me go back to some basic points, reflected in the mission and the value system both of ICANN and ISOC. ISOCs slogan within the WSIS process and elsewhere is "An Internet for All". And it is ICANNs mission to represent the Internet community as a whole. Should it not be the first task of ISOC members working within ICANN to bring people from underpivileged regions, from the edges of the net community, who need help and support, into the broader ICANN community? Should it not be our task to build bridges and to include more constituencies from regions which has not yet been included for a number (mainly economic) reasons into our process? I remember numerous statements from ISOC people in the WSIS process calling for more representation of underprivileged people and groups in the process. Is this serious or hippocarcy? When I proposed Veronica to represent the European internet users in the ALAC my argument was that it would be improper if the European Internet users would be represented only by three representatives coming from three founding member states of the EU (the small Europe of the Six, now we have an EU of 27 with more than 20 European countries outside the EU). To have a domination of the German and French speaking commuity in the representation of European internet users in ALAC would be a wrong message and violate the principle of geographical diversity which we have agreed in our draft of the MoU. If we make such a choice what would be the message to the million of Internet users in the Ukraine, in Belarus, in Russia and in the other Non-EU member states (including the Slavic speaking community within the EU)? Could you imagine that they think "they are not interested in us, this is a closed club of friends of friends networks?" I have grown up behind the iron curtain and I understand probably better than other old EU members how painful it is to live in difficult local circumstances with no financial means and a lot of burocratical problems when leaving the country an going to a meeting. Even if you have the individual potential, the intellectual capacity and if you are dedicated to contribute to the debate, without a helping hand nothing will happen and the potential remains unused and does not become part of the process. I have no doubt that both Sebastian and Patrick are well qualified for ALAC as well as tghey are qualified for a lot of other positions within and outside ICANN. Patrick has made a great contribution to the community by organizing the wonderful Luxembourg ICANN meeting. Sebastian is, like me, one of the veterans of ICANN, who has participated in nearly all ICANN meetings and has naturally all the knowledge of an insider. But this is not the point. The point is that we as a European At Large Organisation should be clear in sending political signals both to our own European constituencies and the rest of the world. We take the challenge to bring more people to the Internet community seriously and we are looking for people who can represent also the underprivileged Internet users in our bodies. If the main driving force for the application from Patrick and Sebastian is to serve the community I think there are numerous opportunities to do this. There is no need to have a formal position to make the voice heard and to contribute to the ICANN process. Insofar I would encourage Sebastian and Patrick to call each other and to find a way out of the situation which would enable us to move forward by consensus. My proposal would be that either Sebastian or Patrick would accept the one year term this year and next year he would be substituted by the other one.for a two year term. This would guarantee a three year representation of the French speaking Internet community in the ALAC and both would have their ALAC membership in their CV. Hope this will help to move forward, to go back to a positive climate in our discussion and to leave the trouble behind us so that we can concentrate now on substance. I used the time so far to prepare a workshop on "Consumer Interests and new gTLDs" for San Juan (details later). And I am also working on an Outreach workshop during the forthcoming ICANN Studienkreis meeting in Warsaw, October 2007. More contribution for other members our community are welcome. Best wishes Wolfgang

Hi. I agree with Patrick. veni At 17:24 5/3/2007 +0200, you wrote:

KleinwДchter wrote:

...

But this is not the point. The point is that we as a European At Large Organisation should be clear in sending political signals both to our own European constituencies and the rest of the world.

The clearest signal we can send to the community is that we stick to the rules we agreed in writing. Let us be an exemplary RALO. As Roberto points out, we do not want yet another Ombudsman report on the Euralo/ALAC twisting its own rules. Losing our credibility right from the beginning is not the way to go.

-- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog at <http://patrick.vande-walle.eu>http://patrick.vande-walle.eu _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...

