I would like to forward some remarks regarding the discussion on the ALAC review.
Unfortunately, our Board member in charge did not follow-up the EURALO discussion in Paris on this issue and did not submit our position paper yet, as agreed in June.
Therefore I want to forward 5 essential points – from a EURALO point of view – we discussed in Paris regarding the ALAC review:
1. We consider the review by Westlake as rather UN-historical.
2. There is a lack of proper analyzing and distinction between causes versus consequences.
3. Several crucial points communicated by EURALO reps. during the interviews with Westlake were not mentioned or even considered in the Review –- such as, for example, the enabling or preventing role of certain Staff members or specific handicaps of a working environment based on volunteers etc.
4. Rather important enabling factors for RALOs like programme planning, agenda setting, outreach activities decided by their own (bottom-up) and financial support by ICANN. A working budget should be allocated to each RALO according to the working programmes decided by the regional GAs.
5. Lack of consistence and balance in the conclusions which seems to be biased in the sense that they reflect more the desires of certain ICANN Staff members than the requirements of the At-Large community.
These are some of the essentials EURALO discussed in Paris and I would appreciate further consideration in your discussion this afternoon.
Thanks and regards,
Wolf
