[lac-discuss-en] My comments related to the amendment

[Jacqueline Morris]

Sorry I have taken so long - I really wanted to do proper research and
make reasoned, logical comments in line with the role of the RALOs,
the values and MSH model of ICANN, and the ALAC improvements. I also
looked at the original emails around the formation of the RALOs to
refresh my memory as to why certain specific clauses were in the
Operating Principles.

I tried not to make it an academic treatise with loads of references
and footnotes, but I do have them, in case anyone would like to know
more about why I made specific comments.

Also sorry for the length of the document - I could not make it
shorter, try as I might.

Comments on the proposal for modification of the LACRALO Operating
Principles and Rules of Procedure

In general, I believe that the items contained in the proposal are
overly broad and sweeping, will change the entire character of the
LACRALO, and not for the better. They seem designed to create a
massive bureaucratic organisation in which there are almost 30%
chiefs, with few workers, and also seem designed to discard both the
diverse nature of LACRALO and any pretense of democracy that remains
in the organisation.

To specifics::

Paragraph 2:

This item is designed to allow for rules to be created to allow
individual participation in LACRALO. This is something that has been
in process for five years. Instead of treating with the substantive
theme of this item, increased participation by all end-users in the
region, the proposed modification seeks to insert participation
requirements to limit participation by the ALSes, and ignores the
individual user.

I suggest that the proposed modification be stricken, and a motion
proposed instead that states:

Whereas
Individuals who wish to participate in LACRALO  are not able to so do
solely  because there is no accredited ALS in their country;
We propose that
Any individual seeking to participate must:
be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the LAC
 region as defined by ICANN,
not be a member of a certified ALS.
 Such individuals will be allowed to join LACRALO as individual
members and participate in LACRALO activities including votes.
Such individuals will be subject to all LACRALO rules and requirements.


Along with this, we propose a modification to the text of para 1 of
the Operating Principles:

1. The LACRALO is composed of the ALSs  of Latin America and the
Caribbean accredited by the ALAC as a mechanism to promote and ensure
participation by regional users in the process of developing ICANN
policies

to

1. The LACRALO is composed of the ALSs  of Latin America and the
Caribbean region as defined by ICANN, as well as qualified individual
members,  accredited by the ALAC as a mechanism to promote and ensure
participation by regional users in the process of developing ICANN
policies

Proposed new text is shown in bold.



Paragraph 4


This proposal was the most difficult for me to wrap my mind around. To
me, it seemed simply ridiculous. However, I will attempt to break it
down and deal with each item.

“LACRALO’s supreme and sovereign governing body will be a General Assembly.”

This is inconsistent with the actuality of the LACRALO. The LACRALO
only exists inside of and subject to ICANN, via the ALAC. Hence the
insertion of the terms “supreme and sovereign” just seems ridiculous
to me, and I suggest those terms be stricken and the original language
retained.

“The governing body of the LACRALO  will be a General Assembly”

Next:

“ Each ALS accredited in the General Assembly will be entitled to one vote.”

This removes the weighting provision that was specifically imposed to
allow countries with fewer ALSes by virtue of smaller populations to
have a more equitable voice alongside larger countries which may have
many more ALSes. Removal of this provision will lead to capture of the
LACRALO by larger countries, and I strongly object to the removal of
the weighting system, and request that this text be stricken.

Next:
“Said representatives shall also act for the duration of their
appointment as official contacts of the ALS vis-à-vis the LACRALO,with
the duties to keep their e-mails updated, to inform the  Secretariat
and the At-Large Staff of any change in same or in the names of said
representatives.”

Just a wording change here - “emails” should be changed to “email addresses”



The removal of the text referring to LACRALO operating by consensus is
against the values and principles of ICANN, which operates by
consensus in all its activities, and I strongly request that it be
retained.


Chair, Vice Chair, Secretariat, Vice Seecretariat, ALAC
representatives, alternates, and Board.


