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

Dom Mar 4 16:26:07 UTC 2012

Dear Vanda,

Thank you for your contribution and observations.

Maybe this discussion will also lead to some reform of how the By Law
Working Group has been operating so that it produces tangible results,
instead of secrecy and misrepresentations.

Best regards

Cintra

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Vanda UOL <vanda en uol.com.br> wrote:

>  Well, my comments where based on the assumption that all the WG members
> were aware of the proposal, and agreed with it.
>  If there is no such internal agreement than better to put over the table
> all other proposals too, at least to be fair, but especially to follow the
> principles under ICANN.
>  Cintra, your proposal to invite the opinion of the At Large's Regional
> Coordination Team, looks very positive in my opinion and I encourage the
> WG,
> you include to do so!
> Best and Abrazos  a tout
>
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: lac-discuss-es-bounces en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces en atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Cintra
> Sooknanan
> Enviada em: domingo, 4 de março de 2012 11:19
> Para: lac-discuss-en en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Cc: Heidi Ullrich; ICANN At-Large Staff;
> lac-discuss-es en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Assunto: Re: [lac-discuss-es] [lac-discuss-en] my comments related the
> ammendment
>
> Greetings Lacralo,
>
> Upon review of the proposals I must express my displeasure with the
> drafting
> which totally disregards the proposals made by Caribbean ALSes both
> publicly
> on the list and calls, and internally to the By Law Modification Working
> Group. The fact that our point of view was not captured in this document
> demonstrates clearly that the drafter was not objective and only chose to
> represent the proposals of herself and a segment of Lacralo. Was this
> action
> meant to fraction our relations and sideline my sub-region further, or is
> it
> simply a matter of ignorance on the part of the writer? I ask you to
> consider the answer.
>
> This proposed vision of the new Lacralo is an administrative blunder. It is
> top heavy, disregards diversity, usurps the role of ALAC and ICANN, has no
> mechanisms for encouraging Participation and shows a clear lack of
> understanding of the responsibility of elected members. I am heartened by
> Vanda's contribution and hopeful that this wisdom will be heeded. I also
> wish to make a formal request that in moving forward with any structural
> Lacralo changes that we seek advice from our At Large's Regional
> Coordination Team, who are well experienced and knowledgeable in this area,
> having overseen structural changes in other Ralos.
>
> By way of background I have been on this working group since the Cartagena
> meeting in 2010 and this is the first time there has been any indication of
> the formation of a board of directors. It is alarming to me that it has
> been
> put to Lacralo without any discussion and represented as the work of the By
> Law Modification Working Group. In fact, while I am in agreement with
> Vanda's points, I differ in opinion on her point 10) which refers to the
> Lacralo Directory Board. I request the writer of these proposals to explain
> the reasoning behind the Lacralo Directory Board and as a matter of urgency
> to save her reputation by sending a revised draft of proposals which
> captures ALL the amendments proposed by the By Law Modification Working
> Group.
>
> Thank you
>
> Cintra Sooknanan
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM, <vanda en uol.com.br> wrote:
>
> >
> > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
> >
> >  Subject: my comments related the ammendment
> >  From: vanda en uol.com.br
> >
> >  Here my analysis to share with you all related to the Proposal
> > Amendments. I  am not sure my due if I commit with NOMCOMM will will
> > be Able to Participate  in all sessions, so I Decided to share my
> > opinions are With All of you.
> >
> >
> >  Point I have something to say in highlight below.
> >
> >
> >  Thanks
> >
> >
> >  VANDA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  Points Proposed by one group
> >
> >
> >  My comments
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  1) the right to vote in ALSes of affairs LACRALO Determined by a
> > minimum level of participation
> >
> >
> >  This is positive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  2) working languages \u200b\u200bFrench and Portuguese expanded to
> >
> >
> >  I dont see need and may be too expensive. But this is not a main
> > concern '.
> >  (But I dont see APRALO working in the more than 20 languages
> > \u200b\u200bThey Have  there
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  3) Removes the concept of operating by consensus  > From my point of
