[lac-discuss-en] FW: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding the Technical Liaison Group

fatimacambronero at gmail.com fatimacambronero at gmail.com
Mon Dec 2 00:45:45 UTC 2013


[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]

 Subject: Re: FW: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding the Technical Liaison Group 
 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com

 Dear, 




 In connection with this topic proposed by Alexander, and as expected 
 ms LACRALO comments, I have consulted this with Gonzalo Navarro, 
 who was Chair of the Charter for Board Technical Relations Working Group 
 (BTR WG), the group was tasked with considering measures to 
 improve coordination 
 and cooperation between ICANN and other members of the art community 
 Internet with the intention of, among other things, the dissolution Group 
 Link Technician (TLG) ( 
 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/tlg/proposed-btr-charter-05aug11-en.pdf 
 ). 




 The explanations given by Gonzalo on recommendations 
 made by the ICANN Board and are currently open to 
 comment can be summarized in the following points: 




 -Personally I was very useful to understand that the proposed changes to the 
 ICANN Bylaws to remove the link Liaison Group Technician 
 (TLG) in the Board (as non-voting member) and Comitde Nominations 
 as a voting member, are still just that, proposals, and still 
 has not taken any decision in this regard. 




 I also seem to understand that an important part of the process, and 
 still has not been solved, finding the best mechanism that can 
 replace the technician liaison person at the Meeting. So it is that 
 estabierta the whole community the opportunity to review and propose cul 
 be the best mechanism / figure to replace the current one. In relacina 
 this query, in Buenos Aires was made in a meeting that was 
 invited people from different agencies and organizations 
 techniques that are part of ICANN to discuss this matter. In Singapore it will 
 to make a new reuniny be important that those interested in 
 participate can do so (this can be addressed in another thread). 




 -The Liaison Group representatives Technician estformado 4 
 organizations: 1) ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute; 
 2) ITU-T (International Telecommunications Union's Telecommunication 
 Standardization Sector), 3) W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), IAB (Internet 
 Architecture Board). Each year, rotates a member of ETSI, ITU-T and W3C 
 that envan a liaison to the Board. IAB does not participate in this 
 rotation because it has a permanent seat on the Board Travs IETF. 




 From this derive, from my point of view, two important 
 considerations: 1) Lack of reciprocity between ICANN and these 
 organizations: this means that ICANN allows these organizations 
 have members on their board, but these organizations do not permit 
 same. ETSI, for example, has no representatives within the ICANN 
 Board to participate in counseling or in decision-making.2) 
 The criterion of annual rotation basis: everyone who participated in 
 ICANN know that many of their bodies consider during 
 first year of office is allowed to know the functioning of the 
 organism (constituency) and freshly aoo during the second mandate, 
 contributions they can make more informed and substantiated because it is understood 
 how to do it. The role of the technician bond lasts only one year will prevent the 
 some way that they can make these constructive contributions and 
 pondrams emphasis on the person (who already own capabilities, 
 knowledge, having affinities with the work of ICANN not all of these 
 Internet organizations consider similar manner as does 
 ICANN-skills to be inserted into the ICANN ecosystem, including 
 others) in the role of technician link. That is, that the effectiveness of 
 TLG estarams person subject to desempee this role and not the 
 smisma contained in (this is my personal opinion). 




 This point about reciprocity in the report also estmencionado 
 Independent in charge JAS Communications LLC on the revision of 
 TLG ( 
 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/tlg/tlg-review-final-report-03dec10-en.pdf 
 ). 




 -Related to the previous point, and from my point of view, an argument 
 very important to consider the changes of TLG is that ICANN and 
 account internally within their own communities, with 
 agencies / organizations / communities in charge of providing the 
 technical advice, not only when I ask the Board if not before 
 any situation that may affect the interests of their own 
 members.This can be observed in the different AC (ADISORY 
 Committee) as the SSAC, Safety and Stability; RSSAC for the 
 Servers System of Raz, even ALAC that can advise the Board 
 technicians on certain matters affecting the interests of 
 Internet users (eg recordarn there was a group within 
 At-Large dedicated to IDN that played a major role, although 
 our region has not affected us particularly). Even this 
 technical advice also comes from other bodies that are part of the 
 ICANN structure as the NRO (which gathers all RIR) and 
 participate in the ASO (Address Supporting Organization) and IETF, 
 commented that as ms above has a permanent seat on the Board. 




 Personally after having analyzed and understood these arguments, 
 consider important to support this recommendation of the Board, to eliminate 
 seat on the Board liaison technician, BUT ALL participating in 
 Search of the best mechanism that can replace it.This is a process 
 is still open and in which we continue to believe 
 atencine involved to ensure our position as THIN 
 also be taken into account. I also believe that no elimination 
 deberllevarse out until you have not found the best mechanism 
 TLG replace manager, a process in which all deberparticipar 
 the ICANN community. 




