Re: [EURO-Discuss] Draft agenda and planning for EURALO©s 1st General Assembly in Paris
At 3:54 PM +0100 4/24/08, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear Jeanette:
Thank you very much for your note.
I understand this provision to mean that, as it says, ALAC members elected by the region should not have to go out of pocket to live up to their responsibilities. There are no statutory representatives to other ICANN bodies as you know.
...and in your understanding the attending of face to face EURALO meetings is not among the responsibilities of EURALO board meetings?
Nick, this is a very ungenerous reading of the paragraph and of the section describing ICANN's responsibilities under the MoU. The board is of course essential to the EURALO's activities, it's the representative of the RALO members and responsible for all matters of the RALO. It makes little sense to invite members of the ALS and then not the board. Obviously any meetings the ALS hold will be less effective without the board present. The presence of the EURALO in its region's ICANN meeting will be weakened. As a community EURALO clearly needs time together and at the moment you are denying them the opportunity. All for the cost of a few inter-city train tickets and a few days expenses. It would only take a little imagination to make the resources available, *or at least to try*. I think it's the view that you don't seem to be trying that is most worrying. Vittorio's comments about other RALOs are not relevant. The board isn't a handful of individuals, they are people elected by the members, volunteers offering their time and effort to the At Large. Best, Adam
I hope this is helpful.d
I am not sure your interpretation of this provision is the most obvious one. jeanette
On 24/04/2008 16:08, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette@wzb.eu> wrote:
Hi,
Adam Peake asked me to ask once again how ICANN staff can deny travel support to elected EURALO board members in light of the following passage of the EURALO MoU (and he also asked me to cc Kieren to ensure that he is aware of our problems).
Agreed Responsibilities of ICANN 4.4 Providing the necessary resources to help support EURALO activities subject to ICANN's annual operational and budgetary plans and processes, save always that the elected representatives of EURALO to the At-Large Advisory Committee and other main ICANN bodies shall always be eligible to receive reasonable travel and subsistence such that they are able to attend such meetings without EURALO, or the representatives of the same, incurring these costs"
"How can they deny this", is what Adam asks. At least it is good to see that others outside of our little group share our interpretation of things.
jeanette
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Jeanette: > > Of course by all means involve other RALOs if you think it is helpful > I hope my previous note shed some light on a number of these issues > where there seems to be some misunderstandings. > > On that subject, there is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding in your > comment below: The basic unit of At-Large is the ALS, at least at the > present time. All RALOs have established their structures in this way, > including EURALO; ICANN¹s Bylaws have not changed in respect of the > definition of the community and in fact all the RALOs are specifically > empowered in the Bylaws of including individuals in the RALOs. The > reality is they did not decide to do that (with the exception of the > provisions that exist in RALO organising instruments largely only in > the NARALO). > > I hope this makes clear that nothing has changed from ICANN¹s side, and > that in fact, RALOs are free to choose to allow direct membership of > individuals and they have been since the At-Large community became a > part of the ICANN Bylaws years ago. > > > On 17/04/2008 15:46, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette@wzb.eu> wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > I very much share your thoughts and I wonder if this discussion > shouldn't be moved to the ALAC list as it concerns other RALOs as well. > ICANN apparently moved from a concept of At large membership for > individuals to one that only recognizes organizations. I wonder how many > people are actually aware of this and support this move. > jeanette > > William Drake wrote: > > Hi Nick, > > > > While this conversation has drifted off, I¹d like to share a couple of > > closing thoughts on your decision. > > > > If as you say it is a matter of clear policy that ³no region has an > > opportunity for non-ALS members to receive travel support to attend > > ICANN meetings,² one would think this could have been made clear > when we > > asked about it repeatedly months ago. Instead, as Jeanette noted, you > > gave the impression last August that it shouldn¹t be a problem. I > think > > most people would reasonably read ³One could imagine that the > invitation > > could be extended to allow those officers to attend as well² in that > > way. If there is a policy to the contrary, one could not have so > imagined. > > > > Subsequently, a number of times people raised the matter with you in > > ways that indicated we were therefore assuming the invitation could be > > extended, and you never corrected us. On the basis of this