[lac-discuss-es] Alcance y Compromiso SC

Alberto Soto asoto en ibero-americano.org
Jue Feb 18 17:07:09 UTC 2016 

Para poder completar el pedido Karlene, ser韆s tan amable de indicarme a que ALS perteneces?
Muchas gracias.
Alberto Soto

Enviado desde mi ASUS

-------- Mensaje original --------
De:karlenef en gmail.com
Enviado:Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:37:55 -0300
Para:lac-discuss-es en atlarge-lists.icann.org
Cc:lac-discuss-en en atlarge-lists.icann.org
Asunto:Re: [lac-discuss-es] Alcance y Compromiso SC

>
>[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
>
> Asunto: Re: Alcance y Compromiso SC 
> De: karlenef en gmail.com
>
> Estimado Alberto, 
>
>
> Es lamentable que todav韆 existen tan enorme nivel de desconfianza en LACRALO. La situaci髇 es ahora insostenible. Por favor retire mi nombre de todas las listas de correo. No deseo ser un miembro de este grupo. 
>
>
> Saludos, 
> karlene Francisco 
>
>
>
>
>> On 17 Feb 2016, at 7:48 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg en mcgill.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Alberto,
>> 
>> I will comment on the issues of the Outreach and Engagement and CROPP issues separately. Despite the two groups being chaired by the same person, they operate under different rules and processes.
>> 
>> Subcommittee on Outreach and Engagement
>> 
>> The Subcommittee (SC) is composed of two members named by each RALO plus any other people that chose to participate. Operationally, the SC does not distinguish between the two types of participants. The SC leadership is selected by the SC itself. See ( https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Subcommittee+on+Outreach+and+Engagement ) for further details.
>> 
>> There are 14 members from LACRALO, more than from any other region. 
>> 
>> Any work product of the SC should be a product of the entire SC, or at least those who choose to be active and participate. That certainly should include the official members selected by the region. The SC may decide to ask RALOs for input, but even if it doesn’t, it is the responsibility of the regional members to ensure that the region is involved. In a multistakeholder environment, every participant cannot get exactly what they want, but every participant should have an opportunity to be heard. If a work product is about a particular region (as it is for the CROPP strategies), that region clearly has a very important role to play. In the case of LACRALO, we go to great efforts to ensure that the SC has Spanish interpretation to ensure that your members can participate equitably.
>> 
>> To the best of my knowledge, there has been no major complaint from within the SC that people are not being listened to. 
>> 
>> The Independence of RALOs, like most things in life, is not absolute. In many cases, an ALAC SC or WG carries out work on behalf of ALAC and At-Large. They do this with the participation of people from all regions. Generally these decisions or documents do not impact what a RALO can do, but occasionally the ALAC gives a SC explicit responsibility to take action on behalf of ALAC and At-Large even if the results do not go back to the ALAC for ratification.
>> 
>> In the specific case of the CROPP strategy document, I am not an expert, but I do not see a wide difference between the resultant document and what I have heard is of specific interest to LACRALO. The exact words may be different, but the intent seems the same. But regardless of how I read it, IF the region has a problem, it should be dealt with within the SC and by those appointed by LACRALO to work on the SC. If there is a situation where the SC members and the Chair and Co-Chairs cannot resolve an issue, I expect it to be presented to me or the ALAC Leadership Team, ensuring that the ALT Member from the region is aware of the issue. 
>> 
>> You mention that the internal LACRALO document had more concrete details. That is quite reasonable. As I understand the situation, the plans to be submitted to GSE did not require that level of detail and implementation. As long as the two were complementary and did not conflict, there is no problem.
>> 
>> CROPP Program
>> 
>> Last year, the CROPP program within At-Large was carried out by the CROPP Review Team (RT) from the previous year. The current RT is composed of two people from each region, one appointed by the Members of the Finance and Budget Subcommittee, and one by the Members of the Outreach and Engagement SC.
>> 
