Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws
Stefan, two questions to make sure I understand where we are: Since you object to 7, do you object to voting on whether there will be 5, 7, or 9 board members? As to the objection about ALSes: It seems to me that there is no option, therefore, but that there must be a vote amongst those who have signed the MoU as to whether or not they wish to formally require that only those who have signed the MoU may vote in the election. Since they have signed the MoU, it is up to them to decide whether they wish to limit the voting rights in the manner proposed, as provided in the relevant clauses of the MoU. There are at present only three ALSes who have not yet signed the MoU. We (Susie and myself) will therefore setup a vote to start this Friday, when the election would have started, and ending on the same date the election would have ended, with this question: "Shall voting rights in the upcoming elections be limited to those who have signed the MoU with ICANN?" The available options will then be: YES NO ABSTAIN Hopefully this will meet with general understanding. On 09/05/07, Stefan Hügel <sh@fiff.de> wrote:
Dear Nick, dear colleagues,
I am not sure if it is a good idea to artificially restrict the number of board members. As there is a lot of work to do, why exclude individuals who are willing to do that work?
It is also not plausible to me, why Annettes suggestion endangers the progress of the election. We should strive together for the best possible solution and not build up pressure against alternative opinions.
Unfortunately, I have to state that I object to the recommendation to have a board of seven. Instead, in my opinion, we should at least have a board of 9 elected members. Even better, we should not exclude anyone.
Additionally I would object to the recommendation to let only the signers of the MoU vote. All accredited ALSes should have the right to vote, as it was discussed earlier.
Best Stefan
Am 09.05.2007 um 17:24 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart:
To be clear, does this mean that you are objecting to the recommendation from the teleconference that we have a board of 7?
Currently there are not nine, but twelve candidates, since the three ALAC members are included, understanding that the two ALAC representatives elected would not be board members; the ALAC representative who is not elected could become a board member, if (following what was published after the recent teleconference) they were in the top 5, 7, or 9 chosen in the elections to take place starting this Friday.
I hope very much Annette that you are not objecting to the vote for the number of directors at least - of choosing between 5, 7, or 9 directors. If you are objecting to that, please so state - understanding that if you do you endanger the entire election going forward, and risk throwing everything back to square one again. I VERY much hope you will agree that doing that would be highly undesirable.
On 09/05/07, Annette Muehlberg <Annette.Muehlberg@web.de> wrote: 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
--
-- -- 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
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
-- 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
-- -- 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
Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
We (Susie and myself) will therefore setup a vote to start this Friday, when the election would have started, and ending on the same date the election would have ended, with this question:
Please note that if it turns out that you can enjoy rights without signing the related agreement, my organization will consider terminating the agreement. Why should we sign a contract if it is not necessary? Anyway, if you really want a vote on that, let's do this in parallel; but let's not delay the rest of the procedure. I think that further delays are unacceptable. We already stretched the original schedule a lot, we accepted late nominations without objection, we encouraged those who had not signed yet to do it now so that they could still participate in the vote. Many of us here accepted lots and lots of compromises, trying to build a home that can be good both for techies and for activists, for groups and for individuals; and we still receive messages stating "the only solution is to do exactly as I say". I think that ICANN should be more supportive of constructive contributions and less accommodating with destructive ones. In the end, people have to realize that either they believe in this process, and so sign the MoU and accept to live with the diversity of opinions in the group, or they do not, and so they stop participating. Just staying half way, posting objections to each and every step forward, is neither useful nor reasonable for anyone. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Agree with Vittorio and with Patrick from earlier today. People, colleagues, please, understand that what we see here is one of the reasons why there's not enough good participation by new people at the work of ICANN - because nobody new would enjoy such in depth discussions on something so small and simple. We had to hear the lawyers, the managers, the staff.... Please, be reasonable. And try not to think that this is a political process, and your candidates have to make it somewhere, or it's a loss for you. In this artificial fight for power, the only losers are the Internet users - perhaps we have to remind often some people that ICANN exists for the users, not for anyone else. veni At 23:06 5/9/2007 +0200, you wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
We (Susie and myself) will therefore setup a vote to start this Friday, when the election would have started, and ending on the same date the election would have ended, with this question:
Please note that if it turns out that you can enjoy rights without signing the related agreement, my organization will consider terminating the agreement. Why should we sign a contract if it is not necessary?
