Re: [lac-discuss-es] Alcance y Compromiso SC
Para poder completar el pedido Karlene, serÃas tan amable de indicarme a que
ALS perteneces?
Muchas gracias.
Alberto Soto
Enviado desde mi ASUS
-------- Mensaje original --------
De:karlenef@xxxxxxxxx
Enviado:Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:37:55 -0300
Para:lac-discuss-es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto:Re: [lac-discuss-es] Alcance y Compromiso SC
>
>[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
>
> Asunto: Re: Alcance y Compromiso SC
> De: karlenef@xxxxxxxxx
>
> Estimado Alberto,
>
>
> Es lamentable que todavÃa existen tan enorme nivel de desconfianza en
> LACRALO. La situaciÃn 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@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 doesnÃâât, 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 SubcomitÃÂ de ALAC (Alcance y compromiso
>>> SC) en tomar decisiones que por norma deben tomarse en el interior de
>>> LACRALO y con participaciÃÂn de sus ALSs miembros, me obliga a ello.
>>> Las repetidas aclaraciones no justifican esa decisiÃÂn.
>>>
>>> Se ha citado comentarios de Alejando Pisanty y mÃÂos como si hubieran sido
>>> de
>>> aprobaciÃÂn del Plan generado en ese subcomitÃÂ sin haber consultado
>>> previamente el documento con el que ya contÃÂbamos. Tanto la opiniÃÂn de
>>> Alejandro como la mÃÂa, eran crÃÂticas de tal documento. A posteriori y
>>> pese a
>>> ese mal procedimiento, como muestra de buena voluntad y buscando la paz en
>>> nuestra RegiÃÂn, dimos como aceptado dicho Plan, pese a que el nuestro
>>> tenÃÂa
>>> detalles mÃÂs concretos sobre los paÃÂses, segÃÂn la lista que yo
>>> oportunamente
>>> presentara, y mucho antes de este Plan EstratÃÂgico. El detalle principal
>>> era
>>> que se debÃÂa tener en cuenta como prioridad, a aquellos paÃÂses que
>>> tuvieran
>>> el menor ÃÂndice de penetraciÃÂn de Internet, como una forma de comenzar por
>>> los que requerÃÂan mayor apoyo y mayores acciones a coordinar con GSE de
>>> ICANN.
>>>
>>> PedÃÂ aclaraciones al Presidente del SubcomitÃÂ en nuestra ÃÂltima reuniÃÂn
>>> mensual; allÃÂ no solo insistiÃÂ en su error, sino que confirmÃÂ que las
>>> personas integrante de dicho SubcomitÃÂ se harÃÂan cargo de la
>>> implementaciÃÂn
>>> de dicho plan, y ademÃÂs estaban analizado las alternativas del programa
>>> CROPP para su implementaciÃÂn por parte de dicho SubcomitÃÂ. Como sÃÂntesis
>>> de
>>> este tema en particular: primero una ALS presenta un proyecto, se aprueba
>>> por consenso en LACRALO y luego el liderazgo de LACRALO lo envÃÂa para su
>>> aprobaciÃÂn al programa CROPP y de allÃÂ a GSE. Se estÃÂn arrogando una
>>> atribuciÃÂn que no corresponde, pese a que se pidiÃÂ por mail y en la
>>> ÃÂltima
>>> reuniÃÂn mensual que no lo hicieran.
>>>
>>> TambiÃÂn insistiÃÂ en que dicho subcomitÃÂ estaba conformado por miembros de
>>> LACRALO, entendiendo errÃÂneamente 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 ÃÂmbito de nuestra RegiÃÂn y en
>>> nuestro ÃÂmbito normativo de discusiones, y no dentro de un SubcomitÃÂ de
>>> ALAC, pese a que estÃÂ integrado por miembros de LACRALO.
>>>
>>> En los links que estÃÂn 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 lÃÂderes 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 tambiÃÂn por
>>> Dev Anand Teelucksingh el 15 de septiembre de 2015. Al menos por LACRALO, se
>>> ha tomado una atribuciÃÂn que no le corresponde.
>>>
>>> En los mail citados por el Presidente del subcomitÃÂ, 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 reuniÃÂn que mantuvimos por el tema de HaitÃÂ y RepÃÂblica Dominica. Era
>>> con tal urgencia que no tuvimos tiempo de presentarlo ante LACRALO y
>>> excepcionalmente lo definimos con Humberto en esa reuniÃÂn para no perder un
>>> viaje de CROPP. En la reuniÃÂn previa al ÃÂltimo meeting de ICANN en Buenos
>>> Aires, se cita que concordamos y fueron publicados los nombres de quienes
>>> viajarÃÂan a dicho meeting. El Presidente del CROPP, Dev Anand Teelucksingh
>>> publicÃÂ dichos nombres, pero omitiÃÂ en la lista el suyo propio, dado que
>>> viajÃÂ con una vacante de dicho programa.
>>>
>>> Por el resguardo de nuestras decisiones, nuestra autonomÃÂa, y esperando
>>> evitar futuros inconvenientes, solicito tengas a bien dar la directiva
>>> correspondiente a ese SubcomitÃÂ.
>>>
>>> Saludos cordiales
>>>
>>> Alberto Soto
>> _______________________________________________
>> lac-discuss-en mailing list
>> lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>
>http://www.lacralo.org
_______________________________________________