>> A requests for use of CROPP funds goes from the originator to the RALO and then to the CROPP RT. Exactly how the RALO approves a project is up to the RALO. I suspect that most RALOs do this with their leadership team and perhaps a few others. Once the CROPP RT is notified by RALO leadership that a request is approved by the RALO, the CROPP RT must review it. They have the duty to ensure that the request meets the regional strategy and is in all ways a good request. If they are not satisfied, they can either reject the request or refer it back to the originator or RALO for modification. My understanding is that the LACRALO trip to Haiti and the Dominican Republic was satisfactory and I do not see the need to review the process it followed at this time.
>> 
>> For the record, Dev Anand Teelucksingh did not travel to Buenos Aires on CROPP funds. His trip was funded by GSE under a completely different program.
>> 
>> I hope that this addresses all of your issues.
>> 
>> Regards, Alan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> TRANSLATION BY SILVIA VIVANCO:
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Dear Alan, I am obliged as President of LACRALO to get in touch about this issue:
>>>  
>>> The insistence of the Chairman of a Subcommittee of the ALAC  (Outreach and Engagement SC ) in making decisions  which should, by regulation be made inside of LACRALO and with full participation of its members ALSs, compels me to do so.
>>> Repeated clarifications do not justify such a decision.
>>>  
>>> Comments from Pisanty and myself have been cited as if they were an approval of the Plan generated in the O/E Subcommittee, which acted without previously consulting the document which we already had prepared. Both mine, and the opinion of Alejandro Pisanty were critical of such document. 
>>> Subsequently, and despite the bad procedure, we, in display of good will and seeking peace in our Region, accepted this plan, despite the fact that ours had more concrete details about the countries, according to the list that I promptly submitted, and long before this Strategic Plan.
>>>  
>>> The main detail was that the plan  should take into account as a priority,  those countries that had the lowest rate of Internet penetration, as a way to start that required greater support and major actions to coordinate with ICANN GSE.
>>> I asked for clarifications to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on our last monthly meeting. At that meeting, he not only insisted on his mistake, but he confirmed that  the persons forming such Subcommittee would be in charge of the implementation of such plan and they were also analyzing the alternatives of the CROPP Program for its implementation by of such Subcommittee.
>>>  
>>> In summary: first an ALS presents a project,  which shall be approved by consensus within LACRALO and then leadership of LACRALO sends it for approval through the CROPP program and then to GSE. 
>>>  
>>> They are assuming a power which does not correspond to them, even though I  requested by email and at the last monthly meeting that they did  not.
>>>  
>>> He also insisted that the Sub-Committee was formed by members of LACRALO, erroneously understanding this validated  such actions. 
>>>  
>>> The MOU that LACRALO has signed with ICANN, gives us the independence in decisions, which should be taken within the scope of our Region and within our normative discussions area, not within a Sub-Committee of ALAC, despite the fact that this is composed of members of LACRALO.
>>>  
>>> In the links listed in the email below, you can see that a similar program for AFRALO was approved by the members of AFRALO on September 21, 2015; of APRALO by their leaders on July 3, 2015;  of NARALO by Glenn McKnight 4l 4 August 2015;  of EURALO by Dev Anand Teelucksingh the 29th September 2015;  and the LACRALO also by Dev Anand Teelucksingh on September 15, 2015. At least for LACRALO, he has taken a role which does not correspond to him. 
>>>  
>>> In the emails cited by  the Chair of the Subcommittee, there are inconsistencies such as the exchange of emails for the proposal by Carlton Samuels to go to Surinam; this was only presented by Dev Anand Teelucksingh in the meeting which we had on the Haiti and Dominican Republic. There was such urgency that we did not have time to submit it to LACRALO and exceptionally we decided with Humberto at that  meeting so as to avoid losing  our CROPP trip allocation. 
>>>  
>>> In the meeting previous to the last meeting of ICANN in Buenos Aires, it is said that we agreed and published the names of who would travel to such meeting. 
>>>  
>>> CROPP?s  Chair,  Dev Anand Teelucksingh, published such names, but  omitted in the list  his own name, because he travelled to Argentina with a travel allocation of such program. 
>>>  