Hi Veni, sorry for this question but as I understand you are now ICANN staff. Is it common practice among ICANN staff to participate in debates with comments such as: I agree with A and I disagree with B? jeanette Veni Markovski wrote:
Agree with Vittorio and with Patrick from earlier today. People, colleagues, please, understand that what we see here is one of the reasons why there's not enough good participation by new people at the work of ICANN - because nobody new would enjoy such in depth discussions on something so small and simple. We had to hear the lawyers, the managers, the staff.... Please, be reasonable. And try not to think that this is a political process, and your candidates have to make it somewhere, or it's a loss for you. In this artificial fight for power, the only losers are the Internet users - perhaps we have to remind often some people that ICANN exists for the users, not for anyone else.
veni
At 23:06 5/9/2007 +0200, you wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
We (Susie and myself) will therefore setup a vote to start this Friday, when the election would have started, and ending on the same date the election would have ended, with this question:
Please note that if it turns out that you can enjoy rights without signing the related agreement, my organization will consider terminating the agreement. Why should we sign a contract if it is not necessary?
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
At 18:26 5/10/2007 +0200, you wrote:
Hi Veni, sorry for this question but as I understand you are now ICANN staff. Is it common practice among ICANN staff to participate in debates with comments such as: I agree with A and I disagree with B?
I don't know if it is a common practice. best, veni
Hi Jumping in a bit here - if a staff member is also a member of an ALS, what's the rule for participating in discussions? If we apply the broad definition of atlarge, individual internet users, then staff members would count (in their personal capacities)? Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:26 PM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws Hi Veni, sorry for this question but as I understand you are now ICANN staff. Is it common practice among ICANN staff to participate in debates with comments such as: I agree with A and I disagree with B? jeanette Veni Markovski wrote:
Agree with Vittorio and with Patrick from earlier today. People, colleagues, please, understand that what we see here is one of the reasons why there's not enough good participation by new people at the work of ICANN - because nobody new would enjoy such in depth discussions on something so small and simple. We had to hear the lawyers, the managers, the staff.... Please, be reasonable. And try not to think that this is a political process, and your candidates have to make it somewhere, or it's a loss for you. In this artificial fight for power, the only losers are the Internet users - perhaps we have to remind often some people that ICANN exists for the users, not for anyone else.
veni
At 23:06 5/9/2007 +0200, you wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
We (Susie and myself) will therefore setup a vote to start this Friday, when the election would have started, and ending on the same date the election would have ended, with this question:
Please note that if it turns out that you can enjoy rights without signing the related agreement, my organization will consider terminating the agreement. Why should we sign a contract if it is not necessary?
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i cann.org _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i cann.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 5/9/2007 3:07 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 5/9/2007 3:07 PM
At 12:32 5/10/2007 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Jumping in a bit here - if a staff member is also a member of an ALS, what's the rule for participating in discussions? If we apply the broad definition of atlarge, individual internet users, then staff members would count (in their personal capacities)?
It goes into the discussion about Patrick's explanation to Adam's questions. I hope that this is not an attempt to shut down someone, who disagrees with someone:-) I also hope - in the light of my east-european 21-year-socliast-education, that no one is trying to say that "staff" are like a second class (second hand) people, who are not allowed to express opinions in debates, and that their comments should be always "we agree", esp. if we are talking about "staff" who also happen to be leading one of the first members of the At-Large from Europe, an organization with history in the Internet, and in ICANN, that goes as back as 1999, if I remember correctly. And last, but not least, I really hope that this mailing list will not become a second "internet governance" list, where representatives of ISOC.bg and the IGP argue at will on issues. I don't want to argue here, I want to see work done, and more substential e-mails. And I have to say, that I don't find my last one very substential. veni
Nope - more the opposite. AtLarge is for the Individual internet user. That's (in its broadest sense) everybody, including staff in their personal capacities! And I would hate for someone's job to preclude their participation in any volunteer organization (especially one that's a registered and accredited member of the AtLarge for a long time) Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni@veni.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:43 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] follow our own bylaws At 12:32 5/10/2007 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Jumping in a bit here - if a staff member is also a member of an ALS, what's the rule for participating in discussions? If we apply the broad definition of atlarge, individual internet users, then staff members would count (in their personal capacities)?
