At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
I'm pleased to pass along the following important message announcing the leadership of the At-Large Advisory Committee for 2007. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> Date: 07-Dec-2006 17:28 Subject: [alac] ALAC Election Results To: alac@icann.org As the non-voting Chair for today's election, I would like to provide the following report to the ALAC members and other interested members of the larger RALO, ALS, and At Large communities. Fifteen ALAC members were eligible to vote for ALAC officers. Fourteen expressed an intention to vote, with one member unavailable. I enlisted George Sadowsky to assist me, and together we counted and verified fourteen written ballots for three contested positions. Other officers for uncontested positions were elected by acclamation. I am pleased to announce the ALAC Officers for the coming year. Each officer will serve until the close of ICANN's annual meeting in 2007. * Chair: Annette Muehlberg * ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board: Vittorio Bertola * ALAC Liaison to the ccNSO Council: Siavash Shahshahani * ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council: Alan Greenberg * ALAC Representative to Whois Task Force: Wendy Seltzer * ALAC Representative to the GNSO's Working Group on IDNs: Hong Xue * ALAC Representative to the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs: Hong Xue We have two Vice-Chair positions, currently unfilled, which will be appointed or elected in the coming weeks. Many thanks to everyone who participated in the election. Bret Fausett -- -- 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 FESTIVE GREETINGS! As per usual, in lieu of cards for friends and colleagues, I have made a donation in your name to Medecins Sans Frontieres, to help them provide medical care to those much less fortunate than ourselves.
I am pleased to announce the ALAC Officers for the coming year. Each officer will serve until the close of ICANN's annual meeting in 2007.
When I see these kind of (s)elections, I wonder what influence an ALS could have on such process, if any. Anyway, congratulations to those (s)elected. Now there is a LAC RALO and more others to come, one of the tasks of the newly elected officers will be to put in place formal processes to (s)elect representatives and officers. The process should be inclusive.
From the perspective of an ALS, the ALAC seems out of touch.
A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted in favour on this change ? who voted against ? Many people complain that the most important decisions by the board are taken during closed teleconferences. We don't want the ALAC to behave in the same secretive way. I hope the Euralo ALSes will in the future be able to do is to give its representatives on the ALAC previously agreed and clear voting instructions. This also means that the European ALAC members should report to this list the issues being discussed so we can provide guidance to them. Regards, Patrick
For sure we can do better in terms of transparency. However, may I point out a factual inaccuracy. The position for which there was a suggestion to rely on NomCom was the filling in for the European member position, not the Board Liaison, that has to be elected by the ALAC members. Roberto Gaetano ALAC ICANN Board Liaison (stepping out)
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle Sent: 07 December 2006 18:51 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
I am pleased to announce the ALAC Officers for the coming year. Each officer will serve until the close of ICANN's annual meeting in 2007.
When I see these kind of (s)elections, I wonder what influence an ALS could have on such process, if any. Anyway, congratulations to those (s)elected.
Now there is a LAC RALO and more others to come, one of the tasks of the newly elected officers will be to put in place formal processes to (s)elect representatives and officers. The process should be inclusive.
From the perspective of an ALS, the ALAC seems out of touch.
A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted in favour on this change ? who voted against ? Many people complain that the most important decisions by the board are taken during closed teleconferences. We don't want the ALAC to behave in the same secretive way.
I hope the Euralo ALSes will in the future be able to do is to give its representatives on the ALAC previously agreed and clear voting instructions. This also means that the European ALAC members should report to this list the issues being discussed so we can provide guidance to them.
Regards,
Patrick
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto:
A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted in favour on this change ? who voted against ?
I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that was sent some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member representing EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one of the two EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and the Nomcom picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO seats, which, until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with ICANN, is to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks) will expire, and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC. The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before making the appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have allowed the Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting. However, there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March (though there is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly. In any case, please all of you start considering and posting possible nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, even if it might be just for a few months and for one ICANN meeting in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not reapply for my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really want some new people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I said this in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so it's not connected to that). The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about the internal ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by a broader group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work together, but I already suggested that the ALAC should have better procedures for these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees. Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
I would like to second Vittorio's explanation. Annette Vittorio Bertola schrieb:
Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto:
A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted in favour on this change ? who voted against ?
I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that was sent some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member representing EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one of the two EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and the Nomcom picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO seats, which, until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with ICANN, is to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks) will expire, and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC.
The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before making the appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have allowed the Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting. However, there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March (though there is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly.
In any case, please all of you start considering and posting possible nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, even if it might be just for a few months and for one ICANN meeting in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not reapply for my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really want some new people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I said this in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so it's not connected to that).
The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about the internal ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by a broader group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work together, but I already suggested that the ALAC should have better procedures for these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees.
Ciao,
Congratulations to your (re-)elections! I have one question to Vittorio. If you don't run again, does that mean you will be the board liaison for a few months only? And if so, is this a good idea to exchange the board liaison so quickly? thanks, jeanette Annette Muehlberg schrieb:
I would like to second Vittorio's explanation.
Annette
Vittorio Bertola schrieb:
Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto:
A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted in favour on this change ? who voted against ?
I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that was sent some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member representing EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one of the two EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and the Nomcom picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO seats, which, until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with ICANN, is to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks) will expire, and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC.
The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before making the appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have allowed the Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting. However, there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March (though there is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly.
In any case, please all of you start considering and posting possible nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, even if it might be just for a few months and for one ICANN meeting in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not reapply for my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really want some new people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I said this in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so it's not connected to that).
The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about the internal ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by a broader group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work together, but I already suggested that the ALAC should have better procedures for these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees.
Ciao,
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto:
Congratulations to your (re-)elections!
I have one question to Vittorio. If you don't run again, does that mean you will be the board liaison for a few months only? And if so, is this a good idea to exchange the board liaison so quickly?
No, ALAC liaisons are not bound to be members of the ALAC (we already did this for Bret Fausett, who served as ALAC GNSO liaison for two years without being a member), so my term ends in December 2007 even if I am going not to be a member of ALAC anymore after March 2007. By the way, the Board liaison at ICANN meetings has to follow the Board's schedule, which very often conflicts with the ALAC schedule; so when Roberto was both Board liaison and ALAC member, very often the ALAC was missing a member from its meetings, with all the consequent problems with quorums, inclusion etc. Yesterday, for example, we had to physically go and grab Roberto from a Board meeting to allow him to cast a vote for the ALAC positions, which he had to do without having had the chance to follow the discussion in the earlier part of the meeting. Given all of this, we thought that there would actually be an advantage in having a Board liaison that, while being on ALAC lists and following as many ALAC meetings as possible, is not an ALAC member and thus will not create so many problems whenever having to be away. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio. There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as Board Liaison even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary, this is an advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this task without impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison. In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in advance and via their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC. This, based on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions). Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19 To: patrick@isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto:
A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted in favour on this change ? who voted against ?
I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that was sent some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member representing EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one of the two EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and the Nomcom picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO seats, which, until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with ICANN, is to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks) will expire, and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC.
The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before making the appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have allowed the Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting. However, there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March (though there is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly.
In any case, please all of you start considering and posting possible nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, even if it might be just for a few months and for one ICANN meeting in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not reapply for my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really want some new people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I said this in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so it's not connected to that).
The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about the internal ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by a broader group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work together, but I already suggested that the ALAC should have better procedures for these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees.
Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio.
There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as Board Liaison even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary, this is an advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this task without impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison.
Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you might have got a long list of candidates if this had been known to more people. jeanette
In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in advance and via their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC. This, based on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions).
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19 To: patrick@isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto:
A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted in favour on this change ? who voted against ? I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that was sent some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member representing EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one of the two EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and the Nomcom picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO seats, which, until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with ICANN, is to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks) will expire, and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC.
The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before making the appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have allowed the Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting. However, there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March (though there is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly.
In any case, please all of you start considering and posting possible nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, even if it might be just for a few months and for one ICANN meeting in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not reapply for my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really want some new people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I said this in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so it's not connected to that).
The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about the internal ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by a broader group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work together, but I already suggested that the ALAC should have better procedures for these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees.
Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto:
Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you might have got a long list of candidates if this had been known to more people.
Ok, one more clarification: there is absolutely no established procedure for this, so there is no reply to your question, though, given the bit of a mess we were in at this meeting, the ALAC wants to work on formal and clear rules for these things in the next few months. I would however think that nominations for these positions would have to come from ALAC members; moreover, from a substantial point of view, the liaison has to participate in the ALAC's work and be trusted by the ALAC, so it should be someone who has at least some kind of connection with the ALAC. In practice, we didn't interpret this as a broad public election, we interpreted this as a division of labour among ourselves, where occasionally we might want to bring in someone from outside the Committee when there is a good reason to do so. However, comments and suggestions are, as usual, quite welcome. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
I don't think that this was the situation "by design", but rather a side effect on how the bylaws are written. We are getting there with small steps, not to create too big waves. We did it with Bret as GTLD Liaison, in the moment when we were also replacing another NA member (John Levine was selected). We are trying this with Vittorio, as the situation is now that it would take an active step by the Board to discontinue him after his expiration as ALAC member, and I don't think that the Board will ever open this can of worms. Then we will much better off for claiming it as established practice. This is, at least, my approach. Sorry for being more careful than some of you would like, but I have the impression that this strategy has paid off, up to now. Also, I do believe that one thing is a proposal for candidature that comes from an ALS, and another thing, with more weight, will be a candidature that comes from a established RALO. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: 08 December 2006 10:03 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio.
There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as Board Liaison even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary, this is an advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this task without impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison.
Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you might have got a long list of candidates if this had been known to more people.
jeanette
In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in advance and via their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC.
This, based
on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions).
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19 To: patrick@isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto:
A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted in favour on this change ? who voted against ? I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that was sent some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member representing EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one of the two EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and the Nomcom picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO seats, which, until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with ICANN, is to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks) will expire, and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC.
The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before making the appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have allowed the Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting. However, there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March (though there is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly.
In any case, please all of you start considering and posting possible nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, even if it might be just for a few months and for one ICANN meeting in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not reapply for my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really want some new people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I said this in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so it's not connected to that).
The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about the internal ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by a broader group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work together, but I already suggested that the ALAC should have better procedures for these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees.
Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-l
ists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
I don't think that this was the situation "by design", but rather a side effect on how the bylaws are written.
