[lac-discuss-es] Mis comentarios relacionados con la enmienda

jam en jacquelinemorris.com jam en jacquelinemorris.com
Lun Mar 5 23:42:58 UTC 2012


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

 Asunto: Re: Mis comentarios relacionados con la enmienda 
 De: jam en jacquelinemorris.com

 Ok - esa es otra cuestión de la traducción. Ignorante no era una palabra usada por 
 mí. Yo, básicamente, miró a cada elemento, miró a los estatutos, correos electrónicos, otros 
 documentos, material de otros, etc RALO y pensado para una pareja 
 día. Mis comentarios eran estrictamente en el documento, no en las personas que 
 lo creó, o en consideración de las mociones ni nada de eso. 
 Tuve que lidiar con el documento como una propuesta de comentario en la lista, ya que era 
 presentado a mí. Y dado que otros enviaron sus observaciones a la lista, yo era 
 confundido en cuanto a por qué los demás podía comentar sin hacer referencia a RP, pero no 
 mí. 
 Así que vamos a seguir adelante en el contenido, y no saltar a conclusiones basadas en 
 acordó una mala traducción! Mirando hacia adelante a ver la semana que viene. 
 El 05 de marzo 2012 7:28 PM &quot;, Natalia Enciso&quot; <natalia.enciso en gmail.com> escribió: 


