[lac-discuss-en] Recent LACRALO List postings

Wed May 30 06:49:49 UTC 2012

Dear Mr. Crepin-Leblond,

I was not aware that there was an English list and a Spanish list. I must 
therefore ask if there is a German list, a Russian list, a French list a 
Scandinavian list, etc? Is there a list for every language in all the 
regions? Why have regions that are so split up?

Let me say Mr. Crepin-Lablond, that I find your post rather threatening, 
insulting and typical of one who would seek to shut up others rather than 
listen to and act on a genuine complaint. Is this a case of the victim being 
turned into the culprit? As Chair of ALAC, it is in your interest to seek to 
resolve problems that will arise within the machinery of ICANN as in any 
organisation.

To try to ascribe blame, fault, misbehaviour and throw out charges of 
discrimination and lack of professional conduct is not to recognise that 
there is a problem or at best try to quash the problem by dictatorial means. 
Furthermore, while stating that you are not choosing sides, proceeds to 
speak of established positions. But seeing that the only recent postings 
along these lines came from the Caribbean, it means that you have chosen 
sides, not so?

This dictatorial behaviour may work well in the private sector but such 
behaviour within the voluntary sector can only lead to further problems. You 
are not dealing with children. If this is the approach at the level of ALAC, 
why should we expect any better at the level of LACRALO. I mean no 
disrespect, but I am identifying a possible trend and I believe that the 
root of it is in the rules.

This thing about running away from the word "rules" and trying to shy away 
from formal structure of rules and leaving rules ambiguous and vulnerable to 
wide interpretation is bizarre, to say the least. As I described in my last 
post about LACRALO, all the rules of ICANN are similarly improperly written 
and, in such conditions, there will be many and varied interpretations that 
can only result in long debates and divisions over what was originally 
intended.

As an example, see transcripts or recordings of the conference calls on 
metrics and rop, May 28th 2012, where I made a query on a rule 1.1 which 
states what is not the qualification for a Liaison, but does not state what 
is the qualification. I asked, what are the requirements for Liaison and the 
response I got would have filled a page, but is nowhere in the rules.

For such a large organisation I am appalled at the state of the rules. I 
look at them and shudder because this can only be a tragedy waiting to 
happen. What makes it more appalling is the amount of legal minds within 
ICANN. One can only conclude that the lawyers took a back seat for whatever 
reason.

What is clear is that ICANN is not ready for the robustness of diversity and 
therefore not structured to properly manage it, as is reflected in your 
response. What your response does is effectively say that there is no 
solution so shut up. That is only my humble opinion, but the proof of the 
pudding is in the eating. As victims within LACRALO, we are now left to feel 
that we are victims within ALAC as well.

This is a source of disappointment and cause for serious concern at the 
deeper polarisation this may likely cause. The Caribbean has serious 
difficulty relating to LA as a region and without any attempt to resolve the 
crisis within LACRALO, it may well turn out to be LARALO. How does this 
square with the mandate of ICANN to include all users?

ROK

-----Original Message----- 
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:35 PM
To: LACRALO discussion list
Subject: [lac-discuss-en] Recent LACRALO List postings

This is the English Version. Spanish Version will be sent to the Spanish
language list.

Dear All,

I have received complaints from members of the region about several
recent postings on the LACRALO lists. Those postings relate to ongoing
disagreements between several individuals relating their point of view
regarding the running of LACRALO.

I am concerned about those postings because they do not appear to be of
help towards improving Internet user input in LACRALO and in ALAC. Quite
the contrary, they re-iterate established positions from several
individuals and end up turning other volunteers off from being involved.

The time spent discussing these issues on the list ends up taking
precedence over the time that members from the region could devote to
more productive tasks such as commenting on Current Comment periods and
other activities which were advertised on the ALAC-Announce list.

Some of the postings contravene parts of Rule 22 of our ALAC Rules of
Procedure. They are inappropriate according to:

22.9 Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject,
22.10 Postings libelous being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten
others,
22.11 Postings that are, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents
another person,

I am not going to stand accused of taking sides, nor will I contravene
the very rules I have quoted here by pointing the finger at anyone.
However, I will kindly ask you all, Ladies and Gentlemen, that you
please moderate your language.

We are working with ICANN staff and LACRALO leadership in order to
continue on a dialog to improve relations, by making use of the
neutrality and fairness of the ICANN Ombudsman who can act as a
mediator. This mediation takes place out of this forum and has no place
on public mailing lists.

An excellent amount of work has taken place in Costa Rica and the region
should be looking at building on this. Like every region, this takes a
lot of time and effort. We, the At-Large community and ICANN as a whole,
have some serious challenges coming up in the form of a threat to the
multi-stakeholder system. We clearly have to work smarter with each other.

Yours sincerely,

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
ALAC Chair

_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2425/5030 - Release Date: 05/29/12