<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [alac] RALOs
- To: "Sebastian Ricciardi" <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [alac] RALOs
- From: Esther Dyson <edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:35:02 -0500
I agree with what I take to be the general spirit: that we will probably
have more trouble *finding* members than selecting them. I would prefer to
*require* disclosure of funding, and to leave the nonprofit issue
"discretionary" (as opposed to arbitrary ;)). FWIW, some nonprofits have a
for-profit administration, etc. etc. Beyond that, I defer to - and thanks -
the lawyers in the group!
Esther
At 08:15 PM 3/31/2003, Sebastian Ricciardi wrote:
Thomas,
Obviously, I misunderstood some of the contents of your e-mail.
I really thought that you were using the word "arbitrary" implying
unfairness, although I'm agree with you in the strict sense of the word
(wich is not necesary bad or unfair).
I'm happy to see we agree on the fundamental basis, and your proposal on
drafting seems pretty good for me.
I apologize if my response wasn't polite, I do not use to take discussions
at a personal level.
Cheers,
Sebastian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Sebastian Ricciardi" <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Interim ALAC" <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [alac] RALOs
> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
1 (212) 924-8800 -- fax 1 (212) 924-0240
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com
The conversation continues..... at
http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
Release 1.0 - the first good look
at technology that matters
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|