Re: [lac-discuss-en] [lac-discuss-es] Alcance y Compromiso SC

To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] [lac-discuss-es] Alcance y Compromiso SC
From: Karlene Francis <karlenef@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 06:36:52 -0500

Dear Alberto,

It is unfortunate that there still exist such enormous level of distrust in 
LACRALO. The situation is now untenable. Please remove my name from all mailing 
lists. I do not wish to be a member of this group.

Regards,
Karlene Francis


> On 17 Feb 2016, at 7:48 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> 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 doesnât, 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 SubcomitÃ de ALAC (Alcance y compromiso
>> SC) en tomar decisiones que por norma deben tomarse en el interior de
>> LACRALO y con participaciÃn de sus ALSs miembros, me obliga a ello.
>> Las repetidas aclaraciones no justifican esa decisiÃn.
>> 
>> Se ha citado comentarios de Alejando Pisanty y mÃos como si hubieran sido de
>> aprobaciÃn del Plan generado en ese subcomitÃ sin haber consultado
>> previamente el documento con el que ya contÃbamos. Tanto la opiniÃn de
>> Alejandro como la mÃa, eran crÃticas de tal documento. A posteriori y pese a
>> ese mal procedimiento, como muestra de buena voluntad y buscando la paz en
>> nuestra RegiÃn, dimos como aceptado dicho Plan, pese a que el nuestro tenÃa
>> detalles mÃs concretos sobre los paÃses, segÃn la lista que yo oportunamente
>> presentara, y mucho antes de este Plan EstratÃgico. El detalle principal era
>> que se debÃa tener en cuenta como prioridad, a aquellos paÃses que tuvieran
>> el menor Ãndice de penetraciÃn de Internet, como una forma de comenzar por
>> los que requerÃan mayor apoyo y mayores acciones a coordinar con GSE de
>> ICANN.
>> 
>> PedÃ aclaraciones al Presidente del SubcomitÃ en nuestra Ãltima reuniÃn
>> mensual; allÃ no solo insistiÃ en su error, sino que confirmÃ que las
>> personas integrante de dicho SubcomitÃ se harÃan cargo de la implementaciÃn
>> de dicho plan, y ademÃs estaban analizado las alternativas del programa
>> CROPP para su implementaciÃn por parte de dicho SubcomitÃ. Como sÃntesis de
>> este tema en particular: primero una ALS presenta un proyecto, se aprueba
>> por consenso en LACRALO y luego el liderazgo de LACRALO lo envÃa para su
>> aprobaciÃn al programa CROPP y de allÃ a GSE. Se estÃn arrogando una
>> atribuciÃn que no corresponde, pese a que se pidiÃ por mail y en la Ãltima
>> reuniÃn mensual  que no lo hicieran.
>> 
>> TambiÃn insistiÃ en que dicho subcomitÃ estaba conformado por miembros de
>> LACRALO, entendiendo errÃneamente 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 Ãmbito de nuestra RegiÃn y en
>> nuestro Ãmbito normativo de discusiones, y no dentro de un SubcomitÃ de
>> ALAC, pese a que estÃ integrado por miembros de LACRALO.
>> 
>> En los links que estÃn 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 lÃderes 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 tambiÃn por
>> Dev Anand Teelucksingh el 15 de septiembre de 2015. Al menos por LACRALO, se
>> ha tomado una atribuciÃn que no le corresponde.
>> 
>> En los mail citados por el Presidente del subcomitÃ, 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 reuniÃn que mantuvimos por el tema de HaitÃ y RepÃblica Dominica. Era
>> con tal urgencia que no tuvimos tiempo de presentarlo ante LACRALO y
>> excepcionalmente lo definimos con Humberto en esa reuniÃn para no perder un
>> viaje de CROPP. En la reuniÃn previa al Ãltimo meeting de ICANN en Buenos
>> Aires, se cita que concordamos y fueron publicados los nombres de quienes
>> viajarÃan a dicho meeting. El Presidente del CROPP,  Dev Anand Teelucksingh
>> publicÃ dichos nombres, pero omitiÃ en la lista  el suyo propio, dado que
>> viajÃ con una vacante de dicho programa.
>> 
>> Por el resguardo de nuestras decisiones, nuestra autonomÃa, y esperando
>> evitar futuros inconvenientes, solicito tengas a bien dar la directiva
>> correspondiente a ese SubcomitÃ.
>> 
>> Saludos cordiales
>> 
>> Alberto Soto
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-en mailing list
> lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

_______________________________________________