Hi Cheryl,

thanks for all the further and detailed information on the matter. And
SORRY for mixing-up/confusing/attributing a quoted statement what
was not said by you but quoted from Bill (what is always a kind of
awkward confession for journalists ;-).

For the second part of your message, I was aware that ALAC has had
a Liaison to the NCUC for several years already, and our idea and
suggestion from yesterday's call simply was that a continuation
could be useful - particularly under the given and rather difficult
circumstances.

Thanks for taking EURALO's proposal under further consideration at
ALAC.

Best,
Wolf

Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:36:
>Wolf thanks for the update on the EURALO proposal from it's meeting
>regarding this Agenda item and I assume it will be brought forward for the
>ALAC to consider... But just to be very clear *if* you are attributing
>the sentence below "..."this is going to go anywhere but downhill from
>here" ..." to me that is *not correct* that is a Statement from Bill which
>I quoted in my earlier message and indeed I would not and will not make that
>sort of predictive or value laden statement on such a volatile topic
>especially as ALAC Chair...
> ALAC has for several years had a Liaison from the ALAC to the NCUC (this
>was of course a natural fit as NCUC was in the pre-restructured GNSO time,
>the clear place and mechanism for individual internet user and non
>commercial registrant input into GNSO PDP and other processes); all ALAC
>meetings are open but we (ALAC and individuals in it) have welcomed the
>proposal from NCUC in recent times to formalize a NCUC Liaison to our AC
>(adding to several other sent from other parts of ICANN) this and
>our reciprocal arrangements decision has been covered by other messages
>including from Alan Greenberg and myself earlier so I won't repeat here.
> However in those in those interchanges (or referenced to them)
>I believe you will see from ALAC nothing but an intention to work with all
>parts of ICANN *including existing and future GNSO constituencies* that
>affect and effect our role as outlined in the ALAC Review final Report "10.
>ALAC as the representative body for At Large is the primary organisational
>home for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN
>processes, although ICANN’s multi stakeholder model provides opportunity for
>individual users to choose to participate in many other ways in the ICANN
>process." (
>http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/alac/final-report-alac-review-09jun09-en.pdf
>p6)
>as if for no other reason to do otherwise would be maladaptive and
>counterproductive.
>
>I will be making these statement again to the ALAC when we consider whatever
>proposal or suggestions EURALO has resolved today at its meeting, but I have
>taken the time to cover them here as well as it obviously is important that
>we separate hearsay and assumption from intention and desired outcome (from
>ALAC's point if view) at all stages of these discussions.
>
>CLO
>
>2009/9/24 Wolf Ludwig
>
>> Hi Cheryl and all,
>>
>> thanks for your background infos on tonight's EURALO call what, I think,
>> is helpful to correct some misinterpretations. Let me take your last
>> sentence or questioning assumption that "this is going to go anywhere
>> but downhill from here" and add the conclusion of our call tonight:
>>
>> We are aware that the recent development is more than delicate and the
>> situation is difficult to be understood by many observers (at least at
>> EURALO) who were not closely involved. What we felt is the need to
>> overcome this confrontation leading to nowhere but a deadlock and
>> to try to de-escalate the given situation. At our call tonight we were
>> seeking for options how the relations between ALAC and NCUC could
>> be calmed and improved again, and the nomination of Bill as a
>> Liaison person between both could offer such an opportunity. As you
>> confirmed in your previous response already, Bill offers with his
>> "involvement with EURALO (and NCUC - GNSO) a perfect fit for
>> the Job". If Bill - with support from EURALO - could assume a
>> mediation role in this matter, we will try our best. As we know,
>> the deadline for organising "official" meetings in Seoul has passed
>> already but there should still be opportunities for "informal" ones.
>>
>> Let's try to discuss, define and find ways out and solutions together.
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Wolf
>>
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:55:
>> >Hi Bill, I'd like you, EURALO and the ALAC to be very aware of a single
>> >point of concern to me in the Blog reply /thread you made in the link
>> >provided below... specifically the following... PLease note that Robyn as
>> >Chair of NCUC wrote to me in email appointing you as the NCUC liaison
>> (i.e.
>> >advising me of you offer) I replied to her message with copy to staff,
>> copy