> Dear Jaqueline, I am sorry if I sounded agressive it was not my intention.
> It might be an interpretation mistake.
> I am trying to put things in order at my office before travelling, thats
> why I just sent a quick message.
> If we are expressing our feelings I also felt ofended when saying that we
> are ignorant.
> I regret this is happening. I felt discriminated just because I wasn`t
> from the begining I cannot have and express my opinion.
> I don`t know who did ask about comments but what Fatima sent was the
> proposal to discuss in the GA which according to the RoP is the proper
> place to do this.
>
> Take care,
> Natalia
>
>
>
> 2012/3/5 Jacqueline Morris <jam en jacquelinemorris.com>
>
>> Does Rule 11 apply to comments requested on a proposal?
>> I was asked, as were we all, to comment on the draft as sent by Sylvia. I
>> took my time, considered carefully and thoughtfully, and, like Vanda, and
>> others, sent my comments as requested.
>> I really didn't expect such a quick reply, which suggests that my
>> comments were not as studied by you as the proposal was studied by me over
>> the past four days. I also didn't expect the tone, but maybe, given the
>> kind of messages that have been posted recently, I might have been naive to
>> expect differently.
>>  Jacqueline
>> On Mar 5, 2012 6:10 PM, "Natalia Enciso" <natalia.enciso en gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please proceed according to rule 11, thanks.
>>>
>>> Rule 11 - Resolutions and Amendments
>>> 11.1  Draft  resolutions  and  amendments  may  be  proposed  by  the
>>>  participants  referred  to  in Rule  1  and  shall  be  transmitted  in
>>>  writing  to  the  Secretariat  of  the  Assembly,  which  shall circulate
>>> copies to all participants.
>>> 11.2 As a general rule, no draft resolution or amendment shall be
>>> discussed or put to the
>>> vote unless it has been circulated sufficiently in advance, but in no
>>> case less than two weeks, to all participants in the working languages of
>>> the Assembly.
>>>
>>> Should a vote in a virtual meeting not be quorate, then the chair shall
>>> extend the close of the vote for an equal amount of time as the original
>>> voting period. By the end of this extension, no quorum will be
>>> required. APPROVED
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/3/5 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels en gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> Dear All:
>>>> Plus 1 to these observations.
>>>>
>>>> Plus 1 for the recommendations contained here.
>>>>
>>>> - Carlton Samuels
>>>>
>>>> ==============================
>>>> Carlton A Samuels
>>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>>>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>>>> =============================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Jacqueline Morris
>>>> <jam en jacquelinemorris.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Sorry I have taken so long - I really wanted to do proper research and
>>>> > make reasoned, logical comments in line with the role of the RALOs,
>>>> > the values and MSH model of ICANN, and the ALAC improvements. I also
>>>> > looked at the original emails around the formation of the RALOs to
>>>> > refresh my memory as to why certain specific clauses were in the
>>>> > Operating Principles.
>>>> >
>>>> > I tried not to make it an academic treatise with loads of references
>>>> > and footnotes, but I do have them, in case anyone would like to know
>>>> > more about why I made specific comments.
>>>> >
>>>> > Also sorry for the length of the document - I could not make it
>>>> > shorter, try as I might.
>>>> >
>>>> > Comments on the proposal for modification of the LACRALO Operating
>>>> > Principles and Rules of Procedure
>>>> >
>>>> > In general, I believe that the items contained in the proposal are
>>>> > overly broad and sweeping, will change the entire character of the
>>>> > LACRALO, and not for the better. They seem designed to create a
>>>> > massive bureaucratic organisation in which there are almost 30%
>>>> > chiefs, with few workers, and also seem designed to discard both the
>>>> > diverse nature of LACRALO and any pretense of democracy that remains
>>>> > in the organisation.
>>>> >
>>>> > To specifics::
>>>> >
>>>> > Paragraph 2:
>>>> >
>>>> > This item is designed to allow for rules to be created to allow
>>>> > individual participation in LACRALO. This is something that has been
>>>> > in process for five years. Instead of treating with the substantive
>>>> > theme of this item, increased participation by all end-users in the
>>>> > region, the proposed modification seeks to insert participation
>>>> > requirements to limit participation by the ALSes, and ignores the
>>>> > individual user.
>>>> >
>>>> > I suggest that the proposed modification be stricken, and a motion
>>>> > proposed instead that states:
>>>> >
>>>> > Whereas
>>>> > Individuals who wish to participate in LACRALO  are not able to so do
>>>> > solely  because there is no accredited ALS in their country;
>>>> > We propose that
>>>> > Any individual seeking to participate must:
>>>> > be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the LAC
>>>> >  region as defined by ICANN,
>>>> > not be a member of a certified ALS.
>>>> >  Such individuals will be allowed to join LACRALO as individual
>>>> > members and participate in LACRALO activities including votes.
>>>> > Such individuals will be subject to all LACRALO rules and
>>>> requirements.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Along with this, we propose a modification to the text of para 1 of
>>>> > the Operating Principles:
>>>> >
>>>> > 1. The LACRALO is composed of the ALSs  of Latin America and the
>>>> > Caribbean accredited by the ALAC as a mechanism to promote and ensure
>>>> > participation by regional users in the process of developing ICANN
>>>> > policies
>>>> >
>>>> > to
>>>> >
>>>> > 1. The LACRALO is composed of the ALSs  of Latin America and the
>>>> > Caribbean region as defined by ICANN, as well as qualified individual
>>>> > members,  accredited by the ALAC as a mechanism to promote and ensure
>>>> > participation by regional users in the process of developing ICANN
>>>> > policies
>>>> >
>>>> > Proposed new text is shown in bold.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Paragraph 4
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > This proposal was the most difficult for me to wrap my mind around. To
>>>> > me, it seemed simply ridiculous. However, I will attempt to break it
>>>> > down and deal with each item.
>>>> >
>>>> > “LACRALO’s supreme and sovereign governing body will be a General
>>>> > Assembly.”
>>>> >
>>>> > This is inconsistent with the actuality of the LACRALO. The LACRALO
>>>> > only exists inside of and subject to ICANN, via the ALAC. Hence the
>>>> > insertion of the terms “supreme and sovereign” just seems ridiculous
>>>> > to me, and I suggest those terms be stricken and the original language
>>>> > retained.
>>>> >
>>>> > “The governing body of the LACRALO  will be a General Assembly”
>>>> >
>>>> > Next:
>>>> >
>>>> > “ Each ALS accredited in the General Assembly will be entitled to one
>>>> > vote.”
