August 2015 - lac-discuss-en

extended period till midnight today, Then I Could Voted ratifying ALAC vote.
by vanda＠etges.com.br Aug. 6, 2015

Aug. 6, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: extended period till midnight today, Then I Could Voted ratifying ALAC vote. From: vanda(a)etges.com.br First email Question: Do you support the ratification of the "ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization" for the communication to Relevant parties? ***** PLEASE NOTE THAT the poll will be open from 01-August-2015 12:00 UTC to 06-August-2015 12:00 UTC. Email from today Question: Do you support the ratification of the "ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization" for the communication to Relevant parties? ***** PLEASE NOTE THAT the poll will be open from 01-August-2015 12:00 UTC to 06-August-2015 23:59 UTC. Vanda Scartezini Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av.Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" On Behalf Of Vanda Scartezini Date: Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 9:34 A: LACRALO list, "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: [lac-discuss-en] FW: sorry I lost the vote on GNSO. I read it wrong and Understood was not noon till midnight UTC UTC. See below message sent to Alan and LACRALO, but my new email was not registered yet so the message Could not be delivered to you. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Vanda Scartezini Date: Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 9:29 To: Alan Greenberg, 'ALAC List' Cc: LACRALO list, "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: sorry i lost the vote on GNSO.i read it wrong and udnderstood was not noon till midnight UTC UTC. Dear all I was waiting for more manifestation from LACRALO, and Have read wrongly the time. I tried and was Already now closed. Sorry about that. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. _______________________________________________ Lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/682c57b5b5.html --]]

1 0

extended period till midnight today , then I could voted ratifying ALAC vote.
by Vanda Scartezini Aug. 6, 2015

Aug. 6, 2015

First email Question: Do you support the ratification of the "ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization" for the communication to relevant parties? ***** Please note that the poll will be open from 01-August-2015 12:00 UTC to 06-August-2015 12:00 UTC. Email from today Question: Do you support the ratification of the "ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization" for the communication to relevant parties? ***** Please note that the poll will be open from 01-August-2015 12:00 UTC to 06-August-2015 23:59 UTC. Vanda Scartezini Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" on behalf of Vanda Scartezini Date: Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 09:34 To: LACRALO list, "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: [lac-discuss-es] FW: sorry I lost the vote on GNSO. I read it wrong and understood was till midnight UTC not noon UTC. See below message sent to Alan and LACRALO, but my new email was not yet registered so the message could not be delivered to you. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Vanda Scartezini Date: Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 09:29 To: Alan Greenberg, 'ALAC List' Cc: LACRALO list, "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: sorry i lost the vote on GNSO. i read it wrong and udnderstood was till midnight UTC not noon UTC. Dear all I was waiting for more manifestation from LACRALO, and have read wrongly the time. I tried now and was already closed. Sorry about that. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org

1 0

FW: sorry I lost the vote on GNSO. I read it wrong and Understood was not noon till midnight UTC UTC.
by vanda＠uol.com.br Aug. 6, 2015

Aug. 6, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: FW: sorry I lost the vote on GNSO. I read it wrong and Understood was not noon till midnight UTC UTC. From: vanda(a)uol.com.br See below message sent to Alan and LACRALO, but my new email was not registered yet so the message Could not be delivered to you. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Vanda Scartezini Date: Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 9:29 To: Alan Greenberg, 'ALAC List' Cc: LACRALO list, "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: sorry i lost the vote on GNSO. i read it wrong and udnderstood was not noon till midnight UTC UTC. Dear all I was waiting for more manifestation from LACRALO, and Have read wrongly the time. I tried and was Already now closed. Sorry about that. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/54e34e8c64.html --]]

1 0

FW: sorry I lost the vote on GNSO. I read it wrong and understood was till midnight UTC not noon UTC.
by Vanda Scartezini Aug. 6, 2015

Aug. 6, 2015

See below message sent to Alan and LACRALO, but my new email was not yet registered so the message could not be delivered to you. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Vanda Scartezini Date: Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 09:29 To: Alan Greenberg, 'ALAC List' Cc: LACRALO list, "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: sorry i lost the vote on GNSO. i read it wrong and udnderstood was till midnight UTC not noon UTC. Dear all I was waiting for more manifestation from LACRALO, and have read wrongly the time. I tried now and was already closed. Sorry about that. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] State of the BA LAC
by aidanoblia＠gmail.com Aug. 6, 2015

Aug. 6, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: State of the BA LAC From: aidanoblia(a)gmail.com http://conferenciaelac.cepal.org/es/transmision-en-vivo 05/08/2015 20:55 GMT-03: 00 Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google < tracyhackshaw(a)gmail.com>: > +1 > On Aug 5, 2015 5:27 PM, <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] >> >> Subject: Re: State of the BA LAC >> From: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com >> >> Thanks for sharing Antonio. What is telling is the lack of a recognizable >> Caribbean voice on the agenda. >> >> >> >> http://www.cepal.org/en/eventos/v-conferencia-ministerial-sobre-sociedad-de… >> >> >> -Carlton >> >> >> >> >> ============================== >> Carlton A Samuels >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 >> * Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround * >> ============================= >> >> >> 05/08/2015 12:13 GMT-05: 00 Antonio Medina Gomez <amedinagomez(a)gmail.com> >> : >> > >> > >> http://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/38605-estado-de-la-banda-ancha-en-ame… >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > lac-discuss-es mailing list >> > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >> > >> > http://www.lacralo.org >> > >> >> >> [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/2ed34e3dea.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] State of the BA LAC
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Aug. 6, 2015

Aug. 6, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: State of the BA LAC From: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com Thanks for sharing Antonio. What is telling is the lack of a recognizable Caribbean voice on the agenda. http://www.cepal.org/en/eventos/v-conferencia-ministerial-sobre-sociedad-de… -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 * Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround * ============================= 05/08/2015 12:13 GMT-05: 00 Antonio Medina Gomez <amedinagomez(a)gmail.com> : > > http://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/38605-estado-de-la-banda-ancha-en-ame… > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > http://www.lacralo.org > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/4f915e027f.html --]]