>> >to ExCom list (PUBLIC) within minutes of the receipt of this advice and
>> >announced at the following ExCom and then full ALAC Meeting(s) that a
>> >Liaison from NCUC was most welcome and that you in my opinion with your
>> >involvement with EURALO a perfect fit for the Job, and expected in fact
>> that
>> >you would be well aware of this reply as well as would have attended (if
>> >available) or reviewed our meetings since then (you are already on the
>> >relevant lists get notices links to agenda's etc.,) where the ALAC has
>> >discussed that we will need to appoint a Liaison to the NCSG (with the
>> >existing NCUC being a constituent part of that under the current model
>> were
>> >working with) or review later complaints to us from both our previous NCUC
>> >Liaisons did not motivate us to appoint a replacement to Beau for a month
>> or
>> >so before this change would need to occur any way in our view... Also
>> the
>> >ALAC discussed that as we will attend the User House meeting and (with the
>> >exception of the single purpose IRT issue and our Joint Response / work
>> >activity that enveloped our time (and was conducted in the scheduled
>> meeting
>> >time for NCUC and ALAC in Sydney) meetings since Mexico ( well Cairo
>> >actually) have been a duplication of effort and topic and that as we had a
>> >very full set of demands in our Seoul agenda, and as ALAC and RALO leaders
>> >had complained about the workload and requested more time to address
>> policy
>> >development matters; unless Robyn proposed a topic that required a
>> specific
>> >F2F between the NCUC as a GNSO constituency and our AC then we would only
>> >schedule the User House meeting and use the time for other priority
>> >meetings... In my reply to Robyn et.al and welcoming you as an NCUC
>> Liaison
>> >to the ALAC I also covered off (in shorter form) all of that as well...
>> Why
>> >you have not been made aware of all this immediate and welcoming response
>> to
>> >your offer from the ALAC however I can not say.
>> >"For my part, I offered almost a month ago to serve as a liaison but never
>> >got a reply from ALAC, and am now told that they've decided they don't
>> need
>> >to liaise with NCUC. And to my knowledge there's no NCUC-ALAC meeting
>> >planned for Seoul. Hard to see how this is going to go anywhere but
>> downhill
>> >from here, but whatever, I guess. "
>> >
>> >CLO
>> >
>> >2009/9/23 William Drake
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> I see on the agenda item 3, "ALAC response to recent activities of the
>> >> NCUC."
>> >>
>> >> Given the general lack of NCUC-ALAC dialogue and information sharing,
>> I'm
>> >> guessing that not everybody will be equally aware of the background. To
>> >> that end, the following links might be worth perusing prior to the
>> >> discussion.
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/22/4329523.html
>> >>
>> >> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ncuc-to-beckstrom-18aug09-en.pdf
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Bill
>> >>
>> >> PS: I will probably have to leave the call after an hour
>> >>
>> >> ***********************************************************
>> >> William J. Drake
>> >> Senior Associate
>> >> Centre for International Governance
>> >> Graduate Institute of International and
>> >> Development Studies
>> >> Geneva, Switzerland
>> >> william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch
>> >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>> >> ***********************************************************
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> EURO-Discuss mailing list
>> >> EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis...
>> >>
>> >> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Cheryl Langdon-Orr
>> >(CLO)
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >EURO-Discuss mailing list
>> >EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> >
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis...
>> >
>> >Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>> >
>>
>> comunica-ch
>> phone +41 79 204 83 87
>> Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
>> www.comunica-ch.net
>>
>> Digitale Allmend
>> http://blog.allmend.ch -
>>
>> EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
>> http://euralo.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EURO-Discuss mailing list
>> EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis...
>>
>> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Cheryl Langdon-Orr
>(CLO)
>_______________________________________________
>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>

comunica-ch
phone +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
www.comunica-ch.net

Digitale Allmend
http://blog.allmend.ch -

EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
http://euralo.org

_______________________________________________
EURO-Discuss mailing list
EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis...