 Also, as another issue from my point of view may be opened with 
 this decision is that if the technician link will be removed from the Board 
 as a seat, because the techniques are to make inquiries (in fact, already 
 are) internally to different constituencies, MUST NOT be 
 each of these AC two seats on the Board as having the OS? A 
 this left it as another issue to discuss in another thread. 




 In a separate email I will send the draft declaration proposed 
 on the modification of FIG Technical-link in the Board for 
 if we agree, it can be sent as LACRALO declaration before 
 ALAC to be adopted as a declaration of ALAC. 




 Personally I thank Gonzalo Navarro for kindly been 
 taken the time to explain this issue and for allowing me 
 LACRALO share with all your explanations. 




 Best Regards, 


 Fatima Cambronero 








 The 24 November 2013 20:49, Alejandro Pisanty 
<apisanty at gmail.com> wrote: 


> Fátima,
>
> mi reconocimiento por tomar esta iniciativa en el que es casi literalmente
> tu primer día hábil como representante de LACRALO ante ALAC. Buena señal;
> ojalá como comunidad sepamos hacer algo constructivo en esta forma.
>
> Sobre tu pregunta en cuanto a la importancia de la modificación relativa
> al Grupo de Enlace Técnico (TLG), creo que Alberto Soto la captó
> perfectamente. El cambio propuesto implica que la persona de enlace (vote o
> no) ya no estará en las discusiones desde el principio. Será el Board el
> que decida si necesita o no asesoría técnica. Y creo que muchos de nosotros
> sabemos que para la hora que te das cuenta de que tienes un problema, puede
> ser demasiado tarde, o digamos un costo de oportunidad, no haber empezado
> el trabajo junto con el conocimiento técnico necesario.
>
> Repito que esto no sólo se refiere a casos en que el enlace técnico te
> pudo haber dicho que estabas proponiendo algo incorrecto o inviable, sino
> al revés, que tu propuesta era demasiado timorata y no aprovechaba todo el
> potencial de la tecnología.
>
> Es esto lo que propongo que evitemos.
>
> En cuanto a que la persona de enlace vote o no vote: en el Board en
> general se aspira a un consenso informado y amplio, en el que la votación
> desde luego es importante pero si está muy dividida se siga explorando el
> espacio de los acuerdos posibles. El enlace técnico ayuda mucho a esto en
> los temas que le tocan.
>
> Atención. el asunto no está exento de problemas. El TLG está formado,
> entre otros, por la UIT y ETSI, que no siempre son afines a los temas de
> Internet, y dependiendo de la persona pueden hacer contribuciones
> constructivas o no. Pero esto es algo que requiere creatividad para
> resolverlo y no, como dije antes, arrojar al niño con el agua de la bañera.
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> 2013/11/24 Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero at gmail.com>
>
>> Alejandro, todos,
>>
>>
>> Gracias por llamarnos la atención sobre este tema.
>>
>>
>> Adherimos a la idea de contar con una discusión y un pronunciamiento de
>> LACRALO sobre este asunto. Estamos trabajando con Dev y León, analizando
>> los documentos y haciendo las consultas necesarias para poder presentar un
>> borrador de declaración ante LACRALO sobre este asunto. Luego si logramos
>> consenso en LACRALO, lo presentaríamos como declaración ante ALAC.
>>
>>
>> Alejandro, ¿podrías ayudarnos a entender por qué tú dices que “Estas
>> modificaciones remueven a la persona de enlace del TLG de las decisiones
>> del Board “ cuando esta persona de enlace es una persona non-voting? Esto
>> podría ayudarnos a elaborar una mejor posición sobre el tema.
>>
>>
>> Estos son los documentos que se deberían revisar para entender mejor este
>> asunto:
>>
>>
>> -La Wiki de At-Large donde se encuentran los borradores y comentarios
>> presentados sobre este tema: http://bit.ly/1bgvfid
>>
>>
>> -El reporte final del Grupo de Trabajo de la Junta sobre Relaciones
>> Técnicas (traducción propia, nombre en inglés Final Report from the Board
>> Technical Relations Working Group): http://bit.ly/1bgvtpu
>>
>>
>> -El borrador de las modificaciones propuestas a los Estatutos de ICANN en
>> las secciones correspondientes: http://bit.ly/1bgvwkY
>>
>>
>> Agradecemos todos los comentarios que nos puedan hacer llegar o las
>> propuestas de declaración que quieran presentar.
>>
>>
>> Saludos cordiales,
>>
>> Fatima
>>
>>
>> 2013/11/24 Alberto Soto <asoto at ibero-americano.org>
>>
>> > Si bien mi inglés es malo, coincido con Alejandro. Parecería que en
>> lugar
>> > de
>> > una acción directa del Grupo de enlace técnico (TLG), habrá una
>> "respuesta
>> > a
>> > una solicitud de información...". Es decir, que si no hay una solicitud
>> de
>> > información, no habrá información. Y no parecería correcto una acción
>> > preventiva a una acción correctiva on demand.
>> >
>> > Por favor, lean y opinen.
>> >
>> > Saludos cordiales
>> >
>> > Alberto Soto
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Mensaje original-----
>> > De: lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > [mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de
>> Dr.
>> > Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
>> > Enviado el: domingo, 24 de noviembre de 2013 03:25 p.m.
>> > Para: lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > Asunto: [lac-discuss-es] RV: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC
>> > Statement on the Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding the Technical Liaison
>> > Group
>> >
>> > Colegas,
>> >
>> > el asunto de la consulta a la que se refiere este mensaje es de
>> importancia
>> > relativamente alta. Trata de las modificaciones que se están
>> proponiendo a
>> > las reglas aplicables al Grupo de Enlace Técnico (Technical Liaison
>> Group o
>> > TLG). Estas modificaciones remueven a la persona de enlace del TLG de
>> las
>> > decisiones del Board y otros espacios.
>> >
>> > Como consecuencia, el contacto del Board con la tecnología se diluye y