>>> To safeguard our decisions, our autonomy and hoping to avoid future inconvenient, I request that  you proceed to issue the appropriate   Directive to such Subcommittee.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 11/01/2016 07:16 AM, Alberto Soto wrote:
>>> Estimado Alan, me veo obligado como Presidente de LACRALO a ponerme en
>>> contacto por este tema.
>>> 
>>> La insistencia del Presidente de un Subcomit茅 de ALAC (Alcance y compromiso
>>> SC) en tomar decisiones que por norma deben tomarse en el interior de
>>> LACRALO y con participaci贸n de sus ALSs miembros, me obliga a ello.
>>> Las repetidas aclaraciones no justifican esa decisi贸n.
>>> 
>>> Se ha citado comentarios de Alejando Pisanty y m铆os como si hubieran sido de
>>> aprobaci贸n del Plan generado en ese subcomit茅 sin haber consultado
>>> previamente el documento con el que ya cont谩bamos. Tanto la opini贸n de
>>> Alejandro como la m铆a, eran cr铆ticas de tal documento. A posteriori y pese a
>>> ese mal procedimiento, como muestra de buena voluntad y buscando la paz en
>>> nuestra Regi贸n, dimos como aceptado dicho Plan, pese a que el nuestro ten铆a
>>> detalles m谩s concretos sobre los pa铆ses, seg煤n la lista que yo oportunamente
>>> presentara, y mucho antes de este Plan Estrat茅gico. El detalle principal era
>>> que se deb铆a tener en cuenta como prioridad, a aquellos pa铆ses que tuvieran
>>> el menor 铆ndice de penetraci贸n de Internet, como una forma de comenzar por
>>> los que requer铆an mayor apoyo y mayores acciones a coordinar con GSE de
>>> ICANN.
>>> 
>>> Ped铆 aclaraciones al Presidente del Subcomit茅 en nuestra 煤ltima reuni贸n
>>> mensual; all铆 no solo insisti贸 en su error, sino que confirm贸 que las
>>> personas integrante de dicho Subcomit茅 se har铆an cargo de la implementaci贸n
>>> de dicho plan, y adem谩s estaban analizado las alternativas del programa
>>> CROPP para su implementaci贸n por parte de dicho Subcomit茅. Como s铆ntesis de
>>> este tema en particular: primero una ALS presenta un proyecto, se aprueba
>>> por consenso en LACRALO y luego el liderazgo de LACRALO lo env铆a para su
>>> aprobaci贸n al programa CROPP y de all铆 a GSE. Se est谩n arrogando una
>>> atribuci贸n que no corresponde, pese a que se pidi贸 por mail y en la 煤ltima
>>> reuni贸n mensual  que no lo hicieran.
>>> 
>>> Tambi茅n insisti贸 en que dicho subcomit茅 estaba conformado por miembros de
>>> LACRALO, entendiendo err贸neamente que ello convalidaba tales acciones. 
>>> El MOU que LACRALO tiene firmado con ICANN, nos da la independencia en las
>>> decisiones, las que deben tomarse dentro del 谩mbito de nuestra Regi贸n y en
>>> nuestro 谩mbito normativo de discusiones, y no dentro de un Subcomit茅 de
>>> ALAC, pese a que est茅 integrado por miembros de LACRALO.
>>> 
>>> En los links que est谩n indicados en el mail de abajo, se puede ver que el
>>> programa similar de AFRALO fue aprobado por los miembros de AFRALO el 21 de
>>> septiembre de 2015; el de APRALO por sus l铆deres el 3 de julio de 2015;  el
>>> de NARALO por Glenn McKnight 4l 4 de agosto de 2015;  el de EURALO por  Dev
>>> Anand Teelucksingh el 29de septiembre de 2015;  y el de LACRALO tambi茅n por
>>> Dev Anand Teelucksingh el 15 de septiembre de 2015. Al menos por LACRALO, se
>>> ha tomado una atribuci贸n que no le corresponde.
>>> 
>>> En los mail citados por el Presidente del subcomit茅, hay inconsistencias
>>> tales como el intercambio de correos para la propuesta de Carlton Samuels
>>> para ir a Surinam; esto solo fue presentado por   Dev Anand Teelucksingh en
>>> una reuni贸n que mantuvimos por el tema de Hait铆 y Rep煤blica Dominica. Era
>>> con tal urgencia que no tuvimos tiempo de presentarlo ante LACRALO y
>>> excepcionalmente lo definimos con Humberto en esa reuni贸n para no perder un
>>> viaje de CROPP. En la reuni贸n previa al 煤ltimo meeting de ICANN en Buenos
>>> Aires, se cita que concordamos y fueron publicados los nombres de quienes
>>> viajar铆an a dicho meeting. El Presidente del CROPP,  Dev Anand Teelucksingh
>>> public贸 dichos nombres, pero omiti贸 en la lista  el suyo propio, dado que
>>> viaj贸 con una vacante de dicho programa.
>>> 
>>> Por el resguardo de nuestras decisiones, nuestra autonom铆a, y esperando
>>> evitar futuros inconvenientes, solicito tengas a bien dar la directiva
>>> correspondiente a ese Subcomit茅.
>>> 
>>> Saludos cordiales
>>> 
>>> Alberto Soto
>> _______________________________________________
>> lac-discuss-en mailing list
>> lac-discuss-en en atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>
>
>
>[[--Original text (en)
>http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/0d85621fce.html
>--]]
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
------------ pr髕ima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-es/attachments/20160218/8027b909/attachment-0001.html>

M醩 informaci髇 sobre la lista de distribuci髇 lac-discuss-es