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

Dear Cheryl

is there any formalized fllow up from ATLAS I? How ALAC deals with the Mexico Recommendations? There were so many substantial issues which needs continuous efforts. We have to move from big words to clear actions. Who checks the progress and what is the planning for "regional summits" and ATLAS II in 2011?

Thanks

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Gesendet: Do 24.09.2009 03:36
An: Discussion for At-Large Europe
Cc: At-Large Staff
Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Background for tonight's Euralo call

Wolf thanks for the update on the EURALO proposal from it's meeting
regarding this Agenda item and I assume it will be brought forward for the
ALAC to consider... But just to be very clear *if* you are attributing
the sentence below "..."this is going to go anywhere but downhill from
here" ..." to me that is *not correct* that is a Statement from Bill which
I quoted in my earlier message and indeed I would not and will not make that
sort of predictive or value laden statement on such a volatile topic
especially as ALAC Chair...
ALAC has for several years had a Liaison from the ALAC to the NCUC (this
was of course a natural fit as NCUC was in the pre-restructured GNSO time,
the clear place and mechanism for individual internet user and non
commercial registrant input into GNSO PDP and other processes); all ALAC
meetings are open but we (ALAC and individuals in it) have welcomed the
proposal from NCUC in recent times to formalize a NCUC Liaison to our AC
(adding to several other sent from other parts of ICANN) this and
our reciprocal arrangements decision has been covered by other messages
including from Alan Greenberg and myself earlier so I won't repeat here.
However in those in those interchanges (or referenced to them)
I believe you will see from ALAC nothing but an intention to work with all
parts of ICANN *including existing and future GNSO constituencies* that
affect and effect our role as outlined in the ALAC Review final Report "10.
ALAC as the representative body for At Large is the primary organisational
home for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN
processes, although ICANN's multi stakeholder model provides opportunity for
individual users to choose to participate in many other ways in the ICANN
process." (
http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/alac/final-report-alac-review-09jun09-en...
p6)
as if for no other reason to do otherwise would be maladaptive and
counterproductive.

I will be making these statement again to the ALAC when we consider whatever
proposal or suggestions EURALO has resolved today at its meeting, but I have
taken the time to cover them here as well as it obviously is important that
we separate hearsay and assumption from intention and desired outcome (from
ALAC's point if view) at all stages of these discussions.