>> > vuelve demasiado indirecto.
>> >
>> > Les pregunto si están Uds. de acuerdo en que LACRALO emita una opinión
>> al
>> > ALAC, e instruya a nuestros/as representantes a defenderla con su voto
>> > contra las modificaciones propuestas, en los términos que describo de
>> > inmediato. La alternativa que debemos proponer es que se siga
>> estudiando el
>> > tema con una solución alterna que haga efectivo al TLG sin removerlo de
>> su
>> > función actual. El texto que propongo ya lo subí como comentario en la
>> > página de ALAC y dice:
>> >
>> > "I do not think this reform is going in a good direction. It makes the
>> > relationship of the Board with the technical community much more tenuous
>> > and
>> > indirect.
>> >
>> > ALAC as an Interrnet users representation (or voice, at least) should be
>> > concerned that the Board may advance more in its debates and decisions
>> > without necessary technical views before actually soliciting them,
>> instead
>> > of having the Technical Liaison Group's voice as one more when decisions
>> > are
>> > being shaped, since the early stages.
>> >
>> > We run the risk of privileging representation and diversity in the
>> > composition of the Board while sacrificing the soundness of its
>> decisions.
>> >
>> > The technical liaison acts not only as described - "watchdog" acting as
>> a
>> > backstop against decisions which could be technically wrong – but also
>> can
>> > push for more creative solutions to problems. It is not only the
>> knowledge
>> > of the technology's constraints but the creativity based on the deep
>> > awareness of its potential that we could all be losing.
>> >
>> > By removing the liaison instead of fixing it, we may be supporting an
>> act
>> > of
>> > throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Let's not."
>> >
>> > Quedo atento a sus comentarios y en su momento en función de ellos
>> > solicitaré acción de la Presidencia y la Secretaría.
>> >
>> > Alejandro Pisanty
>> >
>> >
>> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> >      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>> > Facultad de Química UNAM
>> > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>> >
>> > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
>> > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
>> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
>> > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
>> > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
>> > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
>> > ..  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>> >
>> > ________________________________________
>> > Desde: alac-announce-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > [alac-announce-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de ICANN
>> > At-Large
>> > Staff [staff at atlarge.icann.org] Enviado el: sábado, 23 de noviembre de
>> > 2013
>> > 06:42
>> > Hasta: alac-announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > Asunto: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the
>> Proposed
>> > Bylaws Changes Regarding the Technical Liaison Group
>> >
>> > Dear All,
>> >
>> > Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for
>> > comments be made on the draft "ALAC Statement on the Proposed Bylaws
>> > Changes
>> > Regarding the Technical Liaison Group<
>> https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg
>> > >"
>> > in preparation for the start of the ALAC ratification process.
>> >
>> > The current draft can be found on the At-Large Proposed Bylaws Changes
>> > Regarding the Technical Liaison Group
>> > Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg>.
>> >
>> > Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function
>> by
>> > 06-Dec-2013 23:59 UTC.
>> >
>> > A vote is to commence after comments have been collected.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie
>> > Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
>> > E-mail: staff at atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ALAC-Announce mailing list
>> > ALAC-Announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce
>> >
>> > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > lac-discuss-es mailing list
>> > lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>> >
>> > http://www.lacralo.org
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast!
>> > Antivirus está activa.
>> > http://www.avast.com
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > lac-discuss-es mailing list
>> > lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>> >
>> > http://www.lacralo.org
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Fatima Cambronero*
>>
>> Abogada-Argentina
>>
>> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
>> Twitter: @facambronero
>> Skype: fatima.cambronero
>>
>> *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:*
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>>
>> *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:*
>> http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/
>>
>> *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lac-discuss-es mailing list
>> lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>>
>> http://www.lacralo.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>






 * Fatima * Cambronero 
 Attorney-Argentina 


 Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 
 Twitter: @ facambronero 
 Skype: fatima.cambronero 


 * Join the LACRALO / ICANN discussions: * 
 https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es 


 * Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions: * 
 http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ 


 * Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): * http://www.internetsociety.org/ 
 _______________________________________________ 



[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/8c33ec7ed4.html
--]]




More information about the lac-discuss-en mailing list