3 2

Re: [lac-discuss-en] State of the BA LAC
by tracyhackshaw＠gmail.com Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: State of the BA LAC From: tracyhackshaw(a)gmail.com +1 On Aug 5, 2015 5:27 PM, <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] > > Subject: Re: State of the BA LAC > From: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com > > Thanks for sharing Antonio. What is telling is the lack of a recognizable > Caribbean voice on the agenda. > > > > http://www.cepal.org/en/eventos/v-conferencia-ministerial-sobre-sociedad-de… > > > -Carlton > > > > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > * Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround * > ============================= > > > 05/08/2015 12:13 GMT-05: 00 Antonio Medina Gomez <amedinagomez(a)gmail.com> > : > > > > > http://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/38605-estado-de-la-banda-ancha-en-ame… > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lac-discuss-es mailing list > > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > > > http://www.lacralo.org > > > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/654adac176.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2
by vanda＠uol.com.br Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Rule 11.2 From: vanda(a)uol.com.br One more thing That I remember. Travel support Already started the process for issuing tickets etc. Considering That will depend upon the Elected May need a visa, we a running out of time for Dublin. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" On Behalf Of Antonio Gomes Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 21:08 To: Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambía Cc: "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2 Leon thank you very much for this successful and substantive intervention The 08/04/2015 18:59, "Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambía" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: ==== ====== Inglés after Spanish version Dear friends, I deeply regret that we are living this situation. As you know, I supported the election of Lance Hinds, considering that the process had been exhausted properly. What happened then is history. Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman would be desirable to conduct the election process to LACRALO ALAC member again. What I would ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is that, in any event, to establish, clearly and a priori, the rules that apply to the election, ie: 1. When a call for nominations will open? 2. When the call for nominations will be closed? 3. What are the eligibility criteria? 4. What will be the time to listen to the SOI candidates? 5. Will there be a debate? 6. When will the vote take place? 7.If there is only one nomination it was also vote? 8. If there are multiple nominations, candidates will be eliminated? 9. Will there be a single round of voting? 10. How many will be subtracted until only two candidates? 11. How the elected candidate will be appointed? Is it because most ALS vote? Is it because most currently certified ALS? Do abstentions are counted? 12. It is convenient to think of an Election Committee? We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin, where he will begin his term at the end whoever is elected, is to turn the corner. I make an urgent call to our President and Secretary to establish the rules, open the call and continue the reset procedure of choice. Inglés version ============ ===== Dear friends, I deeply regret That we are living esta situation. As you know, I supported the election of Lance Hinds, Considering That HAD Been exhausted the process properly.What happened after, is history. Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman, it would be desirable to conduct the election process of the LACRALO ALAC member again. What I would ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is That They Establish the rules That will run the election process in a very clear manner and, of course, a priori. For example, the following questions Come to my mind: 1. When will the call for nominations begin? 2. When will the call for nominations close? 3. What are the eligibility criteria? 4. What will be the time to listen to the candidates' SOIs? 5. Will there be a debate? 6.When will the vote take place? 7. If there is only one nomination there will still be a vote? 8. If there are multiple nominations, how candidates will be shortlisted? 9. Will there be a single round of voting? 10. Will there be several voting round Until there are only two candidates left? 11. How will the winning candidate Be Determined? Will it be Determined by majority of votes from ALS Those voting? Will it be Determined by majority of votes of all certified ALS? Will abstentions count? 12.Would it be convenient to think of an Electoral Committee? We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin, Where The Elected candidate will begin his / her term, is around the corner. I urged our President and Secretary to Establish the rules, open the call for nominations and continue to carry the voting process. Greetings, Best regards Lion The 08/04/2015, at 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> wrote: If I interpret, understand that its two clear and appropriate proposals. I agree with them because they solve this situation and seek to resolve in the future to again the problem does not occur. 1. promote the change of the current rule to a clear rule that removes the complication that was generated in this opportunity: For example if there is a single candidate and the deadline did not show other, nor were objections: that it gives. Without survey. Personally I think the clearest and simplest solution. 2. Since the event that already occurred: the survey was done and gave the results to solve this case already given: making new election. It seems reasonable to get by now to move forward on other issues of great importance. Greetings to all 08/04/2015 11:06 GMT-03: 00 <crg(a)isoc-cr.org> : [[Translated text (en -> en) -]] Subject: Re: Rule 11.2 From: crg(a)isoc-cr.org Dear members of LACRALO, I hope we can have a reasonable feedback from all members Opinion of the Ombudsman, in particular its final recommendations you give "In this case I am aware that is not criticism of the decision to hold a survey with a number considering that the spear Hinds It must be selected by virtue of being the only candidate without the need for a survey. Looking ahead, it would be useful to have a consensus view on whether the rules should be amended to provide this specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a candidate, the process would be fair rerun election, and that's my recommendation. " Sincerely Carlos Raul Gutierrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg On August 3, 2015, at 15:55, Chris LaHatte wrote: > Members of LACRALO will be aware that I have been asked to look at the > election process to give my view as to whether this has been a fair > procedure. As the ICANN ombudsman it is part of my mandate to look at > matters of unfairness within the ICANN community, which therefore > includes an involvement where a process has taken place, and where I > receive a complaint of unfairness. > > The process for nomination as the LACRALO representative for the > period 2015 Ã¢â¬â 2017 began with the 30 April announcement of the call > for nominations, and for statements by anyone nominated. The > nomination period lasted from 30 April to the 9th May, and during that > period Lance Hinds was nominated by Jose Francisco Arce. There were no > other nominations. The timetable would have included an election > period if there were other candidates, but as no other nominations > were received, an announcement was made that Lance Hinds was elected > by acclamation. However some members of LACRALO expressed concern that > because there was only one nominee, that previous precedent required > that there had to be a poll to certify that the majority of the ALS > supported the sole nomination. > > On 20 July there was a scheduled LACRALO conference call, where it was > suggested that Lance Hinds was not eligible because it was alleged > that he had participation in businesses which created a conflict of > interest. Lance has asserted strongly that while he does own a small > software development company, and is the president of a local business > support organisation (a volunteer position) that he had no conflict. > He asserted neither of those interests had anything to do with ICANN > policy development. Normally this should be decided by the election > process rather than a poll subsequently held. > > The next step was that the poll took place and staff announced the > results based on the process announced by Humberto and Alberto, which > were 21 against, 19 in favour and 3 abstentions. The abstentions were > not counted. Accordingly the LACRALO chair and secretary declared that > the results meant that there had to be a new election. > > I have spoken to some, but unfortunately have not had time to talk to > all of the interested parties. I express regret that in a volunteer > organisation, there appeared to be attempts to silo categories of > persons eligible, when there are clearly only a limited number of > people with the enthusiasm and time, especially in smaller countries. > > It has been said to me that particularly in the Caribbean, there are > only a small number of people who have the qualifications and ability > to serve, and that they will often wear several different hats. In my > view it would be a great pity to try to exclude enthusiastic > volunteers, but of course there is an election process to properly > canvass those issues. > > > In general, when there is an election process which has been > challenged, the fairest way to proceed is to rerun the process. There > is also an issue of perceived fairness. Even if the process was run > correctly, if there are strong views about the process, then an open > and transparent procedure calling a further election would answer any > issues of perceived unfairness, as the parties can then go into the > second process fully aware of the issues. > > In this case I am conscious that there is criticism of the decision to > hold a poll, with a number considering that Lance Hinds should have > been selected by virtue of being the sole nominee, without the need > for a poll. Looking forward, it would be valuable to have a consensus > view on whether the rules should be amended to provide for this > specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a > candidate, the fair process would be to rerun the election, and that > is my recommendation. > > I am available to discuss this further if needed and invite anyone to > contact me, in confidence if necessary. > > > > Chris LaHatte > Ombudsman > Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ > Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman > > > Confidentiality > All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as > confidential. > The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to > preserve the > privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the > complaint > being investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall only make > inquiries > about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity > of, a > complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The > Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if > staff > and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a > complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such > information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a > complaint > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/ba600846e8.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2