assumption, > > people have gone forward and put some time into participating (and > would > > have done much more if we¹d been energized by a F2F meeting in > Warsaw or > > Geneva) with an eye toward finally being able to convene in Paris and > > really boot things up from there. Now we find out that a chunk of the > > board is basically to be excluded, not just in Paris, but going > forward. > > Teleconferencing in is obviously no substitute for participating in a > > first F2F board meeting and a General Assembly, particularly if one > > wants to get more deeply involved in the work, get to know the ALS > > folks, etc. > > > > More generally, if non-ALS people essentially have no standing, > wouldn¹t > > the time to make that absolutely clear have been last May, before the > > region elected non-ALS people to the board? If it had been, when > I was > > approached about getting into this, as a non-ALS person I¹d obviously > > have said there¹s no point and would have saved a lot of time since > > then. And if the objective is to energize people to get engaged in > > ICANN work, one would think it right to let regions organize > themselves > > as they need to and elect who they want... > > > > Anyway, I guess it¹s been a revealing learning process. I of > course will > > not stand for re-election but wish the next board all the best. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Bill > > > > On 4/14/08 6:20 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" > <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote: > > > > Sorry if I was unclear that isn¹t quite what I meant and my > > apologies if what I said led to confusion. > > > > Basically, no region has an opportunity for non-ALS members to > > receive travel support to attend ICANN meetings. Therefore, if > > EURALO is allowed to send non-ALS representatives to an ICANN > > meeting and other regions are not, those other regions receive > > unequal (lesser) treatment to EURALO. > > > > The Secretariats have previously discussed in principle the > idea of > > establishing differential rules by region related to travel > support. > > The community has not however explored this idea and of course any > > proposal would need to be equitable across regions, and also > within > > regions. > > > > On 14/04/2008 17:55, "William Drake" > > <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > > > > Hi Nick, > > > > Thanks for this reply, but I still need help understanding the > > nature of the inequity you see. Your argument is that the > > boards of other regions would consider that ³it would unfairly > > prejudice² them if the full European board were funded, > just as > > they are? They demand that only some of our board participate > > in our board meeting and GA? > > > > Bill > > > > On 4/14/08 5:28 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" > > <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote: > > > > Actually nothing has changed. As you will note from the > > email below, sent more than 7 months ago, you will notice > > that the statement I made did not say that the extension > > would be provided, only that it was possible. I¹m sure > that > > you all understand that we do need to be equitable to all > > regions. > > > > > > On 14/04/2008 17:17, "Jeanette Hofmann" > <jeanette@wzb.eu> wrote: > > > > Hi Nick, > > > > last year, 15.08.2007 16:22 > > you sent the following mail below to the euro-discuss > > list. It would be > > great if you could you let us know what has changed in > > the meantime. I > > hope you get better soon. > > best, jeanette > > > > Re: [EURO-Discuss] Funding Request and Draft > Agenda for > > EURALO Board meeting > > > > ALS' are invited to send a single representative to > > ICANN meetings when the > > region that they are in is provided travel support. > > > > At this point Europe is the only region which has > > regional officers who are > > not also ALS representatives. One could imagine > that the > > invitation could be > > extended to allow those officers to attend as well. > > > > > > On 15/8/07 14:45, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette@wzb.eu> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Nick, from what I understand only ALS get > > financial support for > > > > attending ICANN meetings. Is that correct? > > > > This would mean that several board members would > > either not attend > > > > regional meetings or pay for themselves. > > > > jeanette > > > > > > > > > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > My apologies for taking a few days to respond > to this > > email. I¹ve been a > > > bit under the weather (unwell). I¹ve taken the > liberty > > of copying in > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC chair) and the three ALAC > > representatives from > > > EURALO given the importance of the email to > planning > > overall... > > > > > > On the first point, as those of you who have > attended > > many ICANN > > > meetings will know, it is pretty much impossible to > > ensure that all > > > scheduling conflicts can be avoided in > connection with > > an ICANN meeting. > > > The Paris meeting is even more challenging, as > it is > > one day shorter > > > than the usual meeting since it ends on the > Thursday > > instead of Friday. > > > Having a EURALO meeting on Sunday wouldn¹t work > as the > > ALAC are meeting > > > that day and on that day ALAC is meeting with the > > GAC at lunch, and > > > the GNSO for breakfast (and members of EURALO would > > wish to attend these > > > meetings I suspect). Saturday was chosen only after > > careful review of > > > all options. You should know that there are always > > issues of the kind > > > you mention with RALO GA planning so EURALO is far > > from the first to > > > experience issues with scheduling. In fact, I > believe > > that the last > > > EURALO GA was split over three days due to > scheduling > > problems. > > > > > > With respect to travel support, the situation > is that > > each ALS will be > > > invited to send one representative with travel > support > > provided by > > > ICANN. Since no other region has received travel > > support on any other > > > basis, it would unfairly prejudice the others > to treat > > EURALO > > > differently and provide more travel support for one > > region over any > > > other. I can tell you that ensuring that telephonic > > remote participation > > > that works well is a priority at the Paris ICANN > > meeting as internally > > > the discussions about how this has not worked well > > previously have been > > > taken to a higher level than was previously the > case. > > > > > > I hope this answers your questions even if it > is not > > the answer that you > > > might wish to receive. > > > > > > > > > On 12/04/2008 18:34, "William Drake" > > > <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > > > > > > It sounds like it would have been good to check > > with people on > > > scheduling > > > before fixing a date. > > > > > > Nick, could we please get definitive > clarification > > of the funding issue > > > raised today by Vittorio and Jeanette, and > > previously by Wolf, Karen, > > > Annette, myself, maybe others? Somehow I'd > > thought it was resolved that > > > there's no problem, but looking through my > saved > > Euralo message folder I > > > can't find a message that's actually from > you to > > that effect. > > > People need > > > to know whether and how to plan... > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > On 4/12/08 6:02 PM, "Vittorio Bertola" > > <vb@bertola.eu> wrote: > > > > > > > Wolf Ludwig ha scritto: > > > > > To the members of the EURALO board: > > > > > > > > > > Dear all > > > > > > > > > > According to our by-laws, we are > supposed to > > have our first GA this > > > > > year and the coming 32nd International > Public > > Meeting of ICANN in > > > > > Paris (from 22 to 26 June 08) offers an > almost > > perfect opportunity > > > > > for that. After a short discussion I > had with > > Nick he already > > > > > reserved Saturday, 21 June 08, all day > for us. > > Thanks Nick! > > > > > > > > I still don't know whether I'll get > funding for > > Paris, but in any > > > case I > > > > won't be able to get to Paris before the > > morning of the 22nd. > > > > Ciao, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > > Director for At-Large > > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > (ICANN) > > > Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 > > > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > > > Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 > > > Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 > > > email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org > > > Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: > > nashtonhart@mac.com / > > > Skype: nashtonhart > > > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > > > > > > > > *********************************************************** > > William J. Drake > > Director, Project on the Information > > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > > Graduate Institute of International and > > Development Studies > > Geneva, Switzerland > > william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch > > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > *********************************************************** > > William J. Drake > > Director, Project on the Information > > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > > Graduate Institute of International and > > Development Studies > > Geneva, Switzerland > > william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch > > *********************************************************** > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Director for At-Large > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 > Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 > email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org > Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / > Skype: nashtonhart > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Good evening. Where can I find the minutes of the EURALO Board meetings so far? Thanks, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Friday, 25 April 2008 16:21 To: Jeanette Hofmann; Nick Ashton-Hart; euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; kierenmccarthy@gmail.com; Vittorio Bertola; Veronica Cretu; At-Large Staff; Dr. Christoph Bruch Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Draft agenda and planning for EURALO©s 1st General Assembly in Paris
At 3:54 PM +0100 4/24/08, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear Jeanette:
Thank you very much for your note.