> > view this is one of ICANNs Principle Against build  consensus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  4) creation of Vice President
> >
> >
> >  Those persons can not be added to the normal representation without
> > at ALAC  the decision of ALAC itself. Not for LACRALO to decide. See
> > also below on  item 8
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  5) terms of President and Vice President for two terms of eligible 2
> > Each years
> >
> >
> >  This make some sense, since representation in ALAC Demands Some
> > degree of  learning, so one year is short term indeed. But the second
> > term Shall Be  one year to allow Others to Participate.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  6) creation position of Vice Secretariat
> >
> >
> >  Same vice president of
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  7) LACRALO would serve to elect 2 persons and 2 Others on ALAC as
> > Their
> >
> >
> >  respective alternates (diversity not apply to Marshall Requirements
> > 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,  Neither is not safe for the Democratic organization.
> > (Imagine if the two  Mexico and Brazil big country clubs decide to
> > make a strong movement to take  over this group, can be all the
> > control positions) really not safe. Must  Have diversity.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  8) The alternate or deputy can assume the ALAC rep in case of Any
> > Inability of the primary ALAC rep
> >
> >
> >  I Believe This Shall be submitted to ALAC, We can not decide the next
> > time  member sat to ALAC meeting is another
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  9) the ALAC member can be re-Elected for a two year term 2nd
> >
> >
> >  Reelection has the Same Principle 1 year for second term to allow
> > Others to  Participate.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  10) creation of a LACRALO LACRALO Directory Board with administrative
> > or  and operative functions. This will Comprise the persons Elected in
> > LACRALO  (President, Vice-President, Secretary, Deputy Secretary, the
> > two LACRALO  Elected Representatives and Their alternates to ALAC) and
> > five Policy  Directors who would lead Different working groups within
> > The LACRALO and in  Selecting members within The charge of Their
> > working groups.Policy Directors  would be Elected by the General
> > Assembly by simple Majority.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  In my opinion This Will mean too much and not generals to command
> > Troops  Impact but no at all.
> >
> >
> >  3 would be good one member of Caribbean region and two from Latin
> > region too keep at Same Time diversity and be reasonable (there is no
> > members that really works much in so I dont LACRALO believe it will be
> > enough groups to work under 5 policy directors). But not so relevant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  11) Establishing elections can take place That Virtually
> >
> >
> >  This is good, but needs clear tools available to Avoid Must be one
> > member  to vote for all the ALS under ITS command - Allow This only
> > after  check the security of the tool.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  12) Amendments would be applicable to Existing mandates of President,
> > Secretary
> >
> >
> >  I am not in behalf of That, only if WAS To Have Just One More year term.
> >
> >
> >  Application of the change in benefice of the Existing Elected members
> > looks  manipulation.
> >
> >
> >  Same people can be candidate and be Elected, But Extending the
> > mandate,  looks not Democratic. Thats the way ditactors use to keeping
> > in place  Totally Against.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  13) The constitution of the Board of LACRALO be Held after the first
> > Immediately election to be Held at the time of These Amendments be
> > approved.
> >
> >
> >  Not so relevant.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  Vanda Scartezini
> >
> >
> >  Acesse: http://nomcom.icann.org and candidate-it!
> >
> >
> >  Access: http://nomcom.icann.org and apply!
> >
> >
> >  Polo Consulting Associates
> >
> >
> >  IT Trend
> >
> >
> >  Alameda Santos 1470 conj. 1407
> >
> >
> >  01418-903 So Paulo, SP, Brazil
> >
> >
> >  Tel + 5511 3266.6253
> >
> >
> >  Mob + 55118181.1464
> >
> >
> >  Dissemine this idia:
> >
> >
> >  Enter or domain ao telefone do research.
> >
> >
> >  Domain dialing
> >
> >
> >  Descrio: Descrio: Siter-16-square.png <http://www.siter.com>
> > www.siter.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [[--Original text (es)
> > http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/e362689255.html
> > --]]
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lac-discuss-en mailing list
> > lac-discuss-en en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
> >
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-es mailing list
> lac-discuss-es en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>
> http://www.lacralo.org
>
>