[LAC-Discuss] Propuesta

Sebastian Ricciardi sricciardi at fibertel.com.ar
Mon Mar 31 10:48:04 EDT 2008


Dear Carlton,

Thank you so much for your constructive message.

We have a complete agreement on the language interpretation as our major
challenge. We should try to explore ways and tools to solve them. In the
meantime, I´m afraid that we will be forced to work in English, since it
appears - form my humble perspective - that is easier to Spanish or
Portuguese speaking individuals to read English messages than to English
speaking participants to read and understand Spanish or Portuguese messages.
Anyhow, I would like to comment on some points you have addressed:

- The proposal was not posted by Erick and me. It was discussed with our own
ALSs and I can assure that represent the feelings and thoughts of our
constituencies. The proposal was made by ISOC.Ar and Alfa Redi, and is
signed by them. Ruddy Medina form Alfa Redi review the draft and agreed on a
joint proposal from both organizations. I have discussed the draft of the
submitted proposal with different participants of both ALSs, Alfa Redi and
ISOC.Ar (included Erick, of course, and Sebastián Bellagamba). 
This is a point of utmost importance, since your interpretation - well
intentioned, without doubts - somehow highlights another challenge of the
LACRALO: how to work beyond the opinions of a few individuals that appears
to "represent" a broad community. We had that challenge in the first ALAC,
and that was precisely the reason that led us not to talk about
"representation" but "Advocacy". You have used the word "Caudillo". This is
precisely what we are trying to get the rid of here. I am not trying to
impose any kind of leadership to the LACRALO members by any chance (I´ve
learned my lesson) and I´m sure that Erick would be in the same frequency.

- The LACRALO agenda cannot be guided only by ALAC business. It´s really up
to ourselves to identify the issues and give ALAC an input, even before ALAC
asked us to do so. Of course, that doesn´t mean that we don´t follow ALAC
proceedings, but we ought to be more proactive. In order to do so, the
agenda should be dictated by : 1)The problems we identify by researching our
constituency. As an example: if any ALSs have data suggesting that their
country is being targeted by phishing, then it might be interesting for them
to get hands on DNSSEC and other issues under discussion at ICANN. 2)
Following the current topics under discussions on the ICANN website,
http://www.icann.org/topics/ . 3) Having a calendar of issues, to work with
along deadlines. The GNSO used to have this calendar.

- I know that ICANN was planning to hire someone to provide more policy
support to RALOs. Some kind of policy officer. This would be a good idea,
and may address many of your legitimate concerns.

- By any means our proposal was critical to the work we have been doing so
far. They are ideas to improve. Both ISOC.Ar and Alfa Redi - I guess -
recognize the effort you have made up to now.

- There is no sense of loss. I like to think that we are trying to identify
opportunities to have a meaningful participation in the ICANN policy
development process, in the frame of the original spirit of the ALAC: To
provide a way of a structure and informed participation of the internet
users from around the world.

I´m willing to discuss on list or off list any other point that you would
like to clarify.

Warm regards,

Sebastian

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlton Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm] 
Sent: Viernes, 28 de Marzo de 2008 10:57 a.m.
To: 'Sebastian Ricciardi'; lac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Cc: 'Nick Ashton-Hart'; kieren.mccarthy at icann.org
Subject: RE: Propuesta

Dear Sebastian:
The posting from Erick and you highlights one of the major challenges of
LACRALO – the matter of language.   In fact, the Spanish-only post
highlights what has happened to our Spanish-only speakers in most of ICANN’s
deliberations until quite recent; they were underserved and marginalised,
which affects their interest and capability to participate.  With regard to
LACRALO business, it also marginalizes, perhaps without the intent,
English-only speakers.   I can at least go along for a bit, with the help of
my daughter.  I'm very conscious that an English-only response from the
Secretariat may not reach all of the constituency you so eloquently
addressed.
 
Providing the tools for LACRALO participation is the responsibility of
ICANN.  And without a doubt, the At-Large staff has grown around us to the
task and from inception, worked very hard indeed to support us. Some support
initiatives - like the translated discussion list - have not met
expectations.  But I cannot but commend them on what has transpired so far.
Since July 2006, wikis, calendars and other work tools are now available to
the community where there were none before. The initiative to rationalize
the websites and provide even more channels and tools for self-expression is
evolving at this very moment and will be very useful to need for regional
self-expression. There is now even a policy position that allows linkages to
blogs from ICANN websites; Erick and you should find this development of
particular interest. What is clear is that what is considered the At-Large
community in LAC has expanded significantly from the 3 or so persons that
'represented' the region prior to 2007.  We know this is not a development
that has pleased all of us.  But without a doubt, progress is being made.
 
Yes, LACRALO should have a work agenda in regard to ICANN’s business. And it
does: that agenda is guided by ALAC's business.  And ALAC is the recognized
conduit for At-Large input to the ICANN policy-making process. ALAC's agenda
is a consensus agenda developed by way of a multi-channel process of
interactions. At its most discreet stage, LACRALO has the right and
capability to impact this agenda thru the input of our elected
representatives to ALAC; Carlos Dionisio Aguirre and Jose Ovidio
Salgueiro. If they are not going to become ‘loose cannons’ or 'seeing-eye
dogs', they need the input of *our community*.  Our community is the
constituent ALS of LAC and other interested parties that subscribe to the
MOU Principles we signed with ICANN.