>>>> >
>>>> > This removes the weighting provision that was specifically imposed to
>>>> > allow countries with fewer ALSes by virtue of smaller populations to
>>>> > have a more equitable voice alongside larger countries which may have
>>>> > many more ALSes. Removal of this provision will lead to capture of the
>>>> > LACRALO by larger countries, and I strongly object to the removal of
>>>> > the weighting system, and request that this text be stricken.
>>>> >
>>>> > Next:
>>>> > “Said representatives shall also act for the duration of their
>>>> > appointment as official contacts of the ALS vis-à-vis the LACRALO,with
>>>> > the duties to keep their e-mails updated, to inform the  Secretariat
>>>> > and the At-Large Staff of any change in same or in the names of said
>>>> > representatives.”
>>>> >
>>>> > Just a wording change here - “emails” should be changed to “email
>>>> > addresses”
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > The removal of the text referring to LACRALO operating by consensus is
>>>> > against the values and principles of ICANN, which operates by
>>>> > consensus in all its activities, and I strongly request that it be
>>>> > retained.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Chair, Vice Chair, Secretariat, Vice Seecretariat, ALAC
>>>> > representatives, alternates, and Board.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > This is patently ridiculous. The creation of a THIRTEEN member Board
>>>> > of LACRALO is unnecessary, overly bureaucratic and unworkable. I
>>>> > suggest this entire modification be stricken.
>>>> >
>>>> > “Diversity requirements shall not be applicable among incumbent and
>>>> > alternate members with respect to each other.”
>>>> >
>>>> > I totally disagree. Diversity requirements are needed to balance the
>>>> > voices of the much larger Latin American sub-region with the much
>>>> > smaller Caribbean region. Removal of diversity requirements will leave
>>>> > the smaller countries of the Caribbean without a voice in LACRALO.
>>>> >
>>>> > “In the case of the election, the affiliation, residency and
>>>> > nationality coincidence of same with the ALS  country represented,
>>>> > shall also be taken into account with respect to the person acting as
>>>> > a
>>>> > representative vis-à-vis ALAC on behalf of LAC [sic] appointed by the
>>>> > Nominating Committee
>>>> > (NOMCOM)“
>>>> >
>>>> > This is counter to the ICANN bylaws governing the NomCom. The
>>>> > Nominating Committee reports only to the Board, and has extreme
>>>> > latitude in determining who they select. Additionally, the NomCom does
>>>> > not select any “representative vis-à-vis ALAC on behalf of LAC”. The
>>>> > NomCom selects appointees to the ALAC from specific regions, including
>>>> > the LAC, to act on behalf of ICANN and ALAC, in their capacity as
>>>> > individuals. These individuals are NOT selected to act on behalf of
>>>> > the LAC, and far less the LACRALO, hence the nationality of the person
>>>> > chosen should have no bearing on the diversity requirements within the
>>>> > LACRALO.The language of this paragraph shows a serious
>>>> > misunderstanding of, or disagreement with, the Bylaw-mandated role of
>>>> > the NomCom.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > “. Each of
>>>> > these representatives shall have an alternate with the same powers as
>>>> > the incumbent in the event of  resignation, absence, inability,
>>>> > incompatibilities  or decease of the latter. Each incumbent and
>>>> > alternate shall be elected in the same election. For the purpose of
>>>> > better continuity in the discussion  of policies, said representatives
>>>> > shall be renewed every other term, one representative having to be
>>>> > elected each year”
>>>> > Text note: Should be “former” in line 2, not “latter”.
>>>> > This is, I believe contrary to ICANN’s by-laws. LACRALO cannot simply
>>>> > create an alternate & send them to an ALAC meeting as representative
>>>> > “with the same powers as the incumbent in the event of  resignation,
>>>> > absence, inability, incompatibilities  or decease of the latter.” The
>>>> > rules for representatives to ALAC are clear and stated in the ICANN
>>>> > bylaws.
>>>> >
>>>> > What I believe LACRALO can do is select an alternate in case of
>>>> > resignation, death or any other reason that the ALAC rep cannot
>>>> > fulfill the term, and submit that name to the ALAC in that case.
>>>> > However, until and unless those circumstances arise, the alternate as
>>>> > elected by LACRALO cannot have “the same powers as the incumbent in
>>>> > the event of  resignation, absence, inability, incompatibilities  or
>>>> > decease of the latter”, as such powers are granted by ALAC, and cannot
>>>> > be granted by LACRALO.
>>>> >
>>>> > This proposal is basically a massive overreach on the part of LACRALO,
>>>> > to usurp the powers granted in the ICANN bylaws to ALAC.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > “These five Policy Directors shall be selected by the Board members
>>>> > elected by the General Assembly. Each of them shall be entitled to one
>>>> > vote and decisions shall be taken by simple majority.“
>>>> >
>>>> > Unnecessary, bureaucratic and undemocratic. This proposes a Board,
>>>> > created with no diversity requirement, in which over one-third of the
>>>> > members are hand-picked by the other members.  If this is not obvious
>>>> > to all as the creation of a cabal, then ideas of good  governance are
>>>> > sorely lacking.
>>>> >
>>>> > “First Temporary Provision. The modifications established with the
>>>> > present reform, will be
>>>> > considered applicable to the terms of the current Chair and
>>>> > Secretariat of LACRALO, which are in power at the time of approval of
>>>> > these modifications by LACRALO’s General Assembly.”
>>>> >
>>>> > This is contrary to all notions of good governance.
>>>> >
>>>> > “Second Temporary Provision. The Board of LACRALO shall be constituted
>>>> > from the first election to be conducted immediately after these
>>>> > modifications are approved.”
>>>> >
>>>> > Having strongly disagreed with the formation of the Board, it is
>>>> > obvious I will disagree with this proposal.
>>>> >
>>>> > “For the purposes of constituting the first Board of LACRALO, those
>>>> > positions that have already been put to vote, it having been
>>>> > impossible to elect their respective alternates, shall be responsible
>>>> > for selecting their respective alternates for one time only. “
>>>> >
>>>> > Setting up for corruption and cabal-ism. NO.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Jacqueline A. Morris
>>>> > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and
>>>> > Free. (after Chris Lehmann )
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > 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-en mailing list
>>>> lac-discuss-en en atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> natalia.enciso en gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> natalia.enciso en gmail.com
>
>



[[--Original text (en)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/4a71da340c.html
--]]





Más información sobre la lista de distribución lac-discuss-es