by vanda＠uol.com.br Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Rule 11.2 From: vanda(a)uol.com.br Thank you Leon for bring it to light again. We have the Ombudsman's recommendation. If the Ombudsman Consulted We have to follow His looks reasonable recommendation, but since recommendation is not mandatory, we need a final decision on This issue. Best regards Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" On Behalf Of Antonio Gomes Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 21:08 To: Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambía Cc: "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2 Leon thank you very much for this successful and substantive intervention The 08/04/2015 18:59, "Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambía" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: ==== ====== Inglés after Spanish version Dear friends, I deeply regret that we are living this situation. As you know, I supported the election of Lance Hinds, considering that the process had been exhausted properly. What happened then is history. Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman would be desirable to conduct the election process to LACRALO ALAC member again. What I would ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is that, in any event, to establish, clearly and a priori, the rules that apply to the election, ie: 1. When a call for nominations will open? 2. When the call for nominations will be closed? 3. What are the eligibility criteria? 4. What will be the time to listen to the SOI candidates? 5. Will there be a debate? 6. When will the vote take place? 7.If there is only one nomination it was also vote? 8. If there are multiple nominations, candidates will be eliminated? 9. Will there be a single round of voting? 10. How many will be subtracted until only two candidates? 11. How the elected candidate will be appointed? Is it because most ALS vote? Is it because most currently certified ALS? Do abstentions are counted? 12. It is convenient to think of an Election Committee? We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin, where he will begin his term at the end whoever is elected, is to turn the corner. I make an urgent call to our President and Secretary to establish the rules, open the call and continue the reset procedure of choice. Inglés version ============ ===== Dear friends, I deeply regret That we are living esta situation. As you know, I supported the election of Lance Hinds, Considering That HAD Been exhausted the process properly.What happened after, is history. Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman, it would be desirable to conduct the election process of the LACRALO ALAC member again. What I would ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is That They Establish the rules That will run the election process in a very clear manner and, of course, a priori. For example, the following questions Come to my mind: 1. When will the call for nominations begin? 2. When will the call for nominations close? 3. What are the eligibility criteria? 4. What will be the time to listen to the candidates' SOIs? 5. Will there be a debate? 6.When will the vote take place? 7. If there is only one nomination there will still be a vote? 8. If there are multiple nominations, how candidates will be shortlisted? 9. Will there be a single round of voting? 10. Will there be several voting round Until there are only two candidates left? 11. How will the winning candidate Be Determined? Will it be Determined by majority of votes from ALS Those voting? Will it be Determined by majority of votes of all certified ALS? Will abstentions count? 12.Would it be convenient to think of an Electoral Committee? We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin, Where The Elected candidate will begin his / her term, is around the corner. I urged our President and Secretary to Establish the rules, open the call for nominations and continue to carry the voting process. Greetings, Best regards Lion The 08/04/2015, at 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> wrote: If I interpret, understand that its two clear and appropriate proposals. I agree with them because they solve this situation and seek to resolve in the future to again the problem does not occur. 1. promote the change of the current rule to a clear rule that removes the complication that was generated in this opportunity: For example if there is a single candidate and the deadline did not show other, nor were objections: that it gives. Without survey. Personally I think the clearest and simplest solution. 2. Since the event that already occurred: the survey was done and gave the results to solve this case already given: making new election. It seems reasonable to get by now to move forward on other issues of great importance. Greetings to all 08/04/2015 11:06 GMT-03: 00 <crg(a)isoc-cr.org> : [[Translated text (en -> en) -]] Subject: Re: Rule 11.2 From: crg(a)isoc-cr.org Dear members of LACRALO, I hope we can have a reasonable feedback from all members Opinion of the Ombudsman, in particular its final recommendations you give "In this case I am aware that is not criticism of the decision to hold a survey with a number considering that the spear Hinds It must be selected by virtue of being the only candidate without the need for a survey. Looking ahead, it would be useful to have a consensus view on whether the rules should be amended to provide this specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a candidate, the process would be fair rerun election, and that's my recommendation. " Sincerely Carlos Raul Gutierrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg On August 3, 2015, at 15:55, Chris LaHatte wrote: > Members of LACRALO will be aware that I have been asked to look at the > election process to give my view as to whether this has been a fair > procedure. As the ICANN ombudsman it is part of my mandate to look at > matters of unfairness within the ICANN community, which therefore > includes an involvement where a process has taken place, and where I > receive a complaint of unfairness. > > The process for nomination as the LACRALO representative for the > period 2015 Ã¢â¬â 2017 began with the 30 April announcement of the call > for nominations, and for statements by anyone nominated. The > nomination period lasted from 30 April to the 9th May, and during that > period Lance Hinds was nominated by Jose Francisco Arce. There were no > other nominations. The timetable would have included an election > period if there were other candidates, but as no other nominations > were received, an announcement was made that Lance Hinds was elected > by acclamation. However some members of LACRALO expressed concern that > because there was only one nominee, that previous precedent required > that there had to be a poll to certify that the majority of the ALS > supported the sole nomination. > > On 20 July there was a scheduled LACRALO conference call, where it was > suggested that Lance Hinds was not eligible because it was alleged > that he had participation in businesses which created a conflict of > interest. Lance has asserted strongly that while he does own a small > software development company, and is the president of a local business > support organisation (a volunteer position) that he had no conflict. > He asserted neither of those interests had anything to do with ICANN > policy development. Normally this should be decided by the election > process rather than a poll subsequently held. > > The next step was that the poll took place and staff announced the > results based on the process announced by Humberto and Alberto, which > were 21 against, 19 in favour and 3 abstentions. The abstentions were > not counted. Accordingly the LACRALO chair and secretary declared that > the results meant that there had to be a new election. > > I have spoken to some, but unfortunately have not had time to talk to > all of the interested parties. I express regret that in a volunteer > organisation, there appeared to be attempts to silo categories of > persons eligible, when there are clearly only a limited number of > people with the enthusiasm and time, especially in smaller countries. > > It has been said to me that particularly in the Caribbean, there are > only a small number of people who have the qualifications and ability > to serve, and that they will often wear several different hats. In my > view it would be a great pity to try to exclude enthusiastic > volunteers, but of course there is an election process to properly > canvass those issues. > > > In general, when there is an election process which has been > challenged, the fairest way to proceed is to rerun the process. There > is also an issue of perceived fairness. Even if the process was run > correctly, if there are strong views about the process, then an open > and transparent procedure calling a further election would answer any > issues of perceived unfairness, as the parties can then go into the > second process fully aware of the issues. > > In this case I am conscious that there is criticism of the decision to > hold a poll, with a number considering that Lance Hinds should have > been selected by virtue of being the sole nominee, without the need > for a poll. Looking forward, it would be valuable to have a consensus > view on whether the rules should be amended to provide for this > specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a > candidate, the fair process would be to rerun the election, and that > is my recommendation. > > I am available to discuss this further if needed and invite anyone to > contact me, in confidence if necessary. > > > > Chris LaHatte > Ombudsman > Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ > Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman > > > Confidentiality > All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as > confidential. > The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to > preserve the > privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the > complaint > being investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall only make > inquiries > about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity > of, a > complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The > Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if > staff > and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a > complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such > information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a > complaint > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/a779407c29.html --]]

