Re: [alac] RALOs

[Thomas Roessler <roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sebastian,

we are in "violent agreement" on a significant part of the substance
of what you wrote.

The disagreements we may have are mostly about the semantics of what
you and I mean by "arbitrary." Without going into the details of
that particular discussion (we can have it off-list, if you want),
let me just note that my use of that word was not at all meant as
criticism of what you wrote, and that it was not meant to imply the
notion of *unfair* processes...

The points of substantial agreement we seem to have (please correct
me where I'm wrong):

- The ICANN bylaws basically contain all the important criteria.
  (Like open and participatory, dominated by individuals,
  self-sustaining...)

- Non-for-profit status may be desirable. (This is not in the bylaws
  currently, and may be a problem to verify in practice.)

- The rest can be left to the collective judgment of some committee.
  (Either this one, or existing at-large structures.)

The one substantial point where I have a concern is disclosure of
funding -- I wouldn't like to see us make a final proposal about
this without having done some consultation before.


Concerning the MoU drafting, I have no doubt that some on this
committee have the skills to draft a decent agreement, and I was
certainly not going to dispute your professional skills and
abilities.

However, not everyone on this committee has these skills -- I, for
one, am not a lawyer. For people like me, it's *much* easier to work
on some high-level text instead of trying to edit ideas into the
draft of a detailed legal document -- which would only be ruined by
that kind of editing. ;-)

Thus my proposal: High-level document first, with everyone's
participation; legal document drafting later, by those lawyers who
may be willing and able to do it.


Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler                 <roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>






On 2003-03-31 16:55:48 -0300, Sebastian Ricciardi wrote:
> From: Sebastian Ricciardi <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Interim ALAC <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:55:48 -0300
> Subject: [alac] RALOs
> Envelope-to: roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Delivery-date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:58:22 +0200
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>