[lac-discuss-en] my comments related the ammendment

[Omar Kaminski]

Although most of time I've been lurking here because the Whois RT, I'm
following some important discussions and here goes my two cents on
Vanda's commentaries and also taking into consideration Jacqueline's
last email about Brazil being "excluded" from the definitions.

Omar


2012/3/3 Vanda UOL <vanda at uol.com.br>:

> 1)      the right of ALSes to vote in LACRALO affairs determined by a
> minimum level of participation
>
> This is positive

+1

> 2)       working languages expanded to French and Portuguese
>
> I don´t see need and may be too expensive.  But this is not a main concern.
> ( but I don´t see APRALO working in the  more than 20 languages they have
> there

I partially agree. If the target is more participation, the language
should't be the barrier - I mean, only Brazil (and perhaps Portugal,
Cabo Verde) will benefit from portuguese and French Guiana, Suriname
and Haiti (directly) from french. If we consider Brazil should have
more ALS it means we should have more brazilian structures beyond
english/spanish spoken ones to a real representative
participationtion.

(...)

> 7)      LACRALO would elect 2 persons to serve on ALAC and 2 others as their
>
> respective alternates (diversity requirements shall not apply to elected
> ALAC member and their alternate).
>
>  I disagree  -  diversity shall apply. The principles of ICANN states on
> diversity. The concentration of persons from just one country for instance,
> is not democratic neither safe for the organization.  ( imagine if the two
> big countries Mexico and Brazil decide to make a strong movement to take
> over this group, can be control all the positions) really not safe. Must
> have diversity.

+1. If the adopted model is to Brazil and Haiti (taking the same
example) has the same weight as countries (and doesn't matter the
population rate), it's the same if Haiti (or Brazil, or Uruguai) has 3
or 13 ALS delegates. They should reach consensus anyway.