1 0

State of the BA LAC
by amedinagomez＠gmail.com Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: State of the BA LAC From: amedinagomez(a)gmail.com http://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/38605-estado-de-la-banda-ancha-en-ame… [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/73c03f0988.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2
by carlosaguirre62＠hotmail.com Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Rule 11.2 From: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com The idea is to avoid another situation like we spent Alberto unfortunate. And everything that can be defined so as not to doubt you avoid repeating. <div> -------- Original Message -------- </div><div> From: Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org></div><div> Date: 4/8/2015 9:41 PM (GMT-03: 00) </div><div> For: 'carlosaguirre62' <carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com> 'Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambia' <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> 'Aida Noblia' <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com></div><div> Cc: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org </div><div> Subject: RE: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2 </div><div> </div> Dear, they are placing parameters that must leave the interview applicants and not be placed as requirements in the call to vote. We do not have metrics to place as seniority and participation requirements and degrees of knowledge of the region and issues of ALAC. Best regards Alberto Soto From: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On behalf of carlosaguirre62 Posted on: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 9:12 pm To: Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> ; Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> CC: <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org><lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2 Felipe totally agree with you. I think devemos very strict criteria rn in order not to interpret anything and has no doubts as to why so surely also be determined within these eligibility criteria, which will be the parameters of old and participation of the candidate. And what is the degree of knowledge of the region and the issues that ALAC has in agenda. 0.02 -------- Original Message -------- From: Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambía Date: 4/8/2015 8:59 PM (GMT-03: 00) To: Aida Noblia Cc: "" Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2 ==== ====== Inglés after Spanish version Dear friends, I deeply regret that we are living this situation. As you know, I supported the election of Lance Hinds, considering that the process had been exhausted properly. What happened then is history. Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman would be desirable to conduct the election process to LACRALO ALAC member again. What I would ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is that, in any event, to establish, clearly and a priori, the rules that apply to the election, ie: 1. When a call for nominations will open? 2. When the call for nominations will be closed? 3. What are the eligibility criteria? 4. What will be the time to listen to the SOI candidates? 5. Will there be a debate? 6. When will the vote take place? 7. If there is only one nomination was also vote? 8. If there are multiple nominations, candidates will be eliminated? 9. Will there be a single round of voting? 10. How many will be subtracted until only two candidates? 11. How the elected candidate will be appointed? Is it because most ALS vote? Is it because most currently certified ALS? Do abstentions are counted? 12. It is convenient to think of an Election Committee? We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin, where he will begin his term at the end whoever is elected, is to turn the corner. I make an urgent call to our President and Secretary to establish the rules, open the call and continue the reset procedure of choice. Inglés version ============ ===== Dear friends, I deeply regret That we are living esta situation. As you know, I supported the election of Lance Hinds, Considering That HAD Been exhausted the process properly. What happened after, is history. Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman, it would be desirable to conduct the election process of the LACRALO ALAC member again. What I would ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is That They Establish the rules That will run the election process in a very clear manner and, of course, a priori.For example, the following questions Come to my mind: 1. When will the call for nominations begin? 2. When will the call for nominations close? 3. What are the eligibility criteria? 4. What will be the time to listen to the candidates' SOIs? 5. Will there be a debate? 6.When will the vote take place? 7. If there is only one nomination there will still be a vote? 8. If there are multiple nominations, how candidates will be shortlisted? 9. Will there be a single round of voting? 10. Will there be several voting round Until there are only two candidates left? 11. How will the winning candidate Be Determined? Will it be Determined by majority of votes from ALS Those voting? Will it be Determined by majority of votes of all certified ALS? Will abstentions count? 12. Would it be convenient to think of an Electoral Committee? We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin, Where The Elected candidate will begin his / her term, is around the corner. I urged our President and Secretary to Establish the rules, open the call for nominations and continue to carry the voting process. Greetings, Best regards Lion The 08/04/2015, at 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com <mailto:aidanoblia@gmail.com> > He wrote: If I interpret, understand that its two clear and appropriate proposals. I agree with them because they solve this situation and seek to resolve in the future to again the problem does not occur. 1.To promote the change of the current rule to a clear rule that removes the complication that was generated in this opportunity: For example if there is a single candidate and the deadline did not show other, nor were objections: that it gives. Without survey. Personally I think the clearest and simplest solution. 2. Since the event that already occurred: the survey was done and gave the results to solve this case already given: making new election. It seems reasonable to get by now to move forward on other issues of great importance. Greetings to all 08/04/2015 11:06 GMT-03: 00 <crg(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> >: [[Translated text (en -> en) -]] Subject: Re: Rule 11.2 From: crg(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Dear members of LACRALO, I hope we can have a reasonable feedback from all members Opinion of the Ombudsman, in particular its final recommendations you give "In this case I am aware that is not criticism of the decision to hold a survey with a number considering that the spear Hinds It must be selected by virtue of being the only candidate without the need for a survey. Looking ahead, it would be useful to have a consensus view on whether the rules should be amended to provide this specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a candidate, the process would be fair rerun election, and that's my recommendation. " Sincerely Carlos Raul Gutierrez +506 8837 7176 <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> Skype: carlos.raulg On August 3, 2015, at 15:55, Chris LaHatte wrote: > Members of LACRALO will be aware that I have been asked to look at the > election process to give my view as to whether this has been a fair > procedure. As the ICANN ombudsman it is part of my mandate to look at > matters of unfairness within the ICANN community, which therefore > includes an involvement where a process has taken place, and where I > receive a complaint of unfairness. > > The process for nomination as the LACRALO representative for the > period 2015 Ã¢â¬â 2017 began with the 30 April announcement of the call > for nominations, and for statements by anyone nominated. The > nomination period lasted from 30 April to the 9th May, and during that > period Lance Hinds was nominated by Jose Francisco Arce. There were no > other nominations. The timetable would have included an election > period if there were other candidates, but as no other nominations > were received, an announcement was made that Lance Hinds was elected > by acclamation. However some members of LACRALO expressed concern that > because there was only one nominee, that previous precedent required > that there had to be a poll to certify that the majority of the ALS > supported the sole nomination. > > On 20 July there was a scheduled LACRALO conference call, where it was > suggested that Lance Hinds was not eligible because it was alleged > that he had participation in businesses which created a conflict of > interest. Lance has asserted strongly that while he does own a small > software development company, and is the president of a local business > support organisation (a volunteer position) that he had no conflict. > He asserted neither of those interests had anything to do with ICANN > policy development. Normally this should be decided by the election > process rather than a poll subsequently held. > > The next step was that the poll took place and staff announced the > results based on the process announced by Humberto and Alberto, which > were 21 against, 19 in favour and 3 abstentions. The abstentions were > not counted. Accordingly the