CLO

2009/9/24 Wolf Ludwig

> Hi Cheryl and all,
>
> thanks for your background infos on tonight's EURALO call what, I think,
> is helpful to correct some misinterpretations. Let me take your last
> sentence or questioning assumption that "this is going to go anywhere
> but downhill from here" and add the conclusion of our call tonight:
>
> We are aware that the recent development is more than delicate and the
> situation is difficult to be understood by many observers (at least at
> EURALO) who were not closely involved. What we felt is the need to
> overcome this confrontation leading to nowhere but a deadlock and
> to try to de-escalate the given situation. At our call tonight we were
> seeking for options how the relations between ALAC and NCUC could
> be calmed and improved again, and the nomination of Bill as a
> Liaison person between both could offer such an opportunity. As you
> confirmed in your previous response already, Bill offers with his
> "involvement with EURALO (and NCUC - GNSO) a perfect fit for
> the Job". If Bill - with support from EURALO - could assume a
> mediation role in this matter, we will try our best. As we know,
> the deadline for organising "official" meetings in Seoul has passed
> already but there should still be opportunities for "informal" ones.
>
> Let's try to discuss, define and find ways out and solutions together.
> Thanks and best regards,
> Wolf
>
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:55:
> >Hi Bill, I'd like you, EURALO and the ALAC to be very aware of a single
> >point of concern to me in the Blog reply /thread you made in the link
> >provided below... specifically the following... PLease note that Robyn as
> >Chair of NCUC wrote to me in email appointing you as the NCUC liaison
> (i.e.
> >advising me of you offer) I replied to her message with copy to staff,
> copy
> >to ExCom list (PUBLIC) within minutes of the receipt of this advice and
> >announced at the following ExCom and then full ALAC Meeting(s) that a
> >Liaison from NCUC was most welcome and that you in my opinion with your
> >involvement with EURALO a perfect fit for the Job, and expected in fact
> that
> >you would be well aware of this reply as well as would have attended (if
> >available) or reviewed our meetings since then (you are already on the
> >relevant lists get notices links to agenda's etc.,) where the ALAC has
> >discussed that we will need to appoint a Liaison to the NCSG (with the
> >existing NCUC being a constituent part of that under the current model
> were
> >working with) or review later complaints to us from both our previous NCUC
> >Liaisons did not motivate us to appoint a replacement to Beau for a month
> or
> >so before this change would need to occur any way in our view... Also
> the
> >ALAC discussed that as we will attend the User House meeting and (with the
> >exception of the single purpose IRT issue and our Joint Response / work
> >activity that enveloped our time (and was conducted in the scheduled
> meeting
> >time for NCUC and ALAC in Sydney) meetings since Mexico ( well Cairo
> >actually) have been a duplication of effort and topic and that as we had a
> >very full set of demands in our Seoul agenda, and as ALAC and RALO leaders
> >had complained about the workload and requested more time to address
> policy
> >development matters; unless Robyn proposed a topic that required a
> specific
> >F2F between the NCUC as a GNSO constituency and our AC then we would only
> >schedule the User House meeting and use the time for other priority
> >meetings... In my reply to Robyn et.al and welcoming you as an NCUC
> Liaison
> >to the ALAC I also covered off (in shorter form) all of that as well...
> Why
> >you have not been made aware of all this immediate and welcoming response
> to
> >your offer from the ALAC however I can not say.
> >"For my part, I offered almost a month ago to serve as a liaison but never
> >got a reply from ALAC, and am now told that they've decided they don't
> need
> >to liaise with NCUC. And to my knowledge there's no NCUC-ALAC meeting
> >planned for Seoul. Hard to see how this is going to go anywhere but
> downhill
> >from here, but whatever, I guess. "
> >
> >CLO
> >
> >2009/9/23 William Drake
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I see on the agenda item 3, "ALAC response to recent activities of the
> >> NCUC."
> >>
> >> Given the general lack of NCUC-ALAC dialogue and information sharing,
> I'm
> >> guessing that not everybody will be equally aware of the background. To
> >> that end, the following links might be worth perusing prior to the
> >> discussion.
> >>
> >>
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/22/4329523.html
> >>
> >> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ncuc-to-beckstrom-18aug09-en.pdf
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >> PS: I will probably have to leave the call after an hour
> >>
> >> ***********************************************************
> >> William J. Drake
> >> Senior Associate
> >> Centre for International Governance
> >> Graduate Institute of International and
> >> Development Studies
> >> Geneva, Switzerland
> >> william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch
> >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> >> ***********************************************************
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> >> EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >>
> >>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis...
> >>
> >> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> >(CLO)
> >_______________________________________________
> >EURO-Discuss mailing list
> >EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis...
> >
> >Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
> >
>
> comunica-ch
> phone +41 79 204 83 87
> Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
> www.comunica-ch.net
>
> Digitale Allmend
> http://blog.allmend.ch -
>
> EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
> http://euralo.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis...
>
> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>

--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)
_______________________________________________
EURO-Discuss mailing list
EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis...

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

_______________________________________________
EURO-Discuss mailing list
EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis...

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org