[lac-discuss-en] My comments related to the amendment
Jacqueline Morris
jam at jacquelinemorris.com
Mon Mar 5 23:16:15 UTC 2012
Does Rule 11 apply to comments requested on a proposal?
I was asked, as were we all, to comment on the draft as sent by Sylvia. I
took my time, considered carefully and thoughtfully, and, like Vanda, and
others, sent my comments as requested.
I really didn't expect such a quick reply, which suggests that my comments
were not as studied by you as the proposal was studied by me over the past
four days. I also didn't expect the tone, but maybe, given the kind of
messages that have been posted recently, I might have been naive to expect
differently.
Jacqueline
On Mar 5, 2012 6:10 PM, "Natalia Enciso" <natalia.enciso at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please proceed according to rule 11, thanks.
>
> Rule 11 - Resolutions and Amendments
> 11.1 Draft resolutions and amendments may be proposed by the
> participants referred to in Rule 1 and shall be transmitted in
> writing to the Secretariat of the Assembly, which shall circulate
> copies to all participants.
> 11.2 As a general rule, no draft resolution or amendment shall be
> discussed or put to the
> vote unless it has been circulated sufficiently in advance, but in no case
> less than two weeks, to all participants in the working languages of the
> Assembly.
>
> Should a vote in a virtual meeting not be quorate, then the chair shall
> extend the close of the vote for an equal amount of time as the original
> voting period. By the end of this extension, no quorum will be
> required. APPROVED
>
>
> 2012/3/5 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
>
>> Dear All:
>> Plus 1 to these observations.
>>
>> Plus 1 for the recommendations contained here.
>>
>> - Carlton Samuels
>>
>> ==============================
>> Carlton A Samuels
>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>> =============================
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Jacqueline Morris
>> <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>wrote:
>>
>> > 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 )
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > lac-discuss-en mailing list
>> > lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> lac-discuss-en mailing list
>> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>>
>
>
>
> --
> natalia.enciso at gmail.com
>
>
More information about the lac-discuss-en
mailing list