LACRALO chair and secretary declared that > the results meant that there had to be a new election. > > I have spoken to some, but unfortunately have not had time to talk to > all of the interested parties. I express regret that in a volunteer > organisation, there appeared to be attempts to silo categories of > persons eligible, when there are clearly only a limited number of > people with the enthusiasm and time, especially in smaller countries. > > It has been said to me that particularly in the Caribbean, there are > only a small number of people who have the qualifications and ability > to serve, and that they will often wear several different hats. In my > view it would be a great pity to try to exclude enthusiastic > volunteers, but of course there is an election process to properly > canvass those issues. > > > In general, when there is an election process which has been > challenged, the fairest way to proceed is to rerun the process. There > is also an issue of perceived fairness. Even if the process was run > correctly, if there are strong views about the process, then an open > and transparent procedure calling a further election would answer any > issues of perceived unfairness, as the parties can then go into the > second process fully aware of the issues. > > In this case I am conscious that there is criticism of the decision to > hold a poll, with a number considering that Lance Hinds should have > been selected by virtue of being the sole nominee, without the need > for a poll. Looking forward, it would be valuable to have a consensus > view on whether the rules should be amended to provide for this > specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a > candidate, the fair process would be to rerun the election, and that > is my recommendation. > > I am available to discuss this further if needed and invite anyone to > contact me, in confidence if necessary. > > > > Chris LaHatte > Ombudsman > Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ > Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman > > > Confidentiality > All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as > confidential. > The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to > preserve the > privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the > complaint > being investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall only make > inquiries > about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity > of, a > complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The > Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if > staff > and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a > complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such > information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a > complaint > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/95b01385b6.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Rule 11.2 From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Dear, they are placing parameters that must leave the interview applicants and not be placed as requirements in the call to vote. We do not have metrics to place as seniority and participation requirements and degrees of knowledge of the region and issues of ALAC. Best regards Alberto Soto From: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On behalf of carlosaguirre62 Posted on: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 9:12 pm To: Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> ; Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> CC: <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org><lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2 Felipe totally agree with you. I think devemos very strict criteria rn in order not to interpret anything and has no doubts as to why so surely also be determined within these eligibility criteria, which will be the parameters of old and participation of the candidate. And what is the degree of knowledge of the region and the issues that ALAC has in agenda. 0.02 -------- Original Message -------- From: Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambía Date: 4/8/2015 8:59 PM (GMT-03: 00) To: Aida Noblia Cc: "" Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2 ==== ====== Inglés after Spanish version Dear friends, I deeply regret that we are living this situation. As you know, I supported the election of Lance Hinds, considering that the process had been exhausted properly. What happened then is history. Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman would be desirable to conduct the election process to LACRALO ALAC member again. What I would ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is that, in any event, to establish, clearly and a priori, the rules that apply to the election, ie: 1. When a call for nominations will open? 2. When the call for nominations will be closed? 3. What are the eligibility criteria? 4. What will be the time to listen to the SOI candidates? 5. Will there be a debate? 6. When will the vote take place? 7. If there is only one nomination was also vote? 8. If there are multiple nominations, candidates will be eliminated? 9. Will there be a single round of voting? 10. How many will be subtracted until only two candidates? 11. How the elected candidate will be appointed? Is it because most ALS vote? Is it because most currently certified ALS? Do abstentions are counted? 12. It is convenient to think of an Election Committee? We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin, where he will begin his term at the end whoever is elected, is to turn the corner. I make an urgent call to our President and Secretary to establish the rules, open the call and continue the reset procedure of choice. Inglés version ============ ===== Dear friends, I deeply regret That we are living esta situation. As you know, I supported the election of Lance Hinds, Considering That HAD Been exhausted the process properly. What happened after, is history. Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman, it would be desirable to conduct the election process of the LACRALO ALAC member again. What I would ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is That They Establish the rules That will run the election process in a very clear manner and, of course, a priori. For example, the following questions Come to my mind: 1. When will the call for nominations begin? 2. When will the call for nominations close? 3. What are the eligibility criteria? 4. What will be the time to listen to the candidates' SOIs? 5. Will there be a debate? 6.When will the vote take place? 7. If there is only one nomination there will still be a vote? 8. If there are multiple nominations, how candidates will be shortlisted? 9. Will there be a single round of voting? 10. Will there be several voting round Until there are only two candidates left? 11. How will the winning candidate Be Determined? Will it be Determined by majority of votes from ALS Those voting? Will it be Determined by majority of votes of all certified ALS? Will abstentions count? 12. Would it be convenient to think of an Electoral Committee? We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin, Where The Elected candidate will begin his / her term, is around the corner. I urged our President and Secretary to Establish the rules, open the call for nominations and continue to carry the voting process. Greetings, Best regards Lion The 08/04/2015, at 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com <mailto:aidanoblia@gmail.com> > He wrote: If I interpret, understand that its two clear and appropriate proposals. I agree with them because they solve this situation and seek to resolve in the future to again the problem does not occur. 1. promote the change of the current rule to a clear rule that removes the complication that was generated in this opportunity: For example if there is a single candidate and the deadline did not show other, nor were objections: that it gives. Without survey. Personally I think the clearest and simplest solution. 2.Since the event has already occurred: the survey was done and gave the result to solve this case already given: do new election. It seems reasonable to get by now to move forward on other issues of great importance. Greetings to all 08/04/2015 11:06 GMT-03: 00 <crg(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> >: [[Translated text (en -> en) -]] Subject: Re: Rule 11.2 From: crg(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Dear members of LACRALO, I hope we can have a reasonable feedback from all members Opinion of the Ombudsman, in particular its final recommendations you give "In this case I am aware that is not criticism of the decision to hold a survey with a number considering that the spear Hinds It must be selected by virtue of being the only candidate without the need for a survey. Looking ahead, it would be useful to have a consensus view on whether the rules should be amended to provide this specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a candidate, the process would be fair rerun election, and that's my recommendation. " Sincerely Carlos Raul Gutierrez +506 8837 7176 <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> Skype: carlos.raulg On August 3, 2015, at 15:55, Chris LaHatte wrote: > Members of LACRALO will be aware that I have been asked to look at the > election process to give my view as to whether this has been a fair > procedure. As the ICANN ombudsman it is part of my mandate to look at > matters of unfairness within the ICANN community, which therefore > includes an involvement where a process has taken place, and where I > receive a complaint