I understand this provision to mean that, as it says, ALAC members elected by the region should not have to go out of pocket to live up to their responsibilities. There are no statutory representatives to other ICANN bodies as you know.
...and in your understanding the attending of face to face EURALO meetings is not among the responsibilities of EURALO board meetings?
Nick, this is a very ungenerous reading of the paragraph and of the section describing ICANN's responsibilities under the MoU.
The board is of course essential to the EURALO's activities, it's the representative of the RALO members and responsible for all matters of the RALO. It makes little sense to invite members of the ALS and then not the board. Obviously any meetings the ALS hold will be less effective without the board present. The presence of the EURALO in its region's ICANN meeting will be weakened.
As a community EURALO clearly needs time together and at the moment you are denying them the opportunity. All for the cost of a few inter-city train tickets and a few days expenses. It would only take a little imagination to make the resources available, *or at least to try*. I think it's the view that you don't seem to be trying that is most worrying.
Vittorio's comments about other RALOs are not relevant. The board isn't a handful of individuals, they are people elected by the members, volunteers offering their time and effort to the At Large.
Best,
Adam
I hope this is helpful.d
I am not sure your interpretation of this provision is the most obvious one. jeanette
On 24/04/2008 16:08, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette@wzb.eu> wrote:
Hi,
Adam Peake asked me to ask once again how ICANN staff
can deny travel
support to elected EURALO board members in light of
the following
passage of the EURALO MoU (and he also asked me to cc
Kieren to ensure
that he is aware of our problems).
Agreed Responsibilities of ICANN 4.4 Providing the necessary resources to help support
EURALO activities
subject to ICANN's annual operational and budgetary
plans and processes,
save always that the elected representatives of EURALO
to the At-Large
Advisory Committee and other main ICANN bodies shall
always be eligible
to receive reasonable travel and subsistence such that
they are able to
attend such meetings without EURALO, or the
representatives of the same,
incurring these costs"
"How can they deny this", is what Adam asks. At least it is good to see that others outside of our
little group share
our interpretation of things.
jeanette
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Jeanette: > > Of course by all means involve other RALOs if you
think it is
helpful > I hope my previous note shed some light on a number
of these issues
> where there seems to be some misunderstandings. > > On that subject, there is a fairly fundamental
misunderstanding in
your > comment below: The basic unit of At-Large is the
ALS, at least at the
> present time. All RALOs have established their
structures in this way,
> including EURALO; ICANN¹s Bylaws have not changed
in respect of the
> definition of the community and in fact all the
RALOs are specifically
> empowered in the Bylaws of including individuals in
the RALOs. The
> reality is they did not decide to do that (with the
exception of the
> provisions that exist in RALO organising
instruments largely only in
> the NARALO). > > I hope this makes clear that nothing has changed
from ICANN¹s
side, and > that in fact, RALOs are free to choose to allow
direct membership of
> individuals and they have been since the At-Large
community became a
> part of the ICANN Bylaws years ago. > > > On 17/04/2008 15:46, "Jeanette Hofmann"
<jeanette@wzb.eu> wrote:
> > Hi Bill, > > I very much share your thoughts and I wonder if
this discussion
> shouldn't be moved to the ALAC list as it
concerns other RALOs
as well. > ICANN apparently moved from a concept of At
large membership for
> individuals to one that only recognizes organizations. I wonder how many > people are actually aware of this and support this move. > jeanette > > William Drake wrote: > > Hi Nick, > > > > While this conversation has drifted off, I¹d
like to share
a couple of > > closing thoughts on your decision. > > > > If as you say it is a matter of clear policy that ³no region has an > > opportunity for non-ALS members to receive
travel support
to attend > > ICANN meetings,² one would think this could
have been made
clear > when we > > asked about it repeatedly months ago.