It goes into the discussion about Patrick's explanation to Adam's questions. I hope that this is not an attempt to shut down someone, who disagrees with someone:-) No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 5/9/2007 3:07 PM
At https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe there's the first non-english language version. Thank you, Dessi. Hope others will follow with translation in their own languages. veni
Dear Nick, dear colleagues, I'd like to suggest the following: Extend the voting on the number of board members: 5, 7, 9 or 10 (that is, all candidates). (In this sense I object to the voting on 5, 7 or 9.) I fully agree on a vote amongst the signers of the MoU, if the non- signers will be allowed to take part in the election. One final remark I' like to make: We should vote first on the number of seats and the ALSes allowed to take part in the election. Only afterwards, the election itself should take place. I think it is important to know before voting, who has the right to vote and how many candidates will get a seat. Best Stefan Am 09.05.2007 um 20:31 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart:
Stefan, two questions to make sure I understand where we are:
Since you object to 7, do you object to voting on whether there will be 5, 7, or 9 board members?
As to the objection about ALSes: It seems to me that there is no option, therefore, but that there must be a vote amongst those who have signed the MoU as to whether or not they wish to formally require that only those who have signed the MoU may vote in the election.
Since they have signed the MoU, it is up to them to decide whether they wish to limit the voting rights in the manner proposed, as provided in the relevant clauses of the MoU.
There are at present only three ALSes who have not yet signed the MoU.
We (Susie and myself) will therefore setup a vote to start this Friday, when the election would have started, and ending on the same date the election would have ended, with this question:
"Shall voting rights in the upcoming elections be limited to those who have signed the MoU with ICANN?"
The available options will then be:
YES NO ABSTAIN
Hopefully this will meet with general understanding.
On 09/05/07, Stefan Hügel <sh@fiff.de> wrote:
Dear Nick, dear colleagues,
I am not sure if it is a good idea to artificially restrict the number of board members. As there is a lot of work to do, why exclude individuals who are willing to do that work?
It is also not plausible to me, why Annettes suggestion endangers the progress of the election. We should strive together for the best possible solution and not build up pressure against alternative opinions.
Unfortunately, I have to state that I object to the recommendation to have a board of seven. Instead, in my opinion, we should at least have a board of 9 elected members. Even better, we should not exclude anyone.
Additionally I would object to the recommendation to let only the signers of the MoU vote. All accredited ALSes should have the right to vote, as it was discussed earlier.
Best Stefan
Am 09.05.2007 um 17:24 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart:
To be clear, does this mean that you are objecting to the recommendation from the teleconference that we have a board of 7?
Currently there are not nine, but twelve candidates, since the three ALAC members are included, understanding that the two ALAC representatives elected would not be board members; the ALAC representative who is not elected could become a board member, if (following what was published after the recent teleconference) they were in the top 5, 7, or 9 chosen in the elections to take place starting this Friday.
I hope very much Annette that you are not objecting to the vote for the number of directors at least - of choosing between 5, 7, or 9 directors. If you are objecting to that, please so state - understanding that if you do you endanger the entire election going forward, and risk throwing everything back to square one again. I VERY much hope you will agree that doing that would be highly undesirable.
On 09/05/07, Annette Muehlberg <Annette.Muehlberg@web.de> wrote: 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.icann.org
-- -- 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
--
-- -- 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
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro- discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
-- 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
-- -- 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
-- 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
participants (6)
-
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Jeanette Hofmann -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Stefan Hügel -
Veni Markovski -
Vittorio Bertola