Matters for discussion come to our attention by several routes: reports from
ALAC meetings provided by our ALAC representatives, staff reports on
particular issues, postings from individual members on matters of individual
interest that might become the group's interest. Every ALS in LACRALO has
the ability to influence the representation of the region in ALAC by
contributing to a consensus on any subject being discussed in ALAC by
participating in discussion on the electronic discussion list. 
Participation implies knowledge.  Or the means to acquire that knowledge.
You get that by reading widely and often, talking to others with more
knowledge than yourself. This is what the discussion list and links to web
pages is intended to do.  Yes, this may not be the *best* system for LAC
because of the twin burdens of our history and culture; we love the
face-to-face harangue and the cuadillo-style approach to leadership.   Only
6 or so of the 27 constituent ALS can be counted as ever participating in
discussions.  Bluntly speaking, it is not the business of the Secretariat to
gin up participation.  And I personally reject this malignant propensity to
be either a priest or caudillo to effect ‘voluntary’ participation.
 
We acknowledge that language support is a major expense in the conduct of
international business even as we are unanimous that this remains the
responsibility of ICANN.  I can assure you that this Secretariat does not
have resources to provide language support.

Despite the language support failings, I do not share your sense of loss. 
This work assumes a cadre of committed, well-read independent-thinking and
enthusiastic volunteers.  In other words, it is not intended to be an
organization of blind, uninformed volunteers led by a seeing-eye dog. 
Members *must* take the time to inform themselves of the issues under
discussion.  These issues are communicated, albeit with language challenges
to overcome.  It is for members to *decide* what is important and pass it
along to our ALAC representatives filtered thru the discussion list.   The
Secretariat cannot and may not impose our view on any matter on others. We
are equally certain we would reject any attempt by anyone to impose a view
on LACRALO to which the Secretariat objects or find repugnant to the
principles under which we operate. We want to see LACRALO evolve into a
community of equals that can contribute, each and everyone.  

The mechanisms to make change to any of structure is available and should be
known by now.  And if and when the community decides, then that will be time
enough.  
 
Kind regards,
Carlton


From: Sebastian Ricciardi [mailto:sricciardi at fibertel.com.ar] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:20 PM
To: lac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Cc: 'Carlton Samuels'; 'Nick Ashton-Hart'; kieren.mccarthy at icann.org
Subject: Propuesta

Estimados Miembros de la LAC-RALO:
 
Las organizaciones que suscriben la presente,  remiten el siguiente aporte
en relación  al funcionamiento de la LAC-RALO y  la gestión de diálogos para
formación de consensos en el seno de la misma, esperando que sean bien
recogidas, y contribuyan a generar una verdadera participación informada y
estructurada de los usuarios de Internet en el proceso de desarrollo de
políticas de ICANN.
 
1)      El mecanismo establecido del Secretariado  debe  ser fortalecido de
modo tal que sea un generador permanente de espacios de
dialogo (digitales/telefónicos/presenciales), y 
fortalezca la discusión, dentro de la  LAC-RALO, las ALSs y entre sus
integrantes, de las principales cuestiones que se debaten dentro de
ICANN.  Es necesario contar con un cronograma claro de asuntos para estudiar
y tratar, y establecer una serie de comunicaciones periódicas entre la
LACRALO y el ALAC, más allá de la buena voluntad y predisposición de quienes
han puesto su mejor empeño en cumplir con el mandato otorgado por la RALO.
 
En pos de estos objetivos, proponemos la siguiente línea de acción:
 
a. propuesta de tema de dialogo, que deberá  acompañarse de un resumen del
estado del arte del  tema, anexo de documentos relevantes, e indicaciones
acerca de donde obtener mayor información.
 
b. generación de dialogo a través de preguntas claves y encuestas, así como
apertura a diálogos temáticos especializados, quizás a través de grupos de
trabajo específicos.
 
c. establecimiento de un calendario de trabajo (inicio, fechas, fin)
 
d. presentación de resultados.
 
Esta dinámica no debería ser concatenada tema por tema,  sino que busca
llevarse en paralelo siguiendo las  pautas antes indicadas para ahorrar
tiempo y energía, entendiendo que tanto la labor del  Secretariado como la
de los diversos actores de las ALS se realiza en forma voluntaria.
 
De igual manera creemos que en un futuro a determinar, sería deseable  que
el Secretariado sea asumido por una institución o individuo que pueda
brindar la tarea permanente  de acercar la información a las ALS, tanto
en  ingles como en español sin que dependa de la  traducción automática de
instrumentos digitales.
 
Finalmente, sería deseable contar con reportes bimestrales por parte del
Secretariado, que sea útiles para hacer seguimiento a los temas
pendientes, temas en curso, prospectiva de nuevos temas, etc.

Cordialmente,
 
ISOC.Ar
Alfa Redi


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1344 - Release Date: 26/03/2008
08:52 a.m.



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1347 - Release Date: 27/03/2008
07:15 p.m.
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1352 - Release Date: 31/03/2008
10:13 a.m.
 





More information about the lac-discuss-en mailing list