Hi Roberto, this is the problem with ICANN as I see it since I watch its performance. There are always honorable reasons for maintaining ambiguous practices or stretching rules. But from the outside, such practices look somewhat fishy. In order to grow up and to gain the trust ICANN needs to do its work, it is really, really necessary that ICANN establishes an equivalent to the rule of law, an equivalent that provides for reliable procedures and predictable decisions. Your small steps, no big waves approach makes sense from an insider's perpective but from outside, it looks like more of the same muddling through approach that seems so characterstic for many of ICANN's decisions. I know, I am repeating myself, I said the very same thing on another list a few days ago: ICANN needs to constitutionlize itself, its actions need to follow self binding rules that people know and that people can appeal to if they are supposedly violated. ALAC should not be an exception to this but rather a model for other constiuencies or groups in ICANN. jeanette
We are getting there with small steps, not to create too big waves. We did it with Bret as GTLD Liaison, in the moment when we were also replacing another NA member (John Levine was selected). We are trying this with Vittorio, as the situation is now that it would take an active step by the Board to discontinue him after his expiration as ALAC member, and I don't think that the Board will ever open this can of worms. Then we will much better off for claiming it as established practice. This is, at least, my approach. Sorry for being more careful than some of you would like, but I have the impression that this strategy has paid off, up to now. Also, I do believe that one thing is a proposal for candidature that comes from an ALS, and another thing, with more weight, will be a candidature that comes from a established RALO. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: 08 December 2006 10:03 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio.
There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as Board Liaison even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary, this is an advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this task without impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison. Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you might have got a long list of candidates if this had been known to more people.
jeanette
In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in advance and via their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC. This, based on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions).
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19 To: patrick@isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto:
A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted in favour on this change ? who voted against ? I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that was sent some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member representing EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one of the two EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and the Nomcom picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO seats, which, until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with ICANN, is to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks) will expire, and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC.
The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before making the appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have allowed the Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting. However, there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March (though there is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly.
In any case, please all of you start considering and posting possible nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, even if it might be just for a few months and for one ICANN meeting in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not reapply for my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really want some new people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I said this in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so it's not connected to that).
The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about the internal ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by a broader group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work together, but I already suggested that the ALAC should have better procedures for these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees.
Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-l
ists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Dear list, the dicussion is interesting and pushes us deeper into the legal basis of our work. The legal basis for the election of the ALAC-Liaison to the Board is in Article XI, Section 2, Para 4.e: "The ALAC shall annually appoint one non-voting liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors, without limitation on re-appointment." You have the same the formulations in the other articles for the other advisory committees. The established practice is that the liaison is a full member of the advisory committee. It is quite natural that the liaison of the GAC is a member of th GAC. In this case it is the chair of the advisory committee who is ex-officia the liaison. It is also clear that the liaison of the Root Server System Advisory Committee is member of the RSSAC. This is also a question of legitimacy. The position is not to liaise the constituency with the Board but to liaise the committee with the board. If it would be a liasion between the board and the constituency, than the constituency would be the body which have to vote, not only the 15 committee members. And than probably other non committee members would have been also interested to be a candidate for such a liaison position. In our case I see not problem with Vittorio as long he is a member of ALAC and he should get the full support both from the committee and the constituency. He was appointed as ALAC member by the Board in 2002 and as long as there is no new appointment by the board and as long we have not yet ALAC members elected by the RALO he has the full legitimacy to serve as the Board-ALAC liaison after his election yesterday. Situation could be different if Vittorio is no longer a member of ALAC. If the EURALO will be established in March 2007 and will have elections and Vittorio is not elected, this could create a legal problem. I do not know whether we can ask in such a case for an exception, at least until November 2007 when ALAC has to made the next appointment. To be on the safe I would encourage the ALAC chair to consult with ICANNs Legal Advsier to find out what the specific regulation is and which space for interpretation we have. best regards Wolfgang . , and shall, after consultation with each RALO, annually appoint five voting delegates (no two of whom shall be citizens of countries in the same Geographic Region, as defined according to Section 5 of Article VI <http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#VI-5> ) to the Nominating Committee. ________________________________ Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann Gesendet: Fr 08.12.2006 14:49 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe; roberto@icann.org Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
I don't think that this was the situation "by design", but rather a side effect on how the bylaws are written.
Hi Roberto, this is the problem with ICANN as I see it since I watch its performance. There are always honorable reasons for maintaining ambiguous practices or stretching rules. But from the outside, such practices look somewhat fishy. In order to grow up and to gain the trust ICANN needs to do its work, it is really, really necessary that ICANN establishes an equivalent to the rule of law, an equivalent that provides for reliable procedures and predictable decisions. Your small steps, no big waves approach makes sense from an insider's perpective but from outside, it looks like more of the same muddling through approach that seems so characterstic for many of ICANN's decisions. I know, I am repeating myself, I said the very same thing on another list a few days ago: ICANN needs to constitutionlize itself, its actions need to follow self binding rules that people know and that people can appeal to if they are supposedly violated. ALAC should not be an exception to this but rather a model for other constiuencies or groups in ICANN. jeanette
We are getting there with small steps, not to create too big waves. We did it with Bret as GTLD Liaison, in the moment when we were also replacing another NA member (John Levine was selected). We are trying this with Vittorio, as the situation is now that it would take an active step by the Board to discontinue him after his expiration as ALAC member, and I don't think that the Board will ever open this can of worms. Then we will much better off for claiming it as established practice. This is, at least, my approach. Sorry for being more careful than some of you would like, but I have the impression that this strategy has paid off, up to now. Also, I do believe that one thing is a proposal for candidature that comes from an ALS, and another thing, with more weight, will be a candidature that comes from a established RALO. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: 08 December 2006 10:03 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio.
There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as Board Liaison even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary, this is an advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this task without impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison. Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you might have got a long list of candidates if this had been known to more people.
jeanette
In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in advance and via their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC. This, based on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions).
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19 To: patrick@isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto:
A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted in favour on this change ? who voted against ? I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that was sent some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member representing EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one of the two EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and the Nomcom picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO seats, which, until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with ICANN, is to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks) will expire, and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC.
The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before making the appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have allowed the Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting. However, there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March (though there is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly.
In any case, please all of you start considering and posting possible nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, even if it might be just for a few months and for one ICANN meeting in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not reapply for my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really want some new people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I said this in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so it's not connected to that).
The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about the internal ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by a broader group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work together, but I already suggested that the ALAC should have better procedures for these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees.
Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-l
ists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Hi all, I entirely agree with Jeanette's remarks and would like to underline them from a Swiss point of view! Thanks Jeanette and regards, Wolf Jeanette Hofmann wrote Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:49:03 :>
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
I don't think that this was the situation "by design", but rather a side effect on how the bylaws are written.
Hi Roberto,
this is the problem with ICANN as I see it since I watch its performance. There are always honorable reasons for maintaining ambiguous practices or stretching rules. But from the outside, such practices look somewhat fishy.
In order to grow up and to gain the trust ICANN needs to do its work, it is really, really necessary that ICANN establishes an equivalent to the rule of law, an equivalent that provides for reliable procedures and predictable decisions.
Your small steps, no big waves approach makes sense from an insider's perpective but from outside, it looks like more of the same muddling through approach that seems so characterstic for many of ICANN's decisions.
I know, I am repeating myself, I said the very same thing on another list a few days ago: ICANN needs to constitutionlize itself, its actions need to follow self binding rules that people know and that people can appeal to if they are supposedly violated. ALAC should not be an exception to this but rather a model for other constiuencies or groups in ICANN.
jeanette
We are getting there with small steps, not to create too big waves. We did it with Bret as GTLD Liaison, in the moment when we were also replacing another NA member (John Levine was selected). We are trying this with Vittorio, as the situation is now that it would take an active step by the Board to discontinue him after his expiration as ALAC member, and I don't think that the Board will ever open this can of worms. Then we will much better off for claiming it as established practice. This is, at least, my approach. Sorry for being more careful than some of you would like, but I have the impression that this strategy has paid off, up to now. Also, I do believe that one thing is a proposal for candidature that comes from an ALS, and another thing, with more weight, will be a candidature that comes from a established RALO. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: 08 December 2006 10:03 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio.
There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as Board Liaison even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary, this is an advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this task without impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison. Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you might have got a long list of candidates if this had been known to more people.
jeanette
In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in advance and via their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC. This, based on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions).
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19 To: patrick@isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto:
A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted in favour on this change ? who voted against ? I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that was sent some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member representing EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one of the two EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and the Nomcom picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO seats, which, until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with ICANN, is to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks) will expire, and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC.
The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before making the appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have allowed the Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting. However, there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March (though there is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly.
In any case, please all of you start considering and posting possible nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, even if it might be just for a few months and for one ICANN meeting in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not reapply for my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really want some new people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I said this in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so it's not connected to that).
The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about the internal ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by a broader group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work together, but I already suggested that the ALAC should have better procedures for these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees.
Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-l
ists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 www.comunica-ch.net
Hi Wolf, I am pleased to see that there is another person on this list who shares my view. The fact that the bylaws don't require the non-voting liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors to be a member of ALAC is good news, of course, even though one might wonder under considerations of accountability if it is really desirable to appoint people who are or will not be members of ALAC. The legal dimension is an important but not the only aspect though. I for one havn't understood yet ALAC's selection criteria for the board liaison. Who is eligible, who is not and why? jeanette Wolf Ludwig wrote:
Hi all,
I entirely agree with Jeanette's remarks and would like to underline them from a Swiss point of view! Thanks Jeanette and
regards, Wolf
Jeanette Hofmann wrote Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:49:03 :>
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
I don't think that this was the situation "by design", but rather a side effect on how the bylaws are written.
Hi Roberto,
this is the problem with ICANN as I see it since I watch its performance. There are always honorable reasons for maintaining ambiguous practices or stretching rules. But from the outside, such practices look somewhat fishy.
In order to grow up and to gain the trust ICANN needs to do its work, it is really, really necessary that ICANN establishes an equivalent to the rule of law, an equivalent that provides for reliable procedures and predictable decisions.
Your small steps, no big waves approach makes sense from an insider's perpective but from outside, it looks like more of the same muddling through approach that seems so characterstic for many of ICANN's decisions.