Instead, as Jeanette
noted, you > > gave the impression last August that it
shouldn¹t be a
problem. I > think > > most people would reasonably read ³One could
imagine that the
> invitation > > could be extended to allow those officers to
attend as
well² in that > > way. If there is a policy to the contrary,
one could not
have so > imagined. > > > > Subsequently, a number of times people
raised the matter
with you in > > ways that indicated we were therefore assuming the invitation could be > > extended, and you never corrected us. On the
basis of this
assumption, > > people have gone forward and put some time into participating (and > would > > have done much more if we¹d been energized
by a F2F meeting in
> Warsaw or > > Geneva) with an eye toward finally being
able to convene in
Paris and > > really boot things up from there. Now we
find out that a
chunk of the > > board is basically to be excluded, not just
in Paris, but going
> forward. > > Teleconferencing in is obviously no substitute for participating in a > > first F2F board meeting and a General Assembly, particularly if one > > wants to get more deeply involved in the
work, get to know
the ALS > > folks, etc. > > > > More generally, if non-ALS people
essentially have no standing,
> wouldn¹t > > the time to make that absolutely clear have
been last May,
before the > > region elected non-ALS people to the board?
If it had
been, when > I was > > approached about getting into this, as a
non-ALS person I¹d
obviously > > have said there¹s no point and would have
saved a lot of
time since > > then. And if the objective is to energize
people to get
engaged in > > ICANN work, one would think it right to let
regions organize
> themselves > > as they need to and elect who they want... > > > > Anyway, I guess it¹s been a revealing
learning process. I of
> course will > > not stand for re-election but wish the next
board all the best.
> > > > Cheers, > > > > Bill > > > > On 4/14/08 6:20 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" > <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote: > > > > Sorry if I was unclear that isn¹t
quite what I meant
and my > > apologies if what I said led to confusion. > > > > Basically, no region has an opportunity
for non-ALS
members to > > receive travel support to attend ICANN meetings. Therefore, if > > EURALO is allowed to send non-ALS
representatives to an
ICANN > > meeting and other regions are not, those
other regions
receive > > unequal (lesser) treatment to EURALO. > > > > The Secretariats have previously
discussed in principle the
> idea of > > establishing differential rules by
region related to travel
> support. > > The community has not however explored
this idea and of
course any > > proposal would need to be equitable
across regions, and
also > within > > regions. > > > > On 14/04/2008 17:55, "William Drake" > > <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > > > > Hi Nick, > > > > Thanks for this reply, but I still need help understanding the > > nature of the inequity you see.
Your argument is
that the > > boards of other regions would
consider that ³it
would unfairly > > prejudice² them if the full European
board were funded,
> just as > > they are? They demand that only
some of our board
participate > > in our board meeting and GA? > > > > Bill > > > > On 4/14/08 5:28 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" > > <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote: > > > > Actually nothing has changed. As
you will note
from the > > email below, sent more than 7
months ago, you
will notice > > that the statement I made did
not say that the
extension > > would be provided, only that it
was possible.
I¹m sure > that > > you all understand that we do need to be equitable to all > > regions. > > > > > > On 14/04/2008 17:17, "Jeanette Hofmann" > <jeanette@wzb.eu> wrote: > > > > Hi Nick, > > > > last year, 15.08.2007 16:22 > > you sent the following mail
below to the
euro-discuss > > list. It would be > > great if you could you let
us know what has
changed in > > the meantime. I > > hope you get better soon. > > best, jeanette > > > > Re: [EURO-Discuss] Funding
Request and Draft
> Agenda for > > EURALO Board meeting > > > > ALS' are invited to send a single representative to > > ICANN meetings when the > > region that they are in is
provided travel
support. > > > > At this point Europe is the
only region
which has > > regional officers who are > > not also ALS
representatives. One could imagine
> that the > > invitation could be > > extended to allow those
officers to attend
as well. > > > > > > On 15/8/07 14:45, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette@wzb.eu> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Nick, from what I
understand only
ALS get > > financial support for > > > > attending ICANN
meetings. Is that correct?
> > > > This would mean that
several board
members would > > either not attend > > > > regional meetings or
pay for themselves.
