[alac] RALOs

["Sebastian Ricciardi" <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thomas,

A few comments about your e-mail.
I'm not proposing arbitrary methods of selecting ALS for RALO's. What I am
saying is that we should
be as open as possible for a first stage, since the real challenge seems to
be get organizations
involved. Once we had these At large Structures (ALS), we would be able to
set more specific criteria.
Moreover, I prupose this criteria to be revised from time to time. To allow
ALAC to select the ALS
using different criteria according it's needs does not mean to be arbitrary
or unfair.
I see this solution as the only way to meet our challenging timeframe and
use our budget in a productive
way. We can discuss criteria for months, waisting a lot of money and
resources, and still dont reach an
agreement.

As for the MOU, I'm sure that Mr. Touton will go trhough the agreement very
carefuly. However,
7 years in Law school and some experience working with international
agreements, (including
MoS and M&As agreements) should be enough to draft a decent agreement. I'm
also sure that Wendy can help us in
this matter. The draft is already in  our agenda, and I dont think we can
get the rid of it. Don't you worry about formalities,
we just need to give them a clear idea of what we want.

Thank you for your comments.

Regards,


Sebastian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Sebastian Ricciardi" <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "Vittorio Bertola"
<vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [alac-admin] Fw: Documento to discuss during lunch.


> Unless I'm wrong, your fundamental conclusion seems to be that the
> mandatory criteria in the bylaws are sufficiently explicit, and that
> everything else should be moved into "arbitrary" procfesses.  That
> seems to match what I took from the vairous discussions in Rio --
> there are just no additional criteria needed.
>
> Concerning the MoU, I'd rather get away from drafting a framework as
> a committee work item -- we should rather concentrate on the
> substantial points which need to go in there, and leave the detailed
> legal drafting to the lawyers available. ;-)
>
> What do you think?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler <roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2003-03-26 12:22:39 -0300, Sebastian Ricciardi wrote:
> > From: Sebastian Ricciardi <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: ALAC private <alac-admin@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Erick Iriarte Ahon <faia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > Denise Michel <denisemichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:22:39 -0300
> > Subject: [alac-admin] Fw: Documento to discuss during lunch.
> > Envelope-to: roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Delivery-date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:25:43 +0100
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sebas Ricciardi" <sebasba@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <alac-admin@xxxxxxxxx>; <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <denisemichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:10 AM
> > Subject: Documento to discuss during lunch.
> >
> >
> > > Dear fellows,
> > >
> > > Please fin attached a document that I would like to
> > > discuss during lunch today, or maybe earlier, at your
> > > convinience. I will fly back home in the afternoon, so
> > > it would be great if we meet in the morning.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > Sebastian
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
> > > http://platinum.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>