Wolfgang, This is my last message on the subject. I think that we all agree to the basic principles you expose in your email, the discussion is not at all on the principles, but on the practical implementation. Yes, geographical distribution is a key issue, and I don't think that anybody will argue against this (you might remember when I raised the issue of ICANN having had two CEOs and two Chairpersons all from the US, that was before the time of Paul Twomey). However, things happen when conditions to make them happen are created. As an example, up to now, we had as ALAC representatives only Germans and Italians, hardly an example of diversification, but nobody raised any issue when a German replaced a German. Now, that we can move including other countries, the issue is suddenly becoming paramount. Of course, ideally we should take somebody from Eastern Europe, and maybe somebody from Northern Europe to have diversity. But the representatives elected by EURALO (in contrast to the ones nominated by NomCom) come from the rank and file of the ALSes, having shown activity in the life of the organization, and having acquired the trust of the other ALSes. The candidature of Veronica does raise important issues that are orthogonal to geographical diversity. First of all, a formal problem, as her candidature does not conform to the rules that EURALO just gave itself. I appreciate the effort in bending the rules, but we are going to have for sure the third (or fourth?) Ombudsman report. And the result can be only one: invalidate the elections. And you can imagine how this is going to play in favour of ALAC and EURALO. The second problem, is that as of today, except the people who have participated to the WSIS process, nobody knows her, nobody knows what are her priorities (in terms of ICANN-related issues, not only in terms of general Internet Governance. I have also to add that a couple of people have privately communicated to me their impression that this is a power issue, and since there are the votes on the table to elect Veronica, this is a done deal and who cares about the consequences. I appreciated very much the position of Dessi Pefeva, when she rejected the nomination as ALAC representative. Verbatim from her message 2007-04-20: "This is not for the reason that I am not willing to serve ALAC , but right the opposite - I 'd like to see how the real work of EURALO starts and how I can be beneficial for the whole process." Correct me if I'm wrong, but my reading is: "I want to roll up my sleeves and work, and we will see when I will have more experience". I find this a very laudable attitude, that goes in the interest of ALAC and not in the personal interest. Anyway, we are now at the point in which a decision has to be taken, and I don't see any consensus emerging. Incidentally, I was amazed by your proposal. Basically, you avoid the key issue, which is the difficulty some ALSes have in endorsing a completely new person, and propose as a "compromise" that Patrick and Sebastian rotate, starting with the shorter term. The effect will be that Veronica will not only be elected, but even elected to the longer term! I also see that Annette considers your proposal a good one for consensus. I am also amazed by this idea of consensus. To me, when there are different opinions, consensus can be reached only by negotiating a potential common position. And that can only be achieved by compromise. In this case, my impression is that we have a firm, non-negotiable point: that Veronica be elected this year. I don't know how firm and non-negotiable are the points on the other side, but there are two questions on the floor: how are we going to deal with the non-respect of rules (the only answer having been that we pretend there's no problem), and how are we going to deal with the problems in getting somebody brand new, without having seen her "at work" in ALAC before. Previously I have launched a proposal, and I would like to know who cannot live with that and why. The proposal is to postpone Veronicas' election to next year, when she will have more experience and would have acquired confidence and trust by everybody. In the meantime, she could serve on the Board, where she would have anyway the needed visibility, and the possibility of doing good work. Anyway, if no compromise is found, and we have to go to an election, are the rules for election clear and commonly understood by everybody? I am just checking beforehand, to avoid the after-the-fact "I didn't know, I didn't read". Cheers, Roberto

-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Sent: 03 May 2007 16:34 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: [EURO-Discuss] ALAC

Dear EURALOs,

sorry for being silent for a couple of days. I was travelling (Access to Knowledge Conference at Yale University and Computer Freedom and Privacy Conference in Montreal) and had only frequently access to the net.

Reading the discussion on the ALAC election I am both perplexed and confused. The debate is formal and buerocratic and driven by individual interests. My understanding is that the issue is a political one and should be driven by common interests.

Let me go back to some basic points, reflected in the mission and the value system both of ICANN and ISOC. ISOCs slogan within the WSIS process and elsewhere is "An Internet for All". And it is ICANNs mission to represent the Internet community as a whole. Should it not be the first task of ISOC members working within ICANN to bring people from underpivileged regions, from the edges of the net community, who need help and support, into the broader ICANN community? Should it not be our task to build bridges and to include more constituencies from regions which has not yet been included for a number (mainly economic) reasons into our process? I remember numerous statements from ISOC people in the WSIS process calling for more representation of underprivileged people and groups in the process. Is this serious or hippocarcy?

When I proposed Veronica to represent the European internet users in the ALAC my argument was that it would be improper if the European Internet users would be represented only by three representatives coming from three founding member states of the EU (the small Europe of the Six, now we have an EU of 27 with more than 20 European countries outside the EU). To have a domination of the German and French speaking commuity in the representation of European internet users in ALAC would be a wrong message and violate the principle of geographical diversity which we have agreed in our draft of the MoU.

If we make such a choice what would be the message to the million of Internet users in the Ukraine, in Belarus, in Russia and in the other Non-EU member states (including the Slavic speaking community within the EU)? Could you imagine that they think "they are not interested in us, this is a closed club of friends of friends networks?"

I have grown up behind the iron curtain and I understand probably better than other old EU members how painful it is to live in difficult local circumstances with no financial means and a lot of burocratical problems when leaving the country an going to a meeting. Even if you have the individual potential, the intellectual capacity and if you are dedicated to contribute to the debate, without a helping hand nothing will happen and the potential remains unused and does not become part of the process.

