[lac-discuss-en] RES: Nota de Contracte Party House (CPH) sobre revisión At-Large

Tue May 22 12:28:14 UTC 2018

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
[[--This message had format issues and was not translated properly--]]

Subject: RES: 	Nota de Contracte Party House (CPH) sobre revisiÃ³n At-Large
Desde:<sylvia at internautabrasil.org>

v \\: * {behavior: url (# default # VML);} or \\: * {behavior: url (# default # VML);} w \\: * {behavior: url (# default # VML);} .shape {behavior: url (# default # VML);}
Dear Alberto, thank you for your prompt response and clarification; because when one reads:
"As a candidate I answer now, totally in agreement with the comments and proposal of Alejandro.",
It is understood that you agree that the mediation was a failure, and that is why I decided to write to you.
I think we all know what our idiosyncrasies are like, our way of thinking and acting and the "necessary times" to make changes.
That's why I repeat again that if someone has an idea or better way to solve our old problems, please let it show.
I can not agree with you in which mediation is not SUBSTANTIAL at this time, since it tries to solve basic problems that affect us for many years, so personally, I consider it vital.
What surprises me a lot is that some interpret, in my opinion, as positive changes of attitude and participation, such as: "divide the region."
What is sought in mediation is to end the "historical disputes"!and when that seems to be ending, there are members of the community that seem strange or suspicious ??? !!!
It really is difficult to understand and I can not imagine how difficult it must be for the new LACRALO ALSs.
IT IS A PITY!
Greetings to all.
Sylvia

_______________________________________________
Sylvia Herlein Leite
sylvia at internautabrasil.org
LACRALO-ALAC Delegate to NomComm 2014-2016

From: Alberto Soto [mailto: asoto at ibero-americano.org] Sent em: segunda-feira, 21 de maio de 2018 22: 52To: sylvia at internautabrasil.orgCc: 'LACRALO EspaÃ  ol'Assunto: RE: [lac-discuss- es] Note from Contracte Party House (CPH) on At-Large Review

Hello Sylvia, thanks for asking, I'm very good.
Vanda is right, it was not me who made those observations. And when I said I share, I did not clarify whether it was in whole or in part. I did not really consider it necessary, because at the moment we have many substantial issues in the region that deserve the opinion of each and every one of us, and I am waiting for that.It does not mean that the mediation process is not substantial, but at the moment it is not a priority.
I am particularly in about twelve working groups between LACRALO and ICANN, because I think they are good for our Region, and it takes time.
I put all of myself so that the mediation goes well and so I will continue. For example, at the meeting in Los Angeles several things were agreed upon. Among them the generation of initial planning through a Gantt chart. Despite being on vacation, I committed myself to making the diagram and gave it to the following week. He appeared about eight months later. And this slowness is my main criticism.This process started in a suspended monthly meeting I think in 2015 and it has not ended yet. And there is no timetable that says so.
It is true that in several things I did not agree, and as always, I did, always.
But depending on the way of working, I resolved by consensus, which is the way we should all look for.
Not to prevail our opinion, but to think, listen, think, respect.
I think we should take into account the issue of prioritizing the issues, it will come very well to everyone, but particularly to our Region.
Best regards

Alberto Soto

From: sylvia at internautabrasil.org <sylvia at internautabrasil.org> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 04:39 pmFor: 'Alberto Soto' <asoto at ibero-americano.org> CC: 'LACRALO Spanish' <lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: RES: [lac-discuss-en] Note from Contracte Party House (CPH) on At-Large Review

Hello Alberto,
How are you? Could you explain and explain to all those who did not have the opportunity to participate in the mediation process personally both in Los Angeles in 2017 and in Puerto Rico in 2018, why do you think Mediation was a failure ???

I really do not understand, because both you and other members of LACRALO who were in the meetings did not comment at all in this respect at any time and specifically because at the end of each meeting there was a final moment so that everyone could express themselves about what they had experienced. the meetings.
Especially in the meeting in Puerto Rico, very good ideas emerged and the understanding between the parties was excellent (at least that is how those present showed up). That is why I can not understand the CATEGORICAL manifestations that you and other members are manifesting in the list.
This type of attitude confuses the rest of the community, when they receive news and comments from the meetings and suddenly messages appear on the list talking about the failure of the mediation process.
And on the other hand, the process is not over yet!
I personally believe that all the effort that Rodrigo de la Parra, the staff, the mediators, Humberto and Maritza and members of the participating community are genuine and productive. And I do believe in the mediation process as the only solution found by all after years of conflict. I would also like to know if someone has or wants to propose another solution, without a doubt that it will be welcomed by all.
I believe that we must do now is to tell, clarify and discuss among all the community what we discussed and proposed in PR and continue working so that all the efforts placed in this mediation have the result we all want and not confuse the community with vague comments . Do not you agree with me, dear Alberto?
And the same thing I ask Alejandro Pisanty who participated in the meeting in Los Angeles and unfortunately, at the last minute, I can not participate in the PR; but I know that he is always aware of everything.
Greetings to all,
Sylvia