This is patently ridiculous. The creation of a THIRTEEN member Board
of LACRALO is unnecessary, overly bureaucratic and unworkable. I
suggest this entire modification be stricken.

“Diversity requirements shall not be applicable among incumbent and
alternate members with respect to each other.”

I totally disagree. Diversity requirements are needed to balance the
voices of the much larger Latin American sub-region with the much
smaller Caribbean region. Removal of diversity requirements will leave
the smaller countries of the Caribbean without a voice in LACRALO.

“In the case of the election, the affiliation, residency and
nationality coincidence of same with the ALS  country represented,
shall also be taken into account with respect to the person acting as
a
representative vis-à-vis ALAC on behalf of LAC [sic] appointed by the
Nominating Committee
(NOMCOM)“

This is counter to the ICANN bylaws governing the NomCom. The
Nominating Committee reports only to the Board, and has extreme
latitude in determining who they select. Additionally, the NomCom does
not select any “representative vis-à-vis ALAC on behalf of LAC”. The
NomCom selects appointees to the ALAC from specific regions, including
the LAC, to act on behalf of ICANN and ALAC, in their capacity as
individuals. These individuals are NOT selected to act on behalf of
the LAC, and far less the LACRALO, hence the nationality of the person
chosen should have no bearing on the diversity requirements within the
LACRALO.The language of this paragraph shows a serious
misunderstanding of, or disagreement with, the Bylaw-mandated role of
the NomCom.


“. Each of
these representatives shall have an alternate with the same powers as
the incumbent in the event of  resignation, absence, inability,
incompatibilities  or decease of the latter. Each incumbent and
alternate shall be elected in the same election. For the purpose of
better continuity in the discussion  of policies, said representatives
shall be renewed every other term, one representative having to be
elected each year”
Text note: Should be “former” in line 2, not “latter”.
This is, I believe contrary to ICANN’s by-laws. LACRALO cannot simply
create an alternate & send them to an ALAC meeting as representative
“with the same powers as the incumbent in the event of  resignation,
absence, inability, incompatibilities  or decease of the latter.” The
rules for representatives to ALAC are clear and stated in the ICANN
bylaws.

What I believe LACRALO can do is select an alternate in case of
resignation, death or any other reason that the ALAC rep cannot
fulfill the term, and submit that name to the ALAC in that case.
However, until and unless those circumstances arise, the alternate as
elected by LACRALO cannot have “the same powers as the incumbent in
the event of  resignation, absence, inability, incompatibilities  or
decease of the latter”, as such powers are granted by ALAC, and cannot
be granted by LACRALO.

This proposal is basically a massive overreach on the part of LACRALO,
to usurp the powers granted in the ICANN bylaws to ALAC.


“These five Policy Directors shall be selected by the Board members
elected by the General Assembly. Each of them shall be entitled to one
vote and decisions shall be taken by simple majority.“

Unnecessary, bureaucratic and undemocratic. This proposes a Board,
created with no diversity requirement, in which over one-third of the
members are hand-picked by the other members.  If this is not obvious
to all as the creation of a cabal, then ideas of good  governance are
sorely lacking.

“First Temporary Provision. The modifications established with the
present reform, will be
considered applicable to the terms of the current Chair and
Secretariat of LACRALO, which are in power at the time of approval of
these modifications by LACRALO’s General Assembly.”

This is contrary to all notions of good governance.

“Second Temporary Provision. The Board of LACRALO shall be constituted
from the first election to be conducted immediately after these
modifications are approved.”

Having strongly disagreed with the formation of the Board, it is
obvious I will disagree with this proposal.

“For the purposes of constituting the first Board of LACRALO, those
positions that have already been put to vote, it having been
impossible to elect their respective alternates, shall be responsible
for selecting their respective alternates for one time only. “

Setting up for corruption and cabal-ism. NO.


Jacqueline A. Morris
Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and
Free. (after Chris Lehmann )