transparency on changes of rules
Dear Nick, You just wrote: "Whilst no impediment to participating in the work of the organisation is otherwise envisaged, it was strongly felt that only ALSes who are a party to the MoU with ICANN should cast votes in the upcoming election." It is hard to understand the deeper significance of this sentence, especially for non-native english speakers. After Lisbon I talked with you on the phone about the rights of ALSes who did not sign the MOU. You said, that there is no difference concerning voting rights in comparison to those who signed it. After our talk you wrote on the list: "At the present time, NO LIMITATIONS ON NON-SIGNING ALSes HAVE BEEN PROPOSED OR AGREED. Therefore, ALL ALSes IN EUROPE HAVE FULL RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN ALL ASPECTS OF THE EURALO. There has been some question about this raised in previous emails. I hope this reinforces that there is nothing to worry about." Based on your mail, all accredited ALSes could expect to have voting rights without limitations. But according to your latest mail it seems that restrictions occured to those who did not sign and voting rights have been limited to MOU signers - except they would sign within the next two days. How can you expect that volunteer representatives of our ALSes can meet such short term deadlines? So, if inbetween your two eMails (mentioned above) limitations on rights of ALSes have been introduced: what changes exactly were made? why? when? by whom? Best Annette
I don't know what was the past correspondence, and I assume that this is a question that ultimately will end, for a change :<(, with the lawyers, but my understanding since the beginning was that the relationship between ICANN and EURALO, including the modus operandi of EURALO within ALAC, was going to be governed by the MoU. As a matter of fact, re-reading the documents (AoA & MoU) I see that the election of EURALO representatives is covered in articles 1.2.5 and 5.4.1 of the MoU. I wonder how the MoU could extend legally to organizations like ALSes that do not sign the MoU. Of course, in the beginning we all thought of an MoU signed by EURALO with ICANN, and implicitely adopted by each ALS by joining the EURALO, but since we went the road of individual signatures for the MoU, by the same toke we must assume that the MoU takes force only for the ALSes who have signed it, not for the others. Who, if they do not want to sign, will remain unaffected by MoU obligations, but also unaffected by MoU advantages. Where does this not make sense? Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Annette Muehlberg Sent: 08 May 2007 12:11 To: Nick Ashton-Hart ICANN Cc: EURALO Discussion Subject: [EURO-Discuss] transparency on changes of rules
Dear Nick,
You just wrote: "Whilst no impediment to participating in the work of the organisation is otherwise envisaged, it was strongly felt that only ALSes who are a party to the MoU with ICANN should cast votes in the upcoming election."
It is hard to understand the deeper significance of this sentence, especially for non-native english speakers.
After Lisbon I talked with you on the phone about the rights of ALSes who did not sign the MOU. You said, that there is no difference concerning voting rights in comparison to those who signed it.
After our talk you wrote on the list: "At the present time, NO LIMITATIONS ON NON-SIGNING ALSes HAVE BEEN PROPOSED OR AGREED. Therefore, ALL ALSes IN EUROPE HAVE FULL RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN ALL ASPECTS OF THE EURALO. There has been some question about this raised in previous emails. I hope this reinforces that there is nothing to worry about."
Based on your mail, all accredited ALSes could expect to have voting rights without limitations. But according to your latest mail it seems that restrictions occured to those who did not sign and voting rights have been limited to MOU signers - except they would sign within the next two days. How can you expect that volunteer representatives of our ALSes can meet such short term deadlines?
So, if inbetween your two eMails (mentioned above) limitations on rights of ALSes have been introduced: what changes exactly were made? why? when? by whom?
Best Annette
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
On 2007-05-08 13:05:50 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I don't know what was the past correspondence, and I assume that this is a question that ultimately will end, for a change :<(, with the lawyers, but my understanding since the beginning was that the relationship between ICANN and EURALO, including the modus operandi of EURALO within ALAC, was going to be governed by the MoU.
I'm amazed by the role that, supposedly, the lawyers and the rules are playing here. On the one hand, there still isn't a clear indication what the status of the MoU really is -- is it binding, on whom, and so on. That would have been a set of questions that should have been resolved before the MoU was formally signed. On the other hand, some folks are so in love with the idea that there is a binding MoU that they now start calling lawyers to interpret the text that they wrote themselves just a month ago. Frankly, this style of discussion speaks badly of the things that are to come in the European RALO. Can't we have the discussion how to best represent the diverse perspectives that are present here in ICANN -- instead of talking about what diversity rules are in the MoU and what aren't? Can't we talk about how the different perspectives can collaborate constructively -- instead of having the current style of discussion which is, quite frankly, divisive to the point that I'm tempted to write all this off as an exercise in futility? -- Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
participants (3)
-
Annette Muehlberg -
Roberto Gaetano -
Thomas Roessler