of unfairness. > > The process for nomination as the LACRALO representative for the > period 2015 Ã¢â¬â 2017 began with the 30 April announcement of the call > for nominations, and for statements by anyone nominated. The > nomination period lasted from 30 April to the 9th May, and during that > period Lance Hinds was nominated by Jose Francisco Arce. There were no > other nominations. The timetable would have included an election > period if there were other candidates, but as no other nominations > were received, an announcement was made that Lance Hinds was elected > by acclamation. However some members of LACRALO expressed concern that > because there was only one nominee, that previous precedent required > that there had to be a poll to certify that the majority of the ALS > supported the sole nomination. > > On 20 July there was a scheduled LACRALO conference call, where it was > suggested that Lance Hinds was not eligible because it was alleged > that he had participation in businesses which created a conflict of > interest. Lance has asserted strongly that while he does own a small > software development company, and is the president of a local business > support organisation (a volunteer position) that he had no conflict. > He asserted neither of those interests had anything to do with ICANN > policy development. Normally this should be decided by the election > process rather than a poll subsequently held. > > The next step was that the poll took place and staff announced the > results based on the process announced by Humberto and Alberto, which > were 21 against, 19 in favour and 3 abstentions. The abstentions were > not counted. Accordingly the LACRALO chair and secretary declared that > the results meant that there had to be a new election. > > I have spoken to some, but unfortunately have not had time to talk to > all of the interested parties. I express regret that in a volunteer > organisation, there appeared to be attempts to silo categories of > persons eligible, when there are clearly only a limited number of > people with the enthusiasm and time, especially in smaller countries. > > It has been said to me that particularly in the Caribbean, there are > only a small number of people who have the qualifications and ability > to serve, and that they will often wear several different hats. In my > view it would be a great pity to try to exclude enthusiastic > volunteers, but of course there is an election process to properly > canvass those issues. > > > In general, when there is an election process which has been > challenged, the fairest way to proceed is to rerun the process. There > is also an issue of perceived fairness. Even if the process was run > correctly, if there are strong views about the process, then an open > and transparent procedure calling a further election would answer any > issues of perceived unfairness, as the parties can then go into the > second process fully aware of the issues. > > In this case I am conscious that there is criticism of the decision to > hold a poll, with a number considering that Lance Hinds should have > been selected by virtue of being the sole nominee, without the need > for a poll. Looking forward, it would be valuable to have a consensus > view on whether the rules should be amended to provide for this > specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a > candidate, the fair process would be to rerun the election, and that > is my recommendation. > > I am available to discuss this further if needed and invite anyone to > contact me, in confidence if necessary. > > > > Chris LaHatte > Ombudsman > Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ > Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman > > > Confidentiality > All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as > confidential. > The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to > preserve the > privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the > complaint > being investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall only make > inquiries > about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity > of, a > complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The > Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if > staff > and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a > complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such > information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a > complaint > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/9c097a4167.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2
by carlosaguirre62＠hotmail.com Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Rule 11.2 From: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com Felipe totally agree with you. I think devemos very strict criteria rn in order not to interpret anything and has no doubts as to why so surely also be determined within these eligibility criteria, which will be the parameters of old and participation of the candidate. And what is the degree of knowledge of the region and the issues that ALAC has in agenda. 0.02 <div> -------- Original Message -------- </div><div> From: Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx></div><div> Date: 4/8/2015 8:59 PM (GMT-03: 00) </div><div> To: Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com></div><div> Cc: " <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> " <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org></div><div> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2 </div><div> </div> ==== ====== Inglés after Spanish version Dear friends, I deeply regret that we are living this situation. As you know, I supported the election of Lance Hinds, considering that the process had been exhausted properly. What happened then is history. Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman would be desirable to conduct the election process to LACRALO ALAC member again. What I would ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is that, in any event, to establish, clearly and a priori, the rules that apply to the election, ie: 1. When a call for nominations will open? 2. When the call for nominations will be closed? 3. What are the eligibility criteria? 4. What will be the time to listen to the SOI candidates? 5. Will there be a debate? 6. When will the vote take place? 7. If there is only one nomination was also vote? 8. If there are multiple nominations, candidates will be eliminated? 9. Will there be a single round of voting? 10.¿Will be until several subtract only two candidates? 11. How the elected candidate will be appointed? Is it because most ALS vote? Is it because most currently certified ALS? Do abstentions are counted? 12. It is convenient to think of an Election Committee? We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin, where he will begin his term at the end whoever is elected, is to turn the corner. I make an urgent call to our President and Secretary to establish the rules, open the call and continue the reset procedure of choice. Inglés version ============ ===== Dear friends, I deeply regret That we are living esta situation. As you know, I supported the election of Lance Hinds, Considering That HAD Been exhausted the process properly. What happened after, is history. Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman, it would be desirable to conduct the election process of the LACRALO ALAC member again.What I would ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is That They Establish the rules That will run the election process in a very clear manner and, of course, a priori. For example, the following questions Come to my mind: 1. When will the call for nominations begin? 2. When will the call for nominations close? 3. What are the eligibility criteria? 4. What will be the time to listen to the candidates' SOIs? 5. Will there be a debate? 6.When will the vote take place? 7. If there is only one nomination there will still be a vote? 8. If there are multiple nominations, how candidates will be shortlisted? 9. Will there be a single round of voting? 10. Will there be several voting round Until there are only two candidates left? 11. How will the winning candidate Be Determined? Will it be Determined by majority of votes from ALS Those voting? Will it be Determined by majority of votes of all certified ALS? Will abstentions count? 