I have no doubt that both Sebastian and Patrick are well qualified for ALAC as well as tghey are qualified for a lot of other positions within and outside ICANN. Patrick has made a great contribution to the community by organizing the wonderful Luxembourg ICANN meeting. Sebastian is, like me, one of the veterans of ICANN, who has participated in nearly all ICANN meetings and has naturally all the knowledge of an insider.

But this is not the point. The point is that we as a European At Large Organisation should be clear in sending political signals both to our own European constituencies and the rest of the world. We take the challenge to bring more people to the Internet community seriously and we are looking for people who can represent also the underprivileged Internet users in our bodies.

If the main driving force for the application from Patrick and Sebastian is to serve the community I think there are numerous opportunities to do this. There is no need to have a formal position to make the voice heard and to contribute to the ICANN process. Insofar I would encourage Sebastian and Patrick to call each other and to find a way out of the situation which would enable us to move forward by consensus. My proposal would be that either Sebastian or Patrick would accept the one year term this year and next year he would be substituted by the other one.for a two year term. This would guarantee a three year representation of the French speaking Internet community in the ALAC and both would have their ALAC membership in their CV.

Hope this will help to move forward, to go back to a positive climate in our discussion and to leave the trouble behind us so that we can concentrate now on substance.

I used the time so far to prepare a workshop on "Consumer Interests and new gTLDs" for San Juan (details later). And I am also working on an Outreach workshop during the forthcoming ICANN Studienkreis meeting in Warsaw, October 2007. More contribution for other members our community are welcome.

Best wishes

Wolfgang

_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org

I was asking for abstaining from binding decisions.

 From Nicks's agenda:

"If nobody else will propose an agenda, what I would suggest as a draft is:

[...]

We would then bring the results of these items back to the list, not
for review, but as decisions."

jeanette

Rudi Vansnick wrote:
> As far as I can read in the agenda proposed by Nick, there is no voting 
> tomorrow.
> There for I see no reason for further delay. We have already been 
> discussing items and topics which were very clear and had enough 
> timespan being read by everyone considering the EURALO kick-off in 
> priority of some other work.
> 
> I had also to organise myself in order to participate in what I consider 
> being an important item in the agenda of *my daily work for the Internet 
> community, listening to all and any Internet individual user.*
> 
> rudi
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann schreef:
>> Hi,
>> if it is indeed true that many ALs cannot participate tomorrow, it would 
>> be good to restrain from taking binding decisions.
>>
>> As the decisions taken in Lisbon have shown, it can somewhat poison the 
>> atmosphere if those physically present make decisions that don't reflect 
>> the preferences of those absent. For this very reason, IETF working 
>> groups don't vote in physical meetings or teleconferences, they use 
>> mailing lists for polls and the like to ensure that all interested 
>> parties have a chance to participate.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>>   
>>> >From the email replies sent to the list, this time and date were the
>>> best - more people could do this time and date than any of the others
>>> - which is why we set it that way.
>>>
>>> If nobody else will propose an agenda, what I would suggest as a draft is:
>>>
>>> 1) Discuss and agree the list of candidates - including whether or not
>>> to include candidates who were proposed after the deadline.
>>>
>>> 2) Discuss and agree the total number of board seats for this election cycle.
>>>
>>> 3) Discuss and agree the length of the voting, the start date, and the
>>> provisional list of voters and the number of days for ALSes not on the
>>> call to provide their authorised voter.
>>>
>>> We would then bring the results of these items back to the list, not
>>> for review, but as decisions.
>>>
>>> I will put this up on the Wiki as the *DRAFT* agenda which all ALSes
>>> may then edit or extend - so we have something to start from.
>>>
>>> On 03/05/07, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg@web.de> wrote:
>>>     
>>>> All,
>>>> concerning the tel conf tomorrow: Many people said they cannot take part (myself offered a different time, one and a half hours earlier). Rudi and myself asked what it is about, as no one proposed an agenda yet. I proposed to discuss all issues online. I guess, the best is, that those who actually have the chance in taking part come up with a proposal for procedure which will be presented to all of us online.
>>>> best
>>>> annette
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rudi Vansnick schrieb:
>>>>       
>>>>> This fits for me ... if at least we will have a clear agenda and no
>>>>> discussions about what is NOT written/signed in MoU and Bylaws.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>>> Chair ISOC Belgium
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>     
>> _______________________________________________
>> EURO-Discuss mailing list
>> EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>>
>>   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org