> > > > jeanette > > > > > > > > > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > My apologies for taking a
few days to
respond > to this > > email. I¹ve been a > > > bit under the weather
(unwell). I¹ve
taken the > liberty > > of copying in > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC
chair) and the
three ALAC > > representatives from > > > EURALO given the
importance of the email to
> planning > > overall... > > > > > > On the first point, as
those of you who have
> attended > > many ICANN > > > meetings will know, it is
pretty much
impossible to > > ensure that all > > > scheduling conflicts can
be avoided in
> connection with > > an ICANN meeting. > > > The Paris meeting is even more challenging, as > it is > > one day shorter > > > than the usual meeting
since it ends on the
> Thursday > > instead of Friday. > > > Having a EURALO meeting on Sunday wouldn¹t work > as the > > ALAC are meeting > > > that day and on that day ALAC is meeting with the > > GAC at lunch, and > > > the GNSO for breakfast
(and members of
EURALO would > > wish to attend these > > > meetings I suspect).
Saturday was chosen
only after > > careful review of > > > all options. You should
know that there
are always > > issues of the kind > > > you mention with RALO GA
planning so
EURALO is far > > from the first to > > > experience issues with
scheduling. In
fact, I > believe > > that the last > > > EURALO GA was split over
three days due to
> scheduling > > problems. > > > > > > With respect to travel
support, the
situation > is that > > each ALS will be > > > invited to send one
representative with
travel > support > > provided by > > > ICANN. Since no other region has received travel > > support on any other > > > basis, it would unfairly
prejudice the
others > to treat > > EURALO > > > differently and provide
more travel
support for one > > region over any > > > other. I can tell you
that ensuring that
telephonic > > remote participation > > > that works well is a
priority at the
Paris ICANN > > meeting as internally > > > the discussions about how
this has not
worked well > > previously have been > > > taken to a higher level than was previously the > case. > > > > > > I hope this answers your
questions even
if it > is not > > the answer that you > > > might wish to receive. > > > > > > > > > On 12/04/2008 18:34,
"William Drake"
> > >
<william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
> > > > > > It sounds like it
would have been
good to check > > with people on > > > scheduling > > > before fixing a date. > > > > > > Nick, could we please
get definitive
> clarification > > of the funding issue > > > raised today by Vittorio and Jeanette, and > > previously by Wolf, Karen, > > > Annette, myself, maybe others? Somehow I'd > > thought it was resolved that > > > there's no problem,
but looking
through my > saved > > Euralo message folder I > > > can't find a message
that's actually
from > you to > > that effect. > > > People need > > > to know whether and
how to plan...
> > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > On 4/12/08 6:02 PM,
"Vittorio Bertola"
> > <vb@bertola.eu> wrote: > > > > > > > Wolf Ludwig ha scritto: > > > > > To the members of
the EURALO board:
> > > > > > > > > > Dear all > > > > > > > > > > According to our
by-laws, we are
> supposed to > > have our first GA this > > > > > year and the coming 32nd International > Public > > Meeting of ICANN in > > > > > Paris (from 22 to
26 June 08)
offers an > almost > > perfect opportunity > > > > > for that. After a
short discussion I
> had with > > Nick he already > > > > > reserved
Saturday, 21 June 08,
all day > for us. > > Thanks Nick! > > > > > > > > I still don't know
whether I'll get
> funding for > > Paris, but in any > > > case I > > > > won't be able to
get to Paris
before the > > morning of the 22nd. > > > > Ciao, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > > Director for At-Large > > > Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names
and Numbers > > (ICANN) > > > Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 > > > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > > > Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 > > > Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 > > > email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org > > > Win IM:
ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight:
> > nashtonhart@mac.com / > > > Skype: nashtonhart > > > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > > > > > > > >
> > William J. Drake > > Director, Project on the Information > > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > > Graduate Institute of International and > > Development Studies > > Geneva, Switzerland > > william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > William J. Drake > > Director, Project on the Information > > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > > Graduate Institute of International and > > Development Studies > > Geneva, Switzerland > > william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch > >
> > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Director for At-Large > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 > Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 > email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org > Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight:
nashtonhart@mac.com /
> Skype: nashtonhart > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Main Tel:
+33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Hi Roberto, when you are asking
Where can I find the minutes of the EURALO Board meetings so far?