I know, I am repeating myself, I said the very same thing on another list a few days ago: ICANN needs to constitutionlize itself, its actions need to follow self binding rules that people know and that people can appeal to if they are supposedly violated. ALAC should not be an exception to this but rather a model for other constiuencies or groups in ICANN.
jeanette
We are getting there with small steps, not to create too big waves. We did it with Bret as GTLD Liaison, in the moment when we were also replacing another NA member (John Levine was selected). We are trying this with Vittorio, as the situation is now that it would take an active step by the Board to discontinue him after his expiration as ALAC member, and I don't think that the Board will ever open this can of worms. Then we will much better off for claiming it as established practice. This is, at least, my approach. Sorry for being more careful than some of you would like, but I have the impression that this strategy has paid off, up to now. Also, I do believe that one thing is a proposal for candidature that comes from an ALS, and another thing, with more weight, will be a candidature that comes from a established RALO. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: 08 December 2006 10:03 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio.
There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as
Board Liaison
even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary,
this is an
advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this
task without
impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison.
Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you might have got a long list of candidates if this had been known to more people.
jeanette
In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in advance and via their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC.
This, based
on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions).
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19 To: patrick@isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto:
>A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the
nomcom chair
>would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see
that the ALAC
>actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted
in favour
>on this change ? who voted against ?
I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that
was sent
some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member
representing
EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one
of the two
EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and
the Nomcom
picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO
seats, which,
until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with
ICANN, is
to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks)
will expire,
and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC.
The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before
making the
appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have
allowed the
Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting.
However,
there was another proposal that the three European ALAC
members pick
someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I
think that if
we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the
ALSes who
suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March
(though there
is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly.
In any case, please all of you start considering and
posting possible
nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, even if it might be just for a few months and for one
ICANN meeting
in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not
reapply for
my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really
want some new
people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I
said this
in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so
it's not
connected to that).
The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about
the internal
ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by
a broader
group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work
together, but
I already suggested that the ALAC should have better
procedures for
these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees.
Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-l
ists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 www.comunica-ch.net
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Jeannette, I am sorry to say, but you are completely off the mark. ICANN has nothing to do in all this. ICANN gives some general rules for self-organizing of constituencies, committees, and associated bodies. But then (and this is what is called "bottom-up" process) it gives some latitude in implementing it. I would be appalled in seeing ICANN board setting rules for the IP constituency. Or the NCUC. Why then for ALAC? Why, all of a sudden, we call on ICANN to set rules on how ALAC appoints its Boar Liaison? The problem is completely a different one. And it has to do with funding. It is obvious to whoever would look at things abstracting from names, and looking at functions, that all what we are talking about is if ICANN would pay for a Board Liaison "on top" of the regular 15 members of the committee. It is obvious to whoever has done any one negotiation that if you state the problem up front, the answer from the (General Counsel of the) "counterpart" is extremely unlikely to be something like "Oh, yes, actually, why not even more than just one". Anyway, Vittorio has been elected as ALAC Liaison to the Board, by ALAC plenary, who is, according to the Bylaws, the body who is responsible for the election. He is currently an ALAC member, and this should close the question until EURALO is formed. All clear, and compliant to the Bylaws. About additional alternate candidates, that are not members of ALAC, I personally cannot see how some person from outside the Committee could have the trust of ALAC and won an election against two strong and long time members like Vittorio and Wendy. In simple terms, we should not make confusion between somebody that has long membership, and the membership terminates, and a person coming from the outside, no matter how involved in other user-related organizations. My "no waves approach" is a suggestion to ALAC for the future. Whether you take it, and gain results, or you reject it, and stay put, is your choice. If Vittorio's term as ALAC ends before his term as Liaison, you have the choice. I see three possibilities: - insist that he remains Liaison, and get the implicit right of having additional funding; - declare him ceased, go to new elections, create a precedent and lose forever the right of having additional funding; - replace him with a different person, also outside ALAC, and claim that if the rules allow an outside person, elections should be open to non-member candidates (which seems to be your point) The question is, how are you going to motivate that you go to option 3, instead of 2? ICANN's reply will be, obviously, that you are welcome to go to option 2, and you can forget forever about option 3 (and 1, for that matter). On one thing I agree with you, this is not a perfect world. Maybe where we differ is on how to change it. Best regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette@wz-berlin.de] Sent: 08 December 2006 11:49 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe; roberto@icann.org Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
I don't think that this was the situation "by design", but rather a side effect on how the bylaws are written.
Hi Roberto,
this is the problem with ICANN as I see it since I watch its performance. There are always honorable reasons for maintaining ambiguous practices or stretching rules. But from the outside, such practices look somewhat fishy.
In order to grow up and to gain the trust ICANN needs to do its work, it is really, really necessary that ICANN establishes an equivalent to the rule of law, an equivalent that provides for reliable procedures and predictable decisions.
Your small steps, no big waves approach makes sense from an insider's perpective but from outside, it looks like more of the same muddling through approach that seems so characterstic for many of ICANN's decisions.
I know, I am repeating myself, I said the very same thing on another list a few days ago: ICANN needs to constitutionlize itself, its actions need to follow self binding rules that people know and that people can appeal to if they are supposedly violated. ALAC should not be an exception to this but rather a model for other constiuencies or groups in ICANN.
jeanette
We are getting there with small steps, not to create too big waves. We did it with Bret as GTLD Liaison, in the moment when we were also replacing another NA member (John Levine was selected). We are trying this with Vittorio, as the situation is now that it would take an active step by the Board to discontinue him after his expiration as ALAC member, and I don't think that the Board will ever open this can of worms. Then we will much better off for claiming it as established practice. This is, at least, my approach. Sorry for being more careful than some of you would like, but I have the impression that this strategy has paid off, up to now. Also, I do believe that one thing is a proposal for candidature that comes from an ALS, and another thing, with more weight, will be a candidature that comes from a established RALO. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: 08 December 2006 10:03 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio.
There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as Board Liaison even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary, this is an advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this task without impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison. Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you might have got a long list of candidates if this had been known to more people.
jeanette
In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in advance and via their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC. This, based on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions).
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19 To: patrick@isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto:
A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted in favour on this change ? who voted against ? I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that was sent some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member representing EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one of the two EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and the Nomcom picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO seats, which, until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with ICANN, is to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks) will expire, and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC.
The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before making the appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have allowed the Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting. However, there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March (though there is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly.
In any case, please all of you start considering and posting possible nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, even if it might be just for a few months and for one ICANN meeting in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not reapply for my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really want some new people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I said this in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so it's not connected to that).
The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about the internal ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by a broader group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work together, but I already suggested that the ALAC should have better procedures for these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees.
Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-
l
ists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
To reiterate, in case anyone missed it the first time around: The General Counsel's advice has been sought and provided: There is no problem with Vittorio remaining as board liaison whether or not he retains an ALAC member seat. This is also true of the other liaison positions. On 12/12/06, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Jeannette,
I am sorry to say, but you are completely off the mark.
ICANN has nothing to do in all this. ICANN gives some general rules for self-organizing of constituencies, committees, and associated bodies. But then (and this is what is called "bottom-up" process) it gives some latitude in implementing it. I would be appalled in seeing ICANN board setting rules for the IP constituency. Or the NCUC. Why then for ALAC? Why, all of a sudden, we call on ICANN to set rules on how ALAC appoints its Boar Liaison?
The problem is completely a different one. And it has to do with funding. It is obvious to whoever would look at things abstracting from names, and looking at functions, that all what we are talking about is if ICANN would pay for a Board Liaison "on top" of the regular 15 members of the committee. It is obvious to whoever has done any one negotiation that if you state the problem up front, the answer from the (General Counsel of the) "counterpart" is extremely unlikely to be something like "Oh, yes, actually, why not even more than just one".
Anyway, Vittorio has been elected as ALAC Liaison to the Board, by ALAC plenary, who is, according to the Bylaws, the body who is responsible for the election. He is currently an ALAC member, and this should close the question until EURALO is formed. All clear, and compliant to the Bylaws. About additional alternate candidates, that are not members of ALAC, I personally cannot see how some person from outside the Committee could have the trust of ALAC and won an election against two strong and long time members like Vittorio and Wendy. In simple terms, we should not make confusion between somebody that has long membership, and the membership terminates, and a person coming from the outside, no matter how involved in other user-related organizations.
My "no waves approach" is a suggestion to ALAC for the future. Whether you take it, and gain results, or you reject it, and stay put, is your choice. If Vittorio's term as ALAC ends before his term as Liaison, you have the choice. I see three possibilities: - insist that he remains Liaison, and get the implicit right of having additional funding; - declare him ceased, go to new elections, create a precedent and lose forever the right of having additional funding; - replace him with a different person, also outside ALAC, and claim that if the rules allow an outside person, elections should be open to non-member candidates (which seems to be your point)
The question is, how are you going to motivate that you go to option 3, instead of 2? ICANN's reply will be, obviously, that you are welcome to go to option 2, and you can forget forever about option 3 (and 1, for that matter).
On one thing I agree with you, this is not a perfect world. Maybe where we differ is on how to change it.
Best regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette@wz-berlin.de] Sent: 08 December 2006 11:49 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe; roberto@icann.org Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
I don't think that this was the situation "by design", but rather a side effect on how the bylaws are written.
Hi Roberto,
this is the problem with ICANN as I see it since I watch its performance. There are always honorable reasons for maintaining ambiguous practices or stretching rules. But from the outside, such practices look somewhat fishy.
In order to grow up and to gain the trust ICANN needs to do its work, it is really, really necessary that ICANN establishes an equivalent to the rule of law, an equivalent that provides for reliable procedures and predictable decisions.
Your small steps, no big waves approach makes sense from an insider's perpective but from outside, it looks like more of the same muddling through approach that seems so characterstic for many of ICANN's decisions.
I know, I am repeating myself, I said the very same thing on another list a few days ago: ICANN needs to constitutionlize itself, its actions need to follow self binding rules that people know and that people can appeal to if they are supposedly violated. ALAC should not be an exception to this but rather a model for other constiuencies or groups in ICANN.
jeanette
We are getting there with small steps, not to create too big waves. We did it with Bret as GTLD Liaison, in the moment when we were also replacing another NA member (John Levine was selected). We are trying this with Vittorio, as the situation is now that it would take an active step by the Board to discontinue him after his expiration as ALAC member, and I don't think that the Board will ever open this can of worms. Then we will much better off for claiming it as established practice. This is, at least, my approach. Sorry for being more careful than some of you would like, but I have the impression that this strategy has paid off, up to now. Also, I do believe that one thing is a proposal for candidature that comes from an ALS, and another thing, with more weight, will be a candidature that comes from a established RALO. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: 08 December 2006 10:03 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio.