_______________________________________________
Sylvia Herlein Leite
sylvia at internautabrasil.org
LACRALO-ALAC Delegate to NomComm 2014-2016

From: lac-discuss-es [mailto: lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome by Alberto Soto Sent in: Sunday, May 20th, 2018 14: 54For: 'Alejandro Pisanty'Cc: 'LACRALO EspaÃ  ol'Assunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Note from Contracte Party House (CPH) on At-Large Review

As a candidate I answer now, totally in agreement with the comments and proposal of Alejandro.
Best regards

Alberto Soto.

From: Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com> Posted on: Sunday, May 20, 2018 01:32 pmFor: Alberto Soto <asoto at ibero-americano.org> CC: LACRALO Spanish <lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Note from Contracte Party House (CPH) on At-Large Review

Alberto,

Thank you for sharing these two statements of opinion from relevant groups of ICANN.While it is possible to disagree with aspects of each of them, especially the sectarian view that has taken over the NCSG, and others that will surely come, it is also possible to note that the complacency and lack of self-criticism that give rise to the ALAC proposal are being paid at a fair price.

This is not without its clear reflection in LACRALO, where the failure of the mediation process manifests itself in the repetition of the vices mentioned in the Review, in which the same old quarrels that gave rise to the conflict have been revived in non-public forums. place to mediation, and above all, to continue without focus on the development of policies, which was the number one agreement of mediation in February 2017.The only way forward is to review ALAC's responses with deep self-criticism, and not allow them to be transmitted officially in our representation until they are satisfactory; and in parallel, focus the expenditure of energy, time and other resources of LACRALO to the proposals sutantivas. The representatives and officials of LACRALO must notify ALAC that a proposal will be prepared and process what is necessary to build it before, during and after the ongoing electoral process, with the commitment of the new entrants to carry it out immediately.

Alejandro Pisanty

2018-05-20 10:23 GMT-05: 00 Alberto Soto <asoto at ibero-americano.org> :

Dear, in the note of NSCG, this note of the Contracted Party House is mentioned, whose terms are similar for the At-Large Review.
It is an unofficial translation and the short link to see the original published in ICANNhttps://goo.gl/NQzaVC

Best regards

Alberto Soto

May 7, 2018
FAO: Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) of ICANN Board and Cherine
Chalaby, Chairman of the ICANN Board
Re: Statement of concern for At-Large Review Implementation Implementation Proposal
Dear members of Cherine and the Committee:
On behalf of the Contracted Party House (CPH) I would like to express our deep concern with the content and intent of the General Proposal for Implementation of the At-Large Review, which was published on April 20, 2018.
This proposal follows the 2017 At-Large Review.During the public comment period CPH, among many other SO / AC, sent critical comments that were subsequently included in the recommendations in the final report of ITEMS International. These recommendations, together with the feasibility assessment of the At-Large review and recommendations, and the ICANN staff designed the implementation plan with direct questions for ALAC.
The CPH considers that the aforementioned proposal does not address these issues, nor does it respond to the specific criticisms raised in the At-Large review report. In fact, all the recommendations have been rejected or modified.Furthermore, if the proposal is adopted by the OEC and the ICANN Board without the ALAC properly addressing the concerns of the wider ICANN community, this would set an alarming precedent for any future ICANN review. If critical opinions and recommendations, particularly those that are widely supported within the ICANN community, are perceived as ultimately ignorant,
The ICANN reviews will lose credibility.
The CPH believes that the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the ICANN Board should not consider the ALAC proposal until such time as ALAC provides a detailed response that addresses the criticisms raised by the At-Large review report, and the questions kindly gathered by the ICANN staff. This response must be submitted to the entire ICANN community, so that any additional input or discussion with the community can be arranged, to see the Review to an appropriate end.
Yours sincerely,
Graeme Bunton
Chair RrSG
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing listlac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-eshttp://www.lacralo.org

-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro PisantyFaculty of Chemistry UNAMAv. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico + 52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD + 525541444475 FROM MEXICO SMS + 525541444475Blog:http://pisanty.blogspot.comLinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisantyUnete to the UNAM group on LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisantyUnete to the UNAM group on LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http: // www. isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to the UNAM group on LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . http://twitter.com/apisanty----> > Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org. . . . . 
 . . . . . . . . . . .> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

[[--Original text (es)
Translated by transbot 2.18-2.04
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/33871c18e6.html
--]]