Re: [alac] EU-RALO

[Jacqueline Morris <jam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto -
well said, and I agree. It's way over time to get a RALO started. The job is
to get the RALOs going, and I think we should get on with the job. Nothing
is going to be perfect before we start, and trying for perfection is a
recipe for stagnation and paralysis (which seems to have been happening). We
can also at the same time think of either ways to tweak the RALO system to
work better (best done after one has formed and we see how it is working) or
develop alternative structures to the RALO for presentation, but until we
really get one going or are totally shut down by the current ALSes, we don't
really have a leg to stand on to say - "this method isn't working" - I think
that empirical evidence is needed to be able to say one way or the other. We
have ALSes that joined under the current proposition. We owe it to them to
allow them to function in the structure they signed up for. It's unfair for
the ones that joined years ago to not have the structures done that we
promised them. If they try it and don't like it, then  - we can work with
them to come up with a new and better structure.
My $0.02
Jacqueline

On 1/31/06, Roberto Gaetano <alac_liaison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Few thoughts on the latest thread.
>
> Annette (I believe) has asked why a structure that does not work for NA
> could work for EU.
> First of all, one might ask the reverse: why something that might work for
> EU (and AP?) cannot work for NA.
> The whole idea about having regions is to be able to adapt better to local
> needs, even applying different models, if necessary. In this sense, I
> think
> that Siavash' call for "experimentation" can be realized in practice
> exactly
> by starting in each region with the model that could best work, within the
> latitude provided by the Bylaws.
> I personally like VBret's proposal of no voting procedure. In fact, I am
> very surprised by some "obsession" of the vote, in the sense that whatever
> we do ist seems that it boils down to who votes, how many seats, and so
> on.
> And the problems of substance are pushed in the background.
>
> On the issue of timing, I agree that a timeframe of just few days would be
> unfair. However, this is not the case. The process is not started now, but
> some 3 years ago. The deadline, as Wolfgang has already noted in one
> mailing
> list, has already passed, it was the end of last year.
> So, on one hand we are facing criticism because we are too slow (no RALOs
> yet), on the other hand we are facing criticism because we are too fast
> (tight deadline). On one hand we are told that organizations have had
> little
> time to think about joining (only three years), but on the other hand we
> have ALSes accredited in Europe (six of them have applied more than two
> years ago) who are asking us: "Well, we did apply, now what?". We are also
> being told that the big problem is the lack of participation by individual
> users. However, the formation of the EU-RALO, which foresees in the
> proposal
> exactly the participation of individual users along with organizational
> members, is being delayed. Honestly, I don't understand.
>
> Outreach. I understand, and agree, that we did not do a hell of a job.
> However, may I know what exactly have been the outreach initiatives in
> these
> three years in Europe, and why delays would improve the situation. In
> other
> words, whoever thinks that a few months of hard outreach work would bring
> different organizations onboard should also explain to me why this hard
> work
> has not been done in the previous months, or why if it has been done and
> it
> has not worked, it has better chances to work now. My personal opinion is
> that now we need a core team to take over some work, composed by the ALSes
> already onboard, and the individuals that wnat to join along the
> organizational members. Either this core team is able to function, and
> then
> others will join, or it will not function, and then we turn the page. But
> to
> try to convince more organizations to join when we do not have a
> reasonable
> answer to the question on why we have been unable to use the resources of
> the existing organizations is IMHO pointless.
>
> Furtehr discussion. It is obviously welcome. However, a discussion on the
> formation of the EU-RALO should be conducted in a mailing list that has
> this
> as a specific purpose, not dispersing comments in different places. I am
> obviously interested in the opinions of the people of the GA, or IG, or
> other. But I do believe that it would be most appropriate, in case they
> care
> to influence the process, to post on the discussion lists opened for this
> purpose.
>
> Last comment is on mission and tasks. I can't speak for others, but as for
> myself, when I have accepted the nomination, I have accepted to
> participate
> in building, and allow functioning, a two level structure, which had
> organizations as atomic unit, and a regional council (the RALO) expressed
> by
> these units. This is the task I have accepted (although I was not an
> enthusiast myself of the two-level model), and if the decision of the ALAC
> is to start everything all over again, the first thing I will do is to
> resign. Maybe then start again with the new experiment, with a differnt
> hat
> (one more, one less, after having participated in so many failed attempts,
> does not make much difference), but first provide my resignation as
> acknowledgement of the failure of this one.
>
> So, in short, I agree with Vittorio on the need to proceed without further
> waiting.
>
> Roberto GAETANO
> ALAC
> ICANN BoD Liaison
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
> get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
>
>


--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online