There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as Board Liaison even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary, this is an advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this task without impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison. Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you might have got a long list of candidates if this had been known to more people.
jeanette
In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in advance and via their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC. This, based on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions).
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19 To: patrick@isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto: > A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair > would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC > actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted in favour > on this change ? who voted against ? I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that was sent some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member representing EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one of the two EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and the Nomcom picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO seats, which, until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with ICANN, is to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks) will expire, and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC.
The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before making the appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have allowed the Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting. However, there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March (though there is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly.
In any case, please all of you start considering and posting possible nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, even if it might be just for a few months and for one ICANN meeting in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not reapply for my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really want some new people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I said this in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so it's not connected to that).
The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about the internal ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by a broader group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work together, but I already suggested that the ALAC should have better procedures for these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees.
Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-
l
ists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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 FESTIVE GREETINGS! As per usual, in lieu of cards for friends and colleagues, I have made a donation in your name to Medecins Sans Frontieres, to help them provide medical care to those much less fortunate than ourselves.
Hi all again, Roberto's long and detailed elaborations are just another perfect example that Jeanette is perfectly right by recalling ICANN's lack of transparence and accountability for "outsiders" (what means, people not permanently dealing on a daily level with ICANN issues - or being something in between simple minded or almost stupid like me ;-). What I followed on this list during the last weeks is a mixture of (ICANN-)legalistic/formalistic or tactical considerations always from the same insiders far beyond of any "buttom-up", political or (EURALO-)cultural discussions. And I wonder how - following this pattern - we can ever attract "outsider" civil society entities in Europe to get engaged in this process? Thanks for any - not necessarily insider - clarifications! Regards, Wolf Roberto Gaetano wrote Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:35:39:
Jeannette,
I am sorry to say, but you are completely off the mark.
ICANN has nothing to do in all this. ICANN gives some general rules for self-organizing of constituencies, committees, and associated bodies. But then (and this is what is called "bottom-up" process) it gives some latitude in implementing it. I would be appalled in seeing ICANN board setting rules for the IP constituency. Or the NCUC. Why then for ALAC? Why, all of a sudden, we call on ICANN to set rules on how ALAC appoints its Boar Liaison?
The problem is completely a different one. And it has to do with funding. It is obvious to whoever would look at things abstracting from names, and looking at functions, that all what we are talking about is if ICANN would pay for a Board Liaison "on top" of the regular 15 members of the committee. It is obvious to whoever has done any one negotiation that if you state the problem up front, the answer from the (General Counsel of the) "counterpart" is extremely unlikely to be something like "Oh, yes, actually, why not even more than just one".
Anyway, Vittorio has been elected as ALAC Liaison to the Board, by ALAC plenary, who is, according to the Bylaws, the body who is responsible for the election. He is currently an ALAC member, and this should close the question until EURALO is formed. All clear, and compliant to the Bylaws. About additional alternate candidates, that are not members of ALAC, I personally cannot see how some person from outside the Committee could have the trust of ALAC and won an election against two strong and long time members like Vittorio and Wendy. In simple terms, we should not make confusion between somebody that has long membership, and the membership terminates, and a person coming from the outside, no matter how involved in other user-related organizations.
My "no waves approach" is a suggestion to ALAC for the future. Whether you take it, and gain results, or you reject it, and stay put, is your choice. If Vittorio's term as ALAC ends before his term as Liaison, you have the choice. I see three possibilities: - insist that he remains Liaison, and get the implicit right of having additional funding; - declare him ceased, go to new elections, create a precedent and lose forever the right of having additional funding; - replace him with a different person, also outside ALAC, and claim that if the rules allow an outside person, elections should be open to non-member candidates (which seems to be your point)
The question is, how are you going to motivate that you go to option 3, instead of 2? ICANN's reply will be, obviously, that you are welcome to go to option 2, and you can forget forever about option 3 (and 1, for that matter).
On one thing I agree with you, this is not a perfect world. Maybe where we differ is on how to change it.
Best regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette@wz-berlin.de] Sent: 08 December 2006 11:49 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe; roberto@icann.org Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
I don't think that this was the situation "by design", but rather a side effect on how the bylaws are written.
Hi Roberto,
this is the problem with ICANN as I see it since I watch its performance. There are always honorable reasons for maintaining ambiguous practices or stretching rules. But from the outside, such practices look somewhat fishy.
In order to grow up and to gain the trust ICANN needs to do its work, it is really, really necessary that ICANN establishes an equivalent to the rule of law, an equivalent that provides for reliable procedures and predictable decisions.
Your small steps, no big waves approach makes sense from an insider's perpective but from outside, it looks like more of the same muddling through approach that seems so characterstic for many of ICANN's decisions.
I know, I am repeating myself, I said the very same thing on another list a few days ago: ICANN needs to constitutionlize itself, its actions need to follow self binding rules that people know and that people can appeal to if they are supposedly violated. ALAC should not be an exception to this but rather a model for other constiuencies or groups in ICANN.
jeanette
We are getting there with small steps, not to create too big waves. We did it with Bret as GTLD Liaison, in the moment when we were also replacing another NA member (John Levine was selected). We are trying this with Vittorio, as the situation is now that it would take an active step by the Board to discontinue him after his expiration as ALAC member, and I don't think that the Board will ever open this can of worms. Then we will much better off for claiming it as established practice. This is, at least, my approach. Sorry for being more careful than some of you would like, but I have the impression that this strategy has paid off, up to now. Also, I do believe that one thing is a proposal for candidature that comes from an ALS, and another thing, with more weight, will be a candidature that comes from a established RALO. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: 08 December 2006 10:03 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio.
There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as Board Liaison even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary, this is an advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this task without impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison. Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you might have got a long list of candidates if this had been known to more people.
jeanette
In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in advance and via their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC. This, based on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions).
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19 To: patrick@isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto: > A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair > would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC > actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted in favour > on this change ? who voted against ? I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that was sent some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member representing EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one of the two EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and the Nomcom picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO seats, which, until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with ICANN, is to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks) will expire, and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC.
The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before making the appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have allowed the Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting. However, there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March (though there is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly.
In any case, please all of you start considering and posting possible nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, even if it might be just for a few months and for one ICANN meeting in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not reapply for my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really want some new people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I said this in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so it's not connected to that).
The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about the internal ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by a broader group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work together, but I already suggested that the ALAC should have better procedures for these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees.
Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-
l
ists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 www.comunica-ch.net
I am not sure of where we have the break in communication, but there is sure one. The Bylaws state clearly that it is ALAC's responsibility to select officers, including one Liaison to the Board. I don't think that there can be more transparency than this one: ICANN does not set any constraint, as it does not set any constraint for any of the advisory committees, for appointment of the Liaison to the Board. It simply says: "Pick one as you like". Therefore, I thought it would have been obvious that if somebody has to be blamed for the lack of clarity, transparency, accountability, efficiency, effectiveness or whatever you can think of blaming for, the body to blame is the one who has decided the procedure. Which is ALAC, not ICANN. Please go read the bylaws and related documents, in particular http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm#XI-2.4 Talking about transparency and accountability, may I know why the issue is raised only in the case of Vittorio's appointment as Liaison, and not for the other appointments? Regards, 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: 12 December 2006 22:11 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Hi all again,
Roberto's long and detailed elaborations are just another perfect example that Jeanette is perfectly right by recalling ICANN's lack of transparence and accountability for "outsiders" (what means, people not permanently dealing on a daily level with ICANN issues - or being something in between simple minded or almost stupid like me ;-). What I followed on this list during the last weeks is a mixture of (ICANN-)legalistic/formalistic or tactical considerations always from the same insiders far beyond of any "buttom-up", political or (EURALO-)cultural discussions. And I wonder how - following this pattern - we can ever attract "outsider" civil society entities in Europe to get engaged in this process? Thanks for any - not necessarily insider - clarifications!
Regards, Wolf
Roberto Gaetano wrote Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:35:39:
Jeannette,
I am sorry to say, but you are completely off the mark.
ICANN has nothing to do in all this. ICANN gives some general rules for self-organizing of constituencies, committees, and associated bodies. But then (and this is what is called "bottom-up" process) it gives some latitude in implementing it. I would be appalled in seeing ICANN board setting rules for the IP constituency. Or the NCUC. Why then for ALAC? Why, all of a sudden, we call on ICANN to set rules on how ALAC appoints its Boar Liaison?
The problem is completely a different one. And it has to do with funding. It is obvious to whoever would look at things abstracting from names, and looking at functions, that all what we are talking about is if ICANN would pay for a Board Liaison "on top" of the regular 15 members of the committee. It is obvious to whoever has done any one negotiation that if you state the problem up front, the answer from the (General Counsel of the) "counterpart" is extremely unlikely to be something like "Oh, yes, actually, why not even more than just one".
Anyway, Vittorio has been elected as ALAC Liaison to the Board, by ALAC plenary, who is, according to the Bylaws, the body who is responsible for the election. He is currently an ALAC member, and this should close the question until EURALO is formed. All clear, and compliant to the Bylaws. About additional alternate candidates, that are not members of ALAC, I personally cannot see how some person from outside the Committee could have the trust of ALAC and won an election against two strong and long time members like Vittorio and Wendy. In simple terms, we should not make confusion between somebody that has long membership, and the membership terminates, and a person coming from the outside, no matter how involved in other user-related organizations.
My "no waves approach" is a suggestion to ALAC for the future. Whether you take it, and gain results, or you reject it, and stay put, is your choice. If Vittorio's term as ALAC ends before his term as Liaison, you have the choice. I see three possibilities: - insist that he remains Liaison, and get the implicit right of having additional funding; - declare him ceased, go to new elections, create a precedent and lose forever the right of having additional funding; - replace him with a different person, also outside ALAC, and claim that if the rules allow an outside person, elections should be open to non-member candidates (which seems to be your point)
The question is, how are you going to motivate that you go to option 3, instead of 2? ICANN's reply will be, obviously, that you are welcome to go to option 2, and you can forget forever about option 3 (and 1, for that matter).
On one thing I agree with you, this is not a perfect world. Maybe where we differ is on how to change it.
Best regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette@wz-berlin.de] Sent: 08 December 2006 11:49 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe; roberto@icann.org Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
I don't think that this was the situation "by design", but rather a side effect on how the bylaws are written.