I would like to forward you the draft agenda for our first – planned – board meeting which was intended in Warsaw in autumn 07 (see attachment 1). Some people may say that “EURALO has not done anything over the last 10 months” but we have repeatedly tried to make EURALO happen – unfortunately we dared to ask for support or money/funding to give a new group, such as the EURALO board, a chance to find or create its own working dynamic. At our 2nd attempt, end of February 08 (just after New Delhi and after we met in Vienna at the Domainpulse 08) we tried to have a first and delayed board meeting in Geneva – some of us were there for the IGF consultations anyhow, and we simply asked for travel support of those two who wanted to join us ... Unfortunately we had no chance or enabling support again! But we made a first *face to face* meeting of at least some of the board members happen on our own costs – and the minutes or “notes” of this meeting you can find attached (see attachment 2). I would appreciate your comments on this. Best regards, Wolf Roberto Gaetano wrote Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:36:
Good evening. Where can I find the minutes of the EURALO Board meetings so far? Thanks, Roberto
comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net http://blog.allmend.ch - Digitale Allmend
Wolf, My recommendation would be that the Board triggers and coordinates discussion in the EURALO membership (the ALSes) for issues related to internet policy. I personally think that a f2f meeting of the Board is obviously very useful, but not absolutely necessary to start working. Let me give you an example. There are proposals on the table for the improvement of the GNSO. One of these proposals even has the signature of ALAC, although from what I read on the mailing list there is not a real consensus on it. The questions raised by the changes in the GNSO structure are something that directly affects the ALAC membership, and therefore the EURALO. NARALO has decided to produce some contribution to the debate: would it be a good idea to discuss with the European membership what are the opinions on this subject? Another point where EURALO could have a leading role is in relation to privacy concerns, applied to internet policy. Considering that the EU legislation has a very strong position wrt privacy, it could be good if EURALO could come up with a statement backing up this view, that could be used in discussions like the WhoIs, Regisrar escrow, and so on. In summary, I would see a great value in EURALO discussing policy matters, and although a f2f meeting could help, maybe the best thing is to start now, in order to get the maximum benefit when people will meet in person in Paris. But it would be a big mistake to wait another two months for the f2f meeting in order to start discussing substantive issues. Just my 2 Euro-cents ;>) Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wolf Ludwig Sent: Monday, 28 April 2008 00:43 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe; 'Discussion for At-Large Europe'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'; 'Nick Ashton-Hart' Cc: kierenmccarthy@gmail.com; 'Vittorio Bertola'; 'VeronicaCretu'; 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr'; 'At-Large Staff'; 'Dr.Christoph Bruch' Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss]Draft agenda and planning for EURALO(c)-s 1st General Assembly in Paris
Hi Roberto,
when you are asking
Where can I find the minutes of the EURALO Board meetings so far?
I would like to forward you the draft agenda for our first - planned - board meeting which was intended in Warsaw in autumn 07 (see attachment 1). Some people may say that "EURALO has not done anything over the last 10 months" but we have repeatedly tried to make EURALO happen - unfortunately we dared to ask for support or money/funding to give a new group, such as the EURALO board, a chance to find or create its own working dynamic.
At our 2nd attempt, end of February 08 (just after New Delhi and after we met in Vienna at the Domainpulse 08) we tried to have a first and delayed board meeting in Geneva - some of us were there for the IGF consultations anyhow, and we simply asked for travel support of those two who wanted to join us ... Unfortunately we had no chance or enabling support again! But we made a first *face to face* meeting of at least some of the board members happen on our own costs - and the minutes or "notes" of this meeting you can find attached (see attachment 2).
I would appreciate your comments on this.
Best regards, Wolf
Roberto Gaetano wrote Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:36:
Good evening. Where can I find the minutes of the EURALO Board meetings so far? Thanks, Roberto
comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net
http://blog.allmend.ch - Digitale Allmend
Hi Roberto, Roberto Gaetano wrote Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:27:
My recommendation would be that the Board triggers and coordinates discussion in the EURALO membership (the ALSes) for issues related to internet policy.