12. Would it be convenient to think of an Electoral Committee? We have very little time to carry out this process.The meeting in Dublin, Where The Elected candidate will begin his / her term, is around the corner. I urged our President and Secretary to Establish the rules, open the call for nominations and continue to carry the voting process. Greetings, Best regards Lion > El 04/08/2015, a las 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> escribiÃ³: > > Si mal no interpreto, entiendo que sus dos propuestas claras y adecuadas. > > Estoy de acuerdo con ellas porque resuelven la situaciÃ³n presente y buscan resolver a futuro para que no ocurra otra vez el problema. > > 1. La de promover el cambio de la regla actual a una regla clara, que elimine la complicaciÃ³n que se generÃ³ en esta oportunidad : > > Por ejemplo si hay un solo candidato y dentro del plazo establecido no se presentÃ³ otro, ni hubo objeciones: ese que da. Sin necesidad de encuesta. > > Personalmente me parece la soluciÃ³n mÃ¡s clara y sencilla. > > 2. Dado el caso de que ya ocurriÃ³: se hizo la encuesta y dio el resultado para resolver este caso que ya estÃ¡ dada: hacer nueva elecciÃ³n. > > Parece razonable para salir del paso ahora y poder avanzar en otros temas de gran importancia. > > Saludos a todos > > > > 2015-08-04 11:06 GMT-03:00 <crg(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>>: > > [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] > > Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2 > De: crg(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> > > Queridos miembros de LACRALO, > > > Espero que podamos tener una retroalimentaciÃ³n razonable de todos los miembros de la > OpiniÃ³n del Defensor del Pueblo, en particular sus recomendaciones finales > das > "En este caso soy consciente de que no es la crÃtica de la > decisiÃ³n de celebrar una encuesta, con un nÃºmero teniendo en cuenta que la lanza Hinds > debe haber sido seleccionados por el hecho de ser el Ãºnico candidato, sin > la necesidad de una encuesta. Mirando hacia el futuro, serÃa Ãºtil tener un > opiniÃ³n de consenso sobre si las normas deben modificarse para prever > esto especÃficamente. Pero en una situaciÃ³n en la que ha habido un voto > en contra de un candidato, el proceso justo serÃa volver a ejecutar la elecciÃ³n, > y esa es mi recomendaciÃ³n ". > > > Atentamente > > > Carlos RaÃºl GutiÃ©rrez > +506 8837 7176 <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> > Skype: carlos.raulg > El 03 de agosto 2015, a las 15:55, Chris LaHatte escribiÃ³: > > > > Members of LACRALO will be aware that I have been asked to look at the > > election process to give my view as to whether this has been a fair > > procedure. As the ICANN ombudsman it is part of my mandate to look at > > matters of unfairness within the ICANN community, which therefore > > includes an involvement where a process has taken place, and where I > > receive a complaint of unfairness. > > > > The process for nomination as the LACRALO representative for the > > period 2015 Ã¢â¬â 2017 began with the 30 April announcement of the call > > for nominations, and for statements by anyone nominated. The > > nomination period lasted from 30 April to the 9th May, and during that > > period Lance Hinds was nominated by Jose Francisco Arce. There were no > > other nominations. The timetable would have included an election > > period if there were other candidates, but as no other nominations > > were received, an announcement was made that Lance Hinds was elected > > by acclamation. However some members of LACRALO expressed concern that > > because there was only one nominee, that previous precedent required > > that there had to be a poll to certify that the majority of the ALS > > supported the sole nomination. > > > > On 20 July there was a scheduled LACRALO conference call, where it was > > suggested that Lance Hinds was not eligible because it was alleged > > that he had participation in businesses which created a conflict of > > interest. Lance has asserted strongly that while he does own a small > > software development company, and is the president of a local business > > support organisation (a volunteer position) that he had no conflict. > > He asserted neither of those interests had anything to do with ICANN > > policy development. Normally this should be decided by the election > > process rather than a poll subsequently held. > > > > The next step was that the poll took place and staff announced the > > results based on the process announced by Humberto and Alberto, which > > were 21 against, 19 in favour and 3 abstentions. The abstentions were > > not counted. Accordingly the LACRALO chair and secretary declared that > > the results meant that there had to be a new election. > > > > I have spoken to some, but unfortunately have not had time to talk to > > all of the interested parties. I express regret that in a volunteer > > organisation, there appeared to be attempts to silo categories of > > persons eligible, when there are clearly only a limited number of > > people with the enthusiasm and time, especially in smaller countries. > > > > It has been said to me that particularly in the Caribbean, there are > > only a small number of people who have the qualifications and ability > > to serve, and that they will often wear several different hats. In my > > view it would be a great pity to try to exclude enthusiastic > > volunteers, but of course there is an election process to properly > > canvass those issues. > > > > > > In general, when there is an election process which has been > > challenged, the fairest way to proceed is to rerun the process. There > > is also an issue of perceived fairness. Even if the process was run > > correctly, if there are strong views about the process, then an open > > and transparent procedure calling a further election would answer any > > issues of perceived unfairness, as the parties can then go into the > > second process fully aware of the issues. > > > > In this case I am conscious that there is criticism of the decision to > > hold a poll, with a number considering that Lance Hinds should have > > been selected by virtue of being the sole nominee, without the need > > for a poll. Looking forward, it would be valuable to have a consensus > > view on whether the rules should be amended to provide for this > > specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a > > candidate, the fair process would be to rerun the election, and that > > is my recommendation. > > > > I am available to discuss this further if needed and invite anyone to > > contact me, in confidence if necessary. > > > > > > > > Chris LaHatte > > Ombudsman > > Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ <https://omblog.icann.org/> > > Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman <http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman> > > > > > > Confidentiality > > All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as > > confidential. > > The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to > > preserve the > > privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the > > complaint > > being investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall only make > > inquiries > > about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity > > of, a > > complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The > > Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if > > staff > > and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a > > complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such > > information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a > > complaint > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lac-discuss-en mailing list > > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en> > lac-discuss-en lista de correo > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en> > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/98ac3f4146.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2
by amedinagomez＠gmail.com Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Rule 11.2 From: amedinagomez(a)gmail.com Leon thank you very much for this successful and substantive intervention The 08/04/2015 18:59, "Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambía" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: > ====English after Spanish version====== > > > Queridos amigos, > > Lamento mucho que estemos viviendo esta situaciÃ³n. Como saben, apoyÃ© la > elecciÃ³n de Lance Hinds por considerar que el proceso se habÃa agotado de > manera adecuada. Lo sucedido despuÃ©s, es historia. > > Atendiendo a la recomendaciÃ³n del Ombudsman, serÃa deseable llevar a cabo > el proceso de elecciÃ³n del ALAC member para LACRALO nuevamente. Lo que > pedirÃa al Presidente y Secretario de LACRALO es que, en todo caso, > establezcan, claramente y a priori, las reglas que se aplicarÃ¡n a la > elecciÃ³n, es decir: > > 1. Â¿Cuando se abrirÃ¡ la convocatoria para nominaciones? > 2. Â¿Cuando se cerrarÃ¡ la convocatoria para nominaciones? > 3. Â¿Cuales serÃ¡n los criterios de elegibilidad? > 4. Â¿CuÃ¡l serÃ¡ el perÃodo para escuchar los SOI de los candidatos? > 5. Â¿ExistirÃ¡ un debate? > 6. Â¿Cuando se llevarÃ¡ a cabo la votaciÃ³n? > 7. Â¿Si hay una sola nominaciÃ³n se votarÃ¡ igualmente? > 8. Â¿Si hay varias nominaciones, cÃ³mo se eliminarÃ¡n candidatos? > 9. Â¿HabrÃ¡ una sola vuelta de votaciÃ³n? > 10. Â¿SerÃ¡n varias hasta que resten Ãºnicamente dos candidatos? > 11. Â¿cÃ³mo se designarÃ¡ al candidato electo?