Hi Roberto,
this is the problem with ICANN as I see it since I watch its performance. There are always honorable reasons for maintaining ambiguous practices or stretching rules. But from the outside, such practices look somewhat fishy.
In order to grow up and to gain the trust ICANN needs to do its work, it is really, really necessary that ICANN establishes an equivalent to the rule of law, an equivalent that provides for reliable procedures and predictable decisions.
Your small steps, no big waves approach makes sense from an insider's perpective but from outside, it looks like more of the same muddling through approach that seems so characterstic for many of ICANN's decisions.
I know, I am repeating myself, I said the very same thing on another list a few days ago: ICANN needs to constitutionlize itself, its actions need to follow self binding rules that people know and that people can appeal to if they are supposedly violated. ALAC should not be an exception to this but rather a model for other constiuencies or groups in ICANN.
jeanette
We are getting there with small steps, not to create too big waves. We did it with Bret as GTLD Liaison, in the moment when we were also replacing another NA member (John Levine was selected). We are trying this with Vittorio, as the situation is now that it would take an active step by the Board to discontinue him after his expiration as ALAC member, and I don't think that the Board will ever open this can of worms. Then we will much better off for claiming it as established practice. This is, at least, my approach. Sorry for being more careful than some of you would like, but I have the impression that this strategy has paid off, up to now. Also, I do believe that one thing is a proposal for candidature that comes from an ALS, and another thing, with more weight, will be a candidature that comes from a established RALO. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: 08 December 2006 10:03 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio.
There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as Board Liaison even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary, this is an advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this task without impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison. Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you might have got a long list of candidates if this had been known to more people.
jeanette
In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in advance and via their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC. This, based on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions).
Cheers, Roberto
> -----Original Message----- > From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of > Vittorio Bertola > Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19 > To: patrick@isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe > Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election > Results > > Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto: >> A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair >> would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC >> actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted > in favour >> on this change ? who voted against ? > I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that was sent > some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member representing > EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one of the two > EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one > representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and the Nomcom > picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO seats, which, > until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with ICANN, is > to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the > ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will > get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks) will expire, > and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC. > > The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before making the > appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived > appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN > Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could > ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have allowed the > Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the > appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting. However, > there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick > someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if > we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who > suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes > might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March (though there > is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the > matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members > agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more > names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for > consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly. > > In any case, please all of you start considering and posting possible > nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, > even if it might be just for a few months and for one ICANN meeting > in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not reapply for > my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really want some new > people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I said this > in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so it's not > connected to that). > > The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about the internal > ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its > Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. > These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they > represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this > specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no > advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually > impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided > yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit > difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by a broader > group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to > internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work together, but > I already suggested that the ALAC should have better procedures for > these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a > consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees. > > Ciao, > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a > tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-
l
ists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_ atlarge-li sts.icann.org
comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 www.comunica-ch.net
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
Dear list, In complicated procedural discussions the easiest way to move foreward is to look into legal texts. And if the legal text is unclear and open for interpretation you need advise or you have to consider how to make existing legal language more precise. In our case we have the text of the ICANN bylaws. They do not specify the rules and conditions how a "Board Liaison" is "appointed". The general practice of the other Advisory Committees (there are four/GAC, RSSAC, SSAC, ALAC) is that the appointed "liaison" is a member of the Committee (Sharil, Steve, Suzanne / incase of Steve and Sharil it is the Chair of the Committee who is the liaison) . But this is the established practice, not the law. So ALAC can make a different decision. As long as the ICANN Board (or the ICANN lawyer) does not intervene and accepts the decision of ALAC this is okay. So far, Denis and Nick has confirmed that ICANN has no problem that the Liaison is not a member of the committee. If this will set a precedence for other committees and their liaisons os another issue not relevant for ALC but probably for ICANN. The missing point here is that the ALAC has no procedures how to appoint the liaison, the most important personal decision the ALAC has to made every year. The ball is, as Roberto has said, in the hands of ALAC itself. So the conclusion of the debate is that ALAC needs rules of procedures how to appoint the liaison. These procedures have to include the issue who can apply under which conditions for the job. Politically it is also important to clarify the specific relationship the appointed laison will have. Is he/she the laision between "the board and the committee" or is she/he the liaison between "the board and the constituency", that is the RALOs and ALS. This is not specified in the ICANN bylaws and also open for interpretation. In the GNSO the Board candidates coming from the six constituencies. Election is done by the Council. But this is a SO not an AC. With other words, I recommend that ALAC drafts procedural rules for the appointment of the Board liaison as soon as possible and adopts it on its next regular meeting in Lisboa. BTW, in the ALAC chapter of the ICANN bylaws there is made a difference between "appointment" (liaison to the board) and "designation" (liaison to the CNSO and GNSO). We have to consult with JJ to find out what the meaning of this difference is. I am not so familiar with californian law so for me it would be just the same. But legal experts - in case of conflicts - turn every word three times around :-((( Hope this helps to cool down and to move forward. Wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org på vegne af Roberto Gaetano Sendt: on 13-12-2006 00:40 Til: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe' Emne: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results I am not sure of where we have the break in communication, but there is sure one. The Bylaws state clearly that it is ALAC's responsibility to select officers, including one Liaison to the Board. I don't think that there can be more transparency than this one: ICANN does not set any constraint, as it does not set any constraint for any of the advisory committees, for appointment of the Liaison to the Board. It simply says: "Pick one as you like". Therefore, I thought it would have been obvious that if somebody has to be blamed for the lack of clarity, transparency, accountability, efficiency, effectiveness or whatever you can think of blaming for, the body to blame is the one who has decided the procedure. Which is ALAC, not ICANN. Please go read the bylaws and related documents, in particular http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm#XI-2.4 Talking about transparency and accountability, may I know why the issue is raised only in the case of Vittorio's appointment as Liaison, and not for the other appointments? Regards, 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: 12 December 2006 22:11 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Hi all again,
Roberto's long and detailed elaborations are just another perfect example that Jeanette is perfectly right by recalling ICANN's lack of transparence and accountability for "outsiders" (what means, people not permanently dealing on a daily level with ICANN issues - or being something in between simple minded or almost stupid like me ;-). What I followed on this list during the last weeks is a mixture of (ICANN-)legalistic/formalistic or tactical considerations always from the same insiders far beyond of any "buttom-up", political or (EURALO-)cultural discussions. And I wonder how - following this pattern - we can ever attract "outsider" civil society entities in Europe to get engaged in this process? Thanks for any - not necessarily insider - clarifications!
Regards, Wolf
Roberto Gaetano wrote Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:35:39:
Jeannette,
I am sorry to say, but you are completely off the mark.
ICANN has nothing to do in all this. ICANN gives some general rules for self-organizing of constituencies, committees, and associated bodies. But then (and this is what is called "bottom-up" process) it gives some latitude in implementing it. I would be appalled in seeing ICANN board setting rules for the IP constituency. Or the NCUC. Why then for ALAC? Why, all of a sudden, we call on ICANN to set rules on how ALAC appoints its Boar Liaison?
The problem is completely a different one. And it has to do with funding. It is obvious to whoever would look at things abstracting from names, and looking at functions, that all what we are talking about is if ICANN would pay for a Board Liaison "on top" of the regular 15 members of the committee. It is obvious to whoever has done any one negotiation that if you state the problem up front, the answer from the (General Counsel of the) "counterpart" is extremely unlikely to be something like "Oh, yes, actually, why not even more than just one".
Anyway, Vittorio has been elected as ALAC Liaison to the Board, by ALAC plenary, who is, according to the Bylaws, the body who is responsible for the election. He is currently an ALAC member, and this should close the question until EURALO is formed. All clear, and compliant to the Bylaws. About additional alternate candidates, that are not members of ALAC, I personally cannot see how some person from outside the Committee could have the trust of ALAC and won an election against two strong and long time members like Vittorio and Wendy. In simple terms, we should not make confusion between somebody that has long membership, and the membership terminates, and a person coming from the outside, no matter how involved in other user-related organizations.
My "no waves approach" is a suggestion to ALAC for the future. Whether you take it, and gain results, or you reject it, and stay put, is your choice. If Vittorio's term as ALAC ends before his term as Liaison, you have the choice. I see three possibilities: - insist that he remains Liaison, and get the implicit right of having additional funding; - declare him ceased, go to new elections, create a precedent and lose forever the right of having additional funding; - replace him with a different person, also outside ALAC, and claim that if the rules allow an outside person, elections should be open to non-member candidates (which seems to be your point)
The question is, how are you going to motivate that you go to option 3, instead of 2? ICANN's reply will be, obviously, that you are welcome to go to option 2, and you can forget forever about option 3 (and 1, for that matter).
On one thing I agree with you, this is not a perfect world. Maybe where we differ is on how to change it.
Best regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette@wz-berlin.de] Sent: 08 December 2006 11:49 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe; roberto@icann.org Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
I don't think that this was the situation "by design", but rather a side effect on how the bylaws are written.
Hi Roberto,
this is the problem with ICANN as I see it since I watch its performance. There are always honorable reasons for maintaining ambiguous practices or stretching rules. But from the outside, such practices look somewhat fishy.
In order to grow up and to gain the trust ICANN needs to do its work, it is really, really necessary that ICANN establishes an equivalent to the rule of law, an equivalent that provides for reliable procedures and predictable decisions.
Your small steps, no big waves approach makes sense from an insider's perpective but from outside, it looks like more of the same muddling through approach that seems so characterstic for many of ICANN's decisions.
I know, I am repeating myself, I said the very same thing on another list a few days ago: ICANN needs to constitutionlize itself, its actions need to follow self binding rules that people know and that people can appeal to if they are supposedly violated. ALAC should not be an exception to this but rather a model for other constiuencies or groups in ICANN.
jeanette
We are getting there with small steps, not to create too big waves. We did it with Bret as GTLD Liaison, in the moment when we were also replacing another NA member (John Levine was selected). We are trying this with Vittorio, as the situation is now that it would take an active step by the Board to discontinue him after his expiration as ALAC member, and I don't think that the Board will ever open this can of worms. Then we will much better off for claiming it as established practice. This is, at least, my approach. Sorry for being more careful than some of you would like, but I have the impression that this strategy has paid off, up to now. Also, I do believe that one thing is a proposal for candidature that comes from an ALS, and another thing, with more weight, will be a candidature that comes from a established RALO. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: 08 December 2006 10:03 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio.
There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as Board Liaison even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary, this is an advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this task without impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison. Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you might have got a long list of candidates if this had been known to more people.
jeanette
In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in advance and via their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC. This, based on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions).
Cheers, Roberto
> -----Original Message----- > From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of > Vittorio Bertola > Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19 > To: patrick@isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe > Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election > Results > > Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto: >> A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair >> would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC >> actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted > in favour >> on this change ? who voted against ? > I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that was sent > some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member representing > EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one of the two > EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one > representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and the Nomcom > picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO seats, which, > until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with ICANN, is > to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the > ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will > get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks) will expire, > and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC. > > The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before making the > appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived > appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN > Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could > ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have allowed the > Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the > appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting. However, > there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick > someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if > we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who > suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes > might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March (though there > is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the > matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members > agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more > names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for > consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly. > > In any case, please all of you start considering and posting possible > nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, > even if it might be just for a few months and for one ICANN meeting > in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not reapply for > my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really want some new > people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I said this > in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so it's not > connected to that). > > The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about the internal > ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its > Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. > These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they > represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this > specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no > advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually > impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided > yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit > difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by a broader > group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to > internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work together, but > I already suggested that the ALAC should have better procedures for > these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a > consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees. > > Ciao, > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a > tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-
l
ists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_ atlarge-li sts.icann.org
comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 www.comunica-ch.net
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
With respect to your query on the difference between 'designate' and 'appoint', there is no difference of substance; these are equivalent terms in this context. On 13/12/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
Dear list,
In complicated procedural discussions the easiest way to move foreward is to look into legal texts. And if the legal text is unclear and open for interpretation you need advise or you have to consider how to make existing legal language more precise.
In our case we have the text of the ICANN bylaws. They do not specify the rules and conditions how a "Board Liaison" is "appointed". The general practice of the other Advisory Committees (there are four/GAC, RSSAC, SSAC, ALAC) is that the appointed "liaison" is a member of the Committee (Sharil, Steve, Suzanne / incase of Steve and Sharil it is the Chair of the Committee who is the liaison) . But this is the established practice, not the law. So ALAC can make a different decision. As long as the ICANN Board (or the ICANN lawyer) does not intervene and accepts the decision of ALAC this is okay. So far, Denis and Nick has confirmed that ICANN has no problem that the Liaison is not a member of the committee. If this will set a precedence for other committees and their liaisons os another issue not relevant for ALC but probably for ICANN.
The missing point here is that the ALAC has no procedures how to appoint the liaison, the most important personal decision the ALAC has to made every year. The ball is, as Roberto has said, in the hands of ALAC itself. So the conclusion of the debate is that ALAC needs rules of procedures how to appoint the liaison. These procedures have to include the issue who can apply under which conditions for the job. Politically it is also important to clarify the specific relationship the appointed laison will have. Is he/she the laision between "the board and the committee" or is she/he the liaison between "the board and the constituency", that is the RALOs and ALS. This is not specified in the ICANN bylaws and also open for interpretation. In the GNSO the Board candidates coming from the six constituencies. Election is done by the Council. But this is a SO not an AC.
With other words, I recommend that ALAC drafts procedural rules for the appointment of the Board liaison as soon as possible and adopts it on its next regular meeting in Lisboa.
BTW, in the ALAC chapter of the ICANN bylaws there is made a difference between "appointment" (liaison to the board) and "designation" (liaison to the CNSO and GNSO). We have to consult with JJ to find out what the meaning of this difference is. I am not so familiar with californian law so for me it would be just the same. But legal experts - in case of conflicts - turn every word three times around :-(((
Hope this helps to cool down and to move forward.
Wolfgang
________________________________
Fra: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org på vegne af Roberto Gaetano Sendt: on 13-12-2006 00:40 Til: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe' Emne: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
I am not sure of where we have the break in communication, but there is sure one.
The Bylaws state clearly that it is ALAC's responsibility to select officers, including one Liaison to the Board. I don't think that there can be more transparency than this one: ICANN does not set any constraint, as it does not set any constraint for any of the advisory committees, for appointment of the Liaison to the Board. It simply says: "Pick one as you like".
Therefore, I thought it would have been obvious that if somebody has to be blamed for the lack of clarity, transparency, accountability, efficiency, effectiveness or whatever you can think of blaming for, the body to blame is the one who has decided the procedure. Which is ALAC, not ICANN.
Please go read the bylaws and related documents, in particular http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm#XI-2.4
Talking about transparency and accountability, may I know why the issue is raised only in the case of Vittorio's appointment as Liaison, and not for the other appointments?
Regards, 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: 12 December 2006 22:11 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Hi all again,
Roberto's long and detailed elaborations are just another perfect example that Jeanette is perfectly right by recalling ICANN's lack of transparence and accountability for "outsiders" (what means, people not permanently dealing on a daily level with ICANN issues - or being something in between simple minded or almost stupid like me ;-). What I followed on this list during the last weeks is a mixture of (ICANN-)legalistic/formalistic or tactical considerations always from the same insiders far beyond of any "buttom-up", political or (EURALO-)cultural discussions. And I wonder how - following this pattern - we can ever attract "outsider" civil society entities in Europe to get engaged in this process? Thanks for any - not necessarily insider - clarifications!
Regards, Wolf
Roberto Gaetano wrote Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:35:39:
Jeannette,
I am sorry to say, but you are completely off the mark.
ICANN has nothing to do in all this. ICANN gives some general rules for self-organizing of constituencies, committees, and associated bodies. But then (and this is what is called "bottom-up" process) it gives some latitude in implementing it. I would be appalled in seeing ICANN board setting rules for the IP constituency. Or the NCUC. Why then for ALAC? Why, all of a sudden, we call on ICANN to set rules on how ALAC appoints its Boar Liaison?
The problem is completely a different one. And it has to do with funding. It is obvious to whoever would look at things abstracting from names, and looking at functions, that all what we are talking about is if ICANN would pay for a Board Liaison "on top" of the regular 15 members of the committee. It is obvious to whoever has done any one negotiation that if you state the problem up front, the answer from the (General Counsel of the) "counterpart" is extremely unlikely to be something like "Oh, yes, actually, why not even more than just one".
Anyway, Vittorio has been elected as ALAC Liaison to the Board, by ALAC plenary, who is, according to the Bylaws, the body who is responsible for the election. He is currently an ALAC member, and this should close the question until EURALO is formed. All clear, and compliant to the Bylaws. About additional alternate candidates, that are not members of ALAC, I personally cannot see how some person from outside the Committee could have the trust of ALAC and won an election against two strong and long time members like Vittorio and Wendy. In simple terms, we should not make confusion between somebody that has long membership, and the membership terminates, and a person coming from the outside, no matter how involved in other user-related organizations.
My "no waves approach" is a suggestion to ALAC for the future. Whether you take it, and gain results, or you reject it, and stay put, is your choice. If Vittorio's term as ALAC ends before his term as Liaison, you have the choice. I see three possibilities: - insist that he remains Liaison, and get the implicit right of having additional funding; - declare him ceased, go to new elections, create a precedent and lose forever the right of having additional funding; - replace him with a different person, also outside ALAC, and claim that if the rules allow an outside person, elections should be open to non-member candidates (which seems to be your point)
The question is, how are you going to motivate that you go to option 3, instead of 2? ICANN's reply will be, obviously, that you are welcome to go to option 2, and you can forget forever about option 3 (and 1, for that matter).
On one thing I agree with you, this is not a perfect world. Maybe where we differ is on how to change it.
Best regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette@wz-berlin.de] Sent: 08 December 2006 11:49 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe; roberto@icann.org Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
I don't think that this was the situation "by design", but rather a side effect on how the bylaws are written.
Hi Roberto,
this is the problem with ICANN as I see it since I watch its performance. There are always honorable reasons for maintaining ambiguous practices or stretching rules. But from the outside, such practices look somewhat fishy.
In order to grow up and to gain the trust ICANN needs to do its work, it is really, really necessary that ICANN establishes an equivalent to the rule of law, an equivalent that provides for reliable procedures and predictable decisions.
Your small steps, no big waves approach makes sense from an insider's perpective but from outside, it looks like more of the same muddling through approach that seems so characterstic for many of ICANN's decisions.
I know, I am repeating myself, I said the very same thing on another list a few days ago: ICANN needs to constitutionlize itself, its actions need to follow self binding rules that people know and that people can appeal to if they are supposedly violated. ALAC should not be an exception to this but rather a model for other constiuencies or groups in ICANN.
jeanette
We are getting there with small steps, not to create too big waves. We did it with Bret as GTLD Liaison, in the moment when we were also replacing another NA member (John Levine was selected). We are trying this with Vittorio, as the situation is now that it would take an active step by the Board to discontinue him after his expiration as ALAC member, and I don't think that the Board will ever open this can of worms. Then we will much better off for claiming it as established practice. This is, at least, my approach. Sorry for being more careful than some of you would like, but I have the impression that this strategy has paid off, up to now. Also, I do believe that one thing is a proposal for candidature that comes from an ALS, and another thing, with more weight, will be a candidature that comes from a established RALO. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: 08 December 2006 10:03 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb: > Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio. > > There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as Board Liaison > even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary, this is an > advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this task without > impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the > regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison. Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you might have got a long list of candidates if this had been known to more people.
jeanette
> In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the > internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in advance and via > their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC. This, based > on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison > positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions). > > Cheers, > Roberto > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >> Vittorio Bertola >> Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19 >> To: patrick@isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe >> Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election >> Results >> >> Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto: >>> A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the nomcom chair >>> would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see that the ALAC >>> actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted >> in favour >>> on this change ? who voted against ? >> I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that was sent >> some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member representing >> EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one of the two >> EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one >> representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and the Nomcom >> picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO seats, which, >> until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with ICANN, is >> to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that MoU, the >> ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and whoever will >> get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks) will expire, >> and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC. >> >> The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before making the >> appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived >> appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by the ICANN >> Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested that we could >> ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have allowed the >> Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the >> appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting. However, >> there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick >> someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if >> we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who >> suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes >> might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March (though there >> is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the >> matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European ALAC members >> agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest one or more >> names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for >> consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly. >> >> In any case, please all of you start considering and posting possible >> nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European ALAC member, >> even if it might be just for a few months and for one ICANN meeting >> in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not reapply for >> my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really want some new >> people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I said this >> in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so it's not >> connected to that). >> >> The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about the internal >> ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to appoint its >> Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to other bodies. >> These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they >> represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this >> specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no >> advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually >> impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided >> yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit >> difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by a broader >> group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to >> internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work together, but >> I already suggested that the ALAC should have better procedures for >> these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a >> consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees. >> >> Ciao, >> -- >> vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] >> bertola.eu.org]<----- >> http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> EURO-Discuss mailing list >> EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a >> tlarge-lists.icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org >
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-
l > ists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_ atlarge-li sts.icann.org
comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 www.comunica-ch.net
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
_______________________________________________ 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 FESTIVE GREETINGS! As per usual, in lieu of cards for friends and colleagues, I have made a donation in your name to Medecins Sans Frontieres, to help them provide medical care to those much less fortunate than ourselves.
Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto:
Dear list,
In complicated procedural discussions the easiest way to move foreward is to look into legal texts. And if the legal text is unclear and open for interpretation you need advise or you have to consider how to make existing legal language more precise.
ICANN staff asked the ICANN General Counsel and he gave an interpretation that it was then posted to this list as well - apparently, there is no doubt at all on how to interpret that text.
In our case we have the text of the ICANN bylaws. They do not specify the rules and conditions how a "Board Liaison" is "appointed". The general practice of the other Advisory Committees (there are four/GAC, RSSAC, SSAC, ALAC) is that the appointed "liaison" is a member of the Committee (Sharil, Steve, Suzanne / incase of Steve and Sharil it is the Chair of the Committee who is the liaison) .
But there are numerous other cases of appointment of liaisons outside of the Committee - both in the ALAC (e.g. Bret as GNSO liaison for the last two years) and outside (e.g. the Vice-Chair of the Nomcom, whom the Chair of the Nomcom decided to appoint outside of the Nomcom members rather than picking one of them). There is not a general rule nor a general practice, at all.
The missing point here is that the ALAC has no procedures how to appoint the liaison, the most important personal decision the ALAC has to made every year.
Yes and no. When we got into the Sao Paulo meetings, many of us expected to find a more formalized procedure - in fact, when we asked, Annette told us that her plan was just to "meet and vote" on Thursday. I guess she didn't expect so much controversy! In the end, as more candidacies were presented (and you might note that this was the first time ever that we did not have an incumbent member to reappoint) and more and more doubts on how to proceed arose as well, many people in the Committee, starting from myself, suggested that we needed clearer formalized rules (in the meantime, we had a lot of discussion before voting, on procedures for the voting itself). Thus we agreed that we would prepare written rules of operation for all the appointments that the ALAC has to make, and I actually volunteered to write a draft. There is plenty of time, but we'd like to do this by the Lisbon meeting, so that it's sorted out well before the next cycle of elections.
With other words, I recommend that ALAC drafts procedural rules for the appointment of the Board liaison as soon as possible and adopts it on its next regular meeting in Lisboa.
...which is what the ALAC already decided to do one week ago, so we are actually in agreement :)
BTW, in the ALAC chapter of the ICANN bylaws there is made a difference between "appointment" (liaison to the board) and "designation" (liaison to the CNSO and GNSO). We have to consult with JJ to find out what the meaning of this difference is. I am not so familiar with californian law so for me it would be just the same. But legal experts - in case of conflicts - turn every word three times around :-(((
Which conflicts? The entire Committee, including those who voted for the other candidate, stands by the result of our vote and by the fact that I will serve as Board liaison until the end of 2007. There is actually no conflict inside the Committee; until now, you, Jeanette and Wolf are the only ones who have somewhat challenged this decision. I am really sorry of this situation and I do not want to take it personally, my plan is to be even a better Board liaison than Roberto and to make all of you happy about my service there. I would be happier if we focused the discussion on how can I do a better job. By the way, we should celebrate that the ALAC picked one of us for this role, rather than being unhappy about it! -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
On 2006-12-13 13:20:54 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
But there are numerous other cases of appointment of liaisons outside of the Committee - both in the ALAC (e.g. Bret as GNSO liaison for the last two years) and outside (e.g. the Vice-Chair of the Nomcom, whom the Chair of the Nomcom decided to appoint outside of the Nomcom members rather than picking one of them).
That example is irrelevant, besides the point, and factually wrong on several counts. See ICANN bylaws VII.2.9.
Yes and no. When we got into the Sao Paulo meetings, many of us expected to find a more formalized procedure - in fact, when we asked, Annette told us that her plan was just to "meet and vote" on Thursday. I guess she didn't expect so much controversy! In the end, as more candidacies were presented (and you might note that this was the first time ever that we did not have an incumbent member to reappoint)
What you mean is that it's the first time that there was no consensus on the candidate. "Meet and vote" essentially was the approach in the past, and it worked fairly nicely as long as there was no significant contention around appointments.
and more and more doubts on how to proceed arose as well, many people in the Committee, starting from myself, suggested that we needed clearer formalized rules (in the meantime, we had a lot of discussion before voting, on procedures for the voting itself).
... which ALAC hadn't gotten around to adopting in, what?, almost four years? For two (or three?) of which it was chaired by whom again? I remember having written a draft of that kind of rules in spring '03, and I also remember strong push-back on that very concept, with warm, cuddly, and consensus-heavy rhetoric. So, I'd recommend you stay away from playing the blame-game as far as ALAC voting rules and the like are concerned. There are many more reasons for the non-existence of rules in ALAC than just Annette's actions or non-actions.
With other words, I recommend that ALAC drafts procedural rules for the appointment of the Board liaison as soon as possible and adopts it on its next regular meeting in Lisboa.
...which is what the ALAC already decided to do one week ago, so we are actually in agreement :)
Good to hear.
By the way, we should celebrate that the ALAC picked one of us for this role, rather than being unhappy about it!
Oh please. Stop it. -- Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Jeannette,
I am sorry to say, but you are completely off the mark.
What a rude way of addressing somebody on a public list! May I suggest that you treat differences in opinion with a bit more respect?
ICANN has nothing to do in all this.
There is apparently a misunderstanding. I never said that ICANN should make rules for ALAC. What I said is that ICANN and ALAC share a disease. The disease as I see it is a lack of self-binding rules and/or sometimes an inclination to stretch existing rules. My recommendation was that ALAC should try to be a model in terms of "constitutionalizing" ICANN and its sub organizations. I repeat this just as a matter of clarification. The discussion has moved on, and I support both Wolfgang's and Thomas' constributions. jeanette ICANN gives some general rules for
self-organizing of constituencies, committees, and associated bodies. But then (and this is what is called "bottom-up" process) it gives some latitude in implementing it. I would be appalled in seeing ICANN board setting rules for the IP constituency. Or the NCUC. Why then for ALAC? Why, all of a sudden, we call on ICANN to set rules on how ALAC appoints its Boar Liaison?
The problem is completely a different one. And it has to do with funding. It is obvious to whoever would look at things abstracting from names, and looking at functions, that all what we are talking about is if ICANN would pay for a Board Liaison "on top" of the regular 15 members of the committee. It is obvious to whoever has done any one negotiation that if you state the problem up front, the answer from the (General Counsel of the) "counterpart" is extremely unlikely to be something like "Oh, yes, actually, why not even more than just one".
Anyway, Vittorio has been elected as ALAC Liaison to the Board, by ALAC plenary, who is, according to the Bylaws, the body who is responsible for the election. He is currently an ALAC member, and this should close the question until EURALO is formed. All clear, and compliant to the Bylaws. About additional alternate candidates, that are not members of ALAC, I personally cannot see how some person from outside the Committee could have the trust of ALAC and won an election against two strong and long time members like Vittorio and Wendy. In simple terms, we should not make confusion between somebody that has long membership, and the membership terminates, and a person coming from the outside, no matter how involved in other user-related organizations.
My "no waves approach" is a suggestion to ALAC for the future. Whether you take it, and gain results, or you reject it, and stay put, is your choice. If Vittorio's term as ALAC ends before his term as Liaison, you have the choice. I see three possibilities: - insist that he remains Liaison, and get the implicit right of having additional funding; - declare him ceased, go to new elections, create a precedent and lose forever the right of having additional funding; - replace him with a different person, also outside ALAC, and claim that if the rules allow an outside person, elections should be open to non-member candidates (which seems to be your point)
The question is, how are you going to motivate that you go to option 3, instead of 2? ICANN's reply will be, obviously, that you are welcome to go to option 2, and you can forget forever about option 3 (and 1, for that matter).
On one thing I agree with you, this is not a perfect world. Maybe where we differ is on how to change it.
Best regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette@wz-berlin.de] Sent: 08 December 2006 11:49 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe; roberto@icann.org Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
I don't think that this was the situation "by design", but rather a side effect on how the bylaws are written.
Hi Roberto,
this is the problem with ICANN as I see it since I watch its performance. There are always honorable reasons for maintaining ambiguous practices or stretching rules. But from the outside, such practices look somewhat fishy.
In order to grow up and to gain the trust ICANN needs to do its work, it is really, really necessary that ICANN establishes an equivalent to the rule of law, an equivalent that provides for reliable procedures and predictable decisions.
Your small steps, no big waves approach makes sense from an insider's perpective but from outside, it looks like more of the same muddling through approach that seems so characterstic for many of ICANN's decisions.
I know, I am repeating myself, I said the very same thing on another list a few days ago: ICANN needs to constitutionlize itself, its actions need to follow self binding rules that people know and that people can appeal to if they are supposedly violated. ALAC should not be an exception to this but rather a model for other constiuencies or groups in ICANN.
jeanette
We are getting there with small steps, not to create too big waves. We did it with Bret as GTLD Liaison, in the moment when we
were also
replacing another NA member (John Levine was selected). We are trying this with Vittorio, as the situation is now that it would take an active step by the Board to discontinue him after his expiration as ALAC member, and I don't think that the Board
will ever open this can of worms.
Then we will much better off for claiming it as established
practice.
This is, at least, my approach. Sorry for being more
careful than some
of you would like, but I have the impression that this strategy has paid off, up to now. Also, I do believe that one thing is a
proposal
for candidature that comes from an ALS, and another thing,
with more
weight, will be a candidature that comes from a established RALO. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: 08 December 2006 10:03 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio.
There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as
Board Liaison
even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary,
this is an
advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this
task without
impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison.
Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you
might have
got a long list of candidates if this had been known to
more people.
jeanette
In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in
advance and via
their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC.
This, based
on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions).
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On
Behalf Of
Vittorio Bertola Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19 To: patrick@isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto:
>A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the
nomcom chair
>would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see
that the ALAC
>actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted
in favour
>on this change ? who voted against ?
I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that
was sent
some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member
representing
EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one
of the two
EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and
the Nomcom
picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO
seats, which,
until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with
ICANN, is
to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that
MoU, the
ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and
whoever will
get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks)
will expire,
and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC.
The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before
making the
appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by
the ICANN
Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested
that we could
ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have
allowed the
Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting.
However,
there was another proposal that the three European ALAC
members pick
someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I
think that if
we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the
ALSes who
suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March
(though there
is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European
ALAC members
agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest
one or more
names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly.
In any case, please all of you start considering and
posting possible
nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European
ALAC member,
even if it might be just for a few months and for one
ICANN meeting
in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not
reapply for
my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really
want some new
people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I
said this
in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so
it's not
connected to that).
The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about
the internal
ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to
appoint its
Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to
other bodies.
These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by
a broader
group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work
together, but
I already suggested that the ALAC should have better
procedures for
these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees.
Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-
l
ists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
Jeanette, If there is a misunderstanding, and you did not mean to accuse ICANN of maintaining ambiguous practices or stretching rules, I offer my deepest public apologies. Best regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette@wz-berlin.de] Sent: 13 December 2006 14:09 To: Roberto Gaetano Cc: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe' Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Jeannette,
I am sorry to say, but you are completely off the mark.
What a rude way of addressing somebody on a public list! May I suggest that you treat differences in opinion with a bit more respect?
ICANN has nothing to do in all this.
There is apparently a misunderstanding. I never said that ICANN should make rules for ALAC. What I said is that ICANN and ALAC share a disease. The disease as I see it is a lack of self-binding rules and/or sometimes an inclination to stretch existing rules. My recommendation was that ALAC should try to be a model in terms of "constitutionalizing" ICANN and its sub organizations. I repeat this just as a matter of clarification. The discussion has moved on, and I support both Wolfgang's and Thomas' constributions.
jeanette
ICANN gives some general rules for
self-organizing of constituencies, committees, and associated bodies. But then (and this is what is called "bottom-up" process) it gives some latitude in implementing it. I would be appalled in seeing ICANN board setting rules for the IP constituency. Or the NCUC. Why then for ALAC? Why, all of a sudden, we call on ICANN to set rules on how ALAC appoints its Boar Liaison?
The problem is completely a different one. And it has to do with funding. It is obvious to whoever would look at things abstracting from names, and looking at functions, that all what we are talking about is if ICANN would pay for a Board Liaison "on top" of the regular 15 members of the committee. It is obvious to whoever has done any one negotiation that if you state the problem up front, the answer from the (General Counsel of the) "counterpart" is extremely unlikely to be something like "Oh, yes, actually, why not even more than just one".
Anyway, Vittorio has been elected as ALAC Liaison to the Board, by ALAC plenary, who is, according to the Bylaws, the body who is responsible for the election. He is currently an ALAC member, and this should close the question until EURALO is formed. All clear, and compliant to the Bylaws. About additional alternate candidates, that are not members of ALAC, I personally cannot see how some person from outside the Committee could have the trust of ALAC and won an election against two strong and long time members like Vittorio and Wendy. In simple terms, we should not make confusion between somebody that has long membership, and the membership terminates, and a person coming from the outside, no matter how involved in other user-related organizations.
My "no waves approach" is a suggestion to ALAC for the future. Whether you take it, and gain results, or you reject it, and stay put, is your choice. If Vittorio's term as ALAC ends before his term as Liaison, you have the choice. I see three possibilities: - insist that he remains Liaison, and get the implicit right of having additional funding; - declare him ceased, go to new elections, create a precedent and lose forever the right of having additional funding; - replace him with a different person, also outside ALAC, and claim that if the rules allow an outside person, elections should be open to non-member candidates (which seems to be your point)
The question is, how are you going to motivate that you go to option 3, instead of 2? ICANN's reply will be, obviously, that you are welcome to go to option 2, and you can forget forever about option 3 (and 1, for that matter).
On one thing I agree with you, this is not a perfect world. Maybe where we differ is on how to change it.
Best regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette@wz-berlin.de] Sent: 08 December 2006 11:49 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe; roberto@icann.org Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
I don't think that this was the situation "by design", but rather a side effect on how the bylaws are written.
Hi Roberto,
this is the problem with ICANN as I see it since I watch its performance. There are always honorable reasons for maintaining ambiguous practices or stretching rules. But from the outside, such practices look somewhat fishy.
In order to grow up and to gain the trust ICANN needs to do its work, it is really, really necessary that ICANN establishes an equivalent to the rule of law, an equivalent that provides for reliable procedures and predictable decisions.
Your small steps, no big waves approach makes sense from an insider's perpective but from outside, it looks like more of the same muddling through approach that seems so characterstic for many of ICANN's decisions.
I know, I am repeating myself, I said the very same thing on another list a few days ago: ICANN needs to constitutionlize itself, its actions need to follow self binding rules that people know and that people can appeal to if they are supposedly violated. ALAC should not be an exception to this but rather a model for other constiuencies or groups in ICANN.
jeanette
We are getting there with small steps, not to create too big waves. We did it with Bret as GTLD Liaison, in the moment when we
were also
replacing another NA member (John Levine was selected). We are trying this with Vittorio, as the situation is now that it would take an active step by the Board to discontinue him after his expiration as ALAC member, and I don't think that the Board
will ever open this can of worms.
Then we will much better off for claiming it as established
practice.
This is, at least, my approach. Sorry for being more
careful than some
of you would like, but I have the impression that this strategy has paid off, up to now. Also, I do believe that one thing is a
proposal
for candidature that comes from an ALS, and another thing,
with more
weight, will be a candidature that comes from a established RALO. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: 08 December 2006 10:03 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results
Roberto Gaetano schrieb:
Two additions to the comprehensive explanation by Vittorio.
There is nothing that prevents Vittorio to continue as
Board Liaison
even if he terminates as ALAC member. Quite the contrary,
this is an
advantage, as we will have the possibility to cover this
task without
impacting on the other activities, that will be carried on by the regular members. It was already the case for Bret as GTLD Liaison.
Now, this is interesting. Anybody can be nominated or run for the position as board liaison? If this is indeed the case, you
might have
got a long list of candidates if this had been known to
more people.
jeanette
In the future, ALSes and RALOs will be able to influence also the internal mechanisms, if they discuss the matter in
advance and via
their two representatives can bring motions to the ALAC.
This, based
on what is discussed above, might include candidatures to Liaison positions (but not Chair or Vice Chair positions).
Cheers, Roberto
>-----Original Message----- >From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On
Behalf Of
>Vittorio Bertola >Sent: 08 December 2006 09:19 >To: patrick@isoc.lu; Discussion for At-Large Europe >Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election >Results > >Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto: > >>A few days ago, it was explained on this list that the
nomcom chair
>>would suggest a name for the ALAC liaison. Now we see
that the ALAC
>>actually had a vote. Who decided that and when ? Who voted > >in favour > >>on this change ? who voted against ? > >I think that there is a misunderstanding. The message that
was sent
>some time ago was about appointing one new ALAC member
representing
>EURALO, since Annette, who was previously sitting in one
of the two
>EURALO seats, decided to apply for Roberto's seat - the one >representing ICANN and appointed by the ICANN Nomcom - and
the Nomcom
>picked her. Thus, this frees up one of the two EURALO
seats, which,
>until we formally incorporate EURALO and sign an MoU with
ICANN, is
>to be filled by the ICANN Board. As soon as we sign that
MoU, the
>ICANN-Board-appointed ALAC members (they being me and
whoever will
>get appointed in place of Annette in the next few weeks)
will expire,
>and EURALO will have to appoint two representatives in the ALAC. > >The ICANN Board, however, usually asks for advice before
making the
>appointment; initially, since this is going to be a short-lived >appointment - we hope to finalize the EURALO process by
the ICANN
>Lisbon meeting, next March - Roberto and I suggested
that we could
>ask the Nomcom to provide another name, which would have
allowed the
>Board to make a very quick appointment, and thus to bring the >appointed person here in Sao Paulo for this ICANN meeting.
However,
>there was another proposal that the three European ALAC
members pick
>someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I
think that if
>we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the
ALSes who
>suggest someone, also because it might be someone that the ALSes >might want to reappoint after we sign the MoU in March
(though there
>is absolutely no constraint to that effect). So we discussed the >matter here in Sao Paulo, and all the three European
ALAC members
>agreed to make a call to the European ALSes to suggest
one or more
>names, to be then discussed and forwarded to the ICANN Board for >consideration; Annette is supposed to post that call shortly. > >In any case, please all of you start considering and
posting possible
>nominees (or self-nominations) as temporary European
ALAC member,
>even if it might be just for a few months and for one
ICANN meeting
>in Lisbon. Also, I want to make it clear that I will not
reapply for
>my seat, I think that four years is enough and I really
want some new
>people from this group to be able to serve on the ALAC (I
said this
>in public before being appointed as ALAC Board liaison, so
it's not
>connected to that). > >The message that Nick sent yesterday, instead, was about
the internal
>ALAC appointments: the ALAC, as any Committee, has to
appoint its
>Chair, Vice Chairs, and also a number of liaisons to
other bodies.
>These positions are to be filled internally by the ALAC, as they >represent the distribution of labour among its members. In this >specific case, there was no established procedure, and even no >advance knowledge of all the nominations, so it was actually >impossible to have any further consultation - it was all decided >yesterday at an open meeting of the ALAC. I still see it a bit >difficult to imagine that these positions can be filled by
a broader
>group than the ALAC itself, since they are really connected to >internal balances in a 15-people group that has to work
together, but
>I already suggested that the ALAC should have better
procedures for
>these appointments, which could allow sufficient time to have a >consultation with the RALOs about the various nominees. > >Ciao, >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] >bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > >_______________________________________________ >EURO-Discuss mailing list >EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a >tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss _atlarge-
l
ists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_a tlarge-lists.icann.org
Vittorio Bertola wrote, On 08/12/2006 12:18:
I think that there is a misunderstanding. Indeed, there is. My apologies. However, there was another proposal that the three European ALAC members pick someone instead. I strongly disagree on that, because I think that if we don't go for a quick appointment, then it should be the ALSes who suggest someone I am glad to read this.
Patrick
participants (9)
-
Annette Muehlberg -
Jeanette Hofmann -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Roberto Gaetano -
Thomas Roessler -
Vittorio Bertola -
Wolf Ludwig -
Wolfgang Kleinwächter