I entirely agree with you, Roberto, in principle.
I personally think that a f2f meeting of the Board is obviously very >useful but not absolutely necessary >to start working.
I don’t want to bore anybody with certain repetitions but this Board was/is a new group with a majority of people not even knowing each other and far more heterogeneous than other comparable groups (old hands and newbies, backgrounds, cultures etc.) Therefore you cannot just prescribe or impose a dynamic and working method which is not considered as „enabling, encouraging and useful“ by the majority of this group. What sounds quite pragmatic turned out to be wishful thinking.
(...) There are proposals on the table for the improvement of the GNSO. One of these proposals even has >the signature of ALAC, although from what I read on the mailing list there is not a real consensus on it. >The questions raised by the changes in the GNSO structure are something that directly affects the ALAC >membership, and therefore the EURALO. NARALO has decided to produce some contribution to the >debate: would it be a good idea to discuss with the European membership what are the opinions on this >subject?
I can agree again but it’s difficult to expect a second step (concentration on content) before the first one, as long as a group (board) has not yet found ITS own work dynamic. It doesn’t help to ignore this essential context and to always call it “excuses” as some old-hands do. Be assured, Roberto, this is not encouraging for newcomers – and the famous Internet Users we want to get involved – at all.
Another point where EURALO could have a leading role is in relation to privacy concerns, applied to internet policy. Considering that the EU legislation has a very strong position wrt privacy, it could be good if EURALO could come up with a statement backing up this view, that could be used in discussions like the WhoIs, Regisrar escrow, and so on.
I agree again, as a European I consider privacy concerns as among the most relevant. But let me be frank: if I could find a sponsor to invest more of my time and capacities into this work – without being obliged to earn some money in between with my professional activities – I would just do it. For the time being, it takes already a considerable portion of my „free time“ to follow some organisational necessities. It’s the contrast again between the wishful and the necessary or nice-to-have and musts ;-).
In summary, I would see a great value in EURALO discussing policy matters, and although a f2f meeting could help, maybe the best thing is to start now, in order to get the maximum benefit when people will meet in person in Paris. But it would be a big mistake to wait another two months for the f2f meeting in order to start discussing >substantive issues.
I don’t consider this as a recommendation directed personally to me only but to all of us and would appreciate the same.
Just my 2 Euro-cents ;>)
They are always welcome, Roberto ;-). Regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net http://blog.allmend.ch - Digitale Allmend
Wolf:
I don't want to bore anybody with certain repetitions but this Board was/is a new group with a majority of people not even knowing each other and far more heterogeneous than other comparable groups (old hands and newbies, backgrounds, cultures etc.) Therefore you cannot just prescribe or impose a dynamic and working method which is not considered as "enabling, encouraging and useful" by the majority of this group. What sounds quite pragmatic turned out to be wishful thinking.
You know better than me the current reality of ALAC. I just gave you my opinion, which is likely to be a perception that others share from the outside. Then, the decision on what to do is only ALAC's. And we all will respect it.
(...)
I agree again, as a European I consider privacy concerns as among the most relevant. But let me be frank: if I could find a sponsor to invest more of my time and capacities into this work - without being obliged to earn some money in between with my professional activities - I would just do it. For the time being, it takes already a considerable portion of my "free time" to follow some organisational necessities. It's the contrast again between the wishful and the necessary or nice-to-have and musts ;-).
I understand this. I am a volounteer as well.
In summary, I would see a great value in EURALO discussing policy matters, and although a f2f meeting could help, maybe the best thing is to start now, in order to get the maximum benefit when people will meet in person in Paris. But it would be a big mistake to wait another two months for the f2f meeting in order to start discussing substantive issues.
I don't consider this as a recommendation directed personally to me only but to all of us and would appreciate the same.
Absolutely, it is a recommendation directed to all of us. Even the Board has sometimes the temptation to postpone substantial issues and discuss organizational matters. Again, it might be just my own taste/preference, but since that's my feeling, I communicate it. Cheers, Roberto
participants (3)
-
Adam Peake -
Roberto Gaetano -
Wolf Ludwig