[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