Â¿SerÃ¡ por mayorÃa de las ALS > que voten? Â¿SerÃ¡ por mayorÃa de las ALS certificadas actualmente? Â¿Las > abstenciones se contarÃ¡n? > 12. Â¿Es conveniente pensar en un ComitÃ© Electoral? > > Tenemos muy poco tiempo para llevar a cabo este proceso. La reuniÃ³n de > Dublin, donde al finalizar deberÃ¡ iniciar su perÃodo quien resulte electo, > estÃ¡ al vuelta de la esquina. > > Hago un llamado urgente a nuestro Presidente y Secretario para que > establezcan las reglas, abran la convocatoria y continÃºen el procedimiento > de reposiciÃ³n de elecciÃ³n. > > =====English version============ > > Dear friends, > > I deeply regret that we are living this situation. As you know, I > supported the election of Lance Hinds, considering that the process had > been exhausted properly. What happened after, is history. > > Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman, it would be desirable to > conduct the election process of the LACRALO ALAC member again. What I would > ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is that they establish the rules > that will run the election process in a very clear manner and, of course, a > priori. For example, the following questions come to my mind: > > 1. When will the call for nominations begin? > 2. When will the call for nominations close? > 3. What are the eligibility criteria? > 4. What will be the time to listen to the candidatesâ SOIs? > 5. Will there be a debate? > 6.When will the vote take place? > 7. If there is only one nomination will there still be a vote? > 8. If there are multiple nominations, how will candidates be shortlisted? > 9. Will there be a single round of voting? > 10. Will there be several voting round until there are only two candidates > left? > 11. How will the winning candidate be determined? Will it be determined by > majority of votes from those ALSs voting? Will it be determined by majority > of votes of all certified ALSs? Will abstentions count? > 12. Would it be convenient to think of an Electoral Committee? > > We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin, > where the elected candidate will begin his/her term, is around the corner. > > I urge our President and Secretary to establish the rules, open the call > for nominations and continue to carry the voting process. > > Saludos, Best regards > > > > LeÃ³n > > El 04/08/2015, a las 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> escribiÃ³: > > Si mal no interpreto, entiendo que sus dos propuestas claras y adecuadas. > > > Estoy de acuerdo con ellas porque resuelven la situaciÃ³n presente y buscan > resolver a futuro para que no ocurra otra vez el problema. > > 1. La de promover el cambio de la regla actual a una regla clara, que > elimine la complicaciÃ³n que se generÃ³ en esta oportunidad : > > Por ejemplo si hay un solo candidato y dentro del plazo establecido no se > presentÃ³ otro, ni hubo objeciones: ese que da. Sin necesidad de encuesta. > > Personalmente me parece la soluciÃ³n mÃ¡s clara y sencilla. > > 2. Dado el caso de que ya ocurriÃ³: se hizo la encuesta y dio el resultado > para resolver este caso que ya estÃ¡ dada: hacer nueva elecciÃ³n. > > Parece razonable para salir del paso ahora y poder avanzar en otros temas > de gran importancia. > > Saludos a todos > > > > 2015-08-04 11:06 GMT-03:00 <crg(a)isoc-cr.org>: > >> >> [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] >> >> Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2 >> De: crg(a)isoc-cr.org >> >> Queridos miembros de LACRALO, >> >> >> Espero que podamos tener una retroalimentaciÃ³n razonable de todos los >> miembros de la >> OpiniÃ³n del Defensor del Pueblo, en particular sus recomendaciones >> finales >> das >> "En este caso soy consciente de que no es la crÃtica de la >> decisiÃ³n de celebrar una encuesta, con un nÃºmero teniendo en cuenta que >> la lanza Hinds >> debe haber sido seleccionados por el hecho de ser el Ãºnico candidato, sin >> la necesidad de una encuesta. Mirando hacia el futuro, serÃa Ãºtil tener >> un >> opiniÃ³n de consenso sobre si las normas deben modificarse para prever >> esto especÃficamente. Pero en una situaciÃ³n en la que ha habido un voto >> en contra de un candidato, el proceso justo serÃa volver a ejecutar la >> elecciÃ³n, >> y esa es mi recomendaciÃ³n ". >> >> >> Atentamente >> >> >> Carlos RaÃºl GutiÃ©rrez >> +506 8837 7176 >> Skype: carlos.raulg >> El 03 de agosto 2015, a las 15:55, Chris LaHatte escribiÃ³: >> >> >> > Members of LACRALO will be aware that I have been asked to look at the >> > election process to give my view as to whether this has been a fair >> > procedure. As the ICANN ombudsman it is part of my mandate to look at >> > matters of unfairness within the ICANN community, which therefore >> > includes an involvement where a process has taken place, and where I >> > receive a complaint of unfairness. >> > >> > The process for nomination as the LACRALO representative for the >> > period 2015 Ã¢â¬â 2017 began with the 30 April announcement of the call >> > for nominations, and for statements by anyone nominated. The >> > nomination period lasted from 30 April to the 9th May, and during that >> > period Lance Hinds was nominated by Jose Francisco Arce. There were no >> > other nominations. The timetable would have included an election >> > period if there were other candidates, but as no other nominations >> > were received, an announcement was made that Lance Hinds was elected >> > by acclamation. However some members of LACRALO expressed concern that >> > because there was only one nominee, that previous precedent required >> > that there had to be a poll to certify that the majority of the ALS >> > supported the sole nomination. >> > >> > On 20 July there was a scheduled LACRALO conference call, where it was >> > suggested that Lance Hinds was not eligible because it was alleged >> > that he had participation in businesses which created a conflict of >> > interest. Lance has asserted strongly that while he does own a small >> > software development company, and is the president of a local business >> > support organisation (a volunteer position) that he had no conflict. >> > He asserted neither of those interests had anything to do with ICANN >> > policy development. Normally this should be decided by the election >> > process rather than a poll subsequently held. >> > >> > The next step was that the poll took place and staff announced the >> > results based on the process announced by Humberto and Alberto, which >> > were 21 against, 19 in favour and 3 abstentions. The abstentions were >> > not counted. Accordingly the LACRALO chair and secretary declared that >> > the results meant that there had to be a new election. >> > >> > I have spoken to some, but unfortunately have not had time to talk to >> > all of the interested parties. I express regret that in a volunteer >> > organisation, there appeared to be attempts to silo categories of >> > persons eligible, when there are clearly only a limited number of >> > people with the enthusiasm and time, especially in smaller countries. >> > >> > It has been said to me that particularly in the Caribbean, there are >> > only a small number of people who have the qualifications and ability >> > to serve, and that they will often wear several different hats. In my >> > view it would be a great pity to try to exclude enthusiastic >> > volunteers, but of course there is an election process to properly >> > canvass those issues. >> > >> > >> > In general, when there is an election process which has been >> > challenged, the fairest way to proceed is to rerun the process. There >> > is also an issue of perceived fairness. Even if the process was run >> > correctly, if there are strong views about the process, then an open >> > and transparent procedure calling a further election would answer any >> > issues of perceived unfairness, as the parties can then go into the >> > second process fully aware of the issues. >> > >> > In this case I am conscious that there is criticism of the decision to >> > hold a poll, with a number considering that Lance Hinds should have >> > been selected by virtue of being the sole nominee, without the need >> > for a poll. Looking forward, it would be valuable to have a consensus >> > view on whether the rules should be amended to provide for this >> > specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a >> > candidate, the fair process would be to rerun the election, and that >> > is my recommendation. >> > >> > I am available to discuss this further if needed and invite anyone to >> > contact me, in confidence if necessary. >> > >> > >> > >> > Chris LaHatte >> > Ombudsman >> > Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ >> > Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman >> > >> > >> > Confidentiality >> > All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as >> > confidential. >> > The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to >> > preserve the >> > privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the >> > complaint >> > being investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall only make >> > inquiries >> > about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity >> > of, a >> > complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The >> > Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if >> > staff >> > and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a >> > complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such >> > information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a >> > complaint >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > lac-discuss-en mailing list >> > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en >> lac-discuss-en lista de correo >> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en >> >> >> [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/ac1f42aab8.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Rule 11.2 From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Dear Leon and all. Sure we all regret this situation. We are working with the staff to begin the voting process, which if completed with translations and explanations tonight or tomorrow decamp. We believe that all questions are covered. The electoral committee and the necessary changes to our rules, will be treated after they are approved, I hope soon, metrics and procedures that are opening up to your last comment period (still in the process of correcting translation). Best regards Alberto Soto From: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On behalf of Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambía Posted on: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 8:58 pm To: Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> CC: <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org><lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2 ==== ====== Inglés after Spanish version Dear friends, I deeply regret that we are living this situation. As you know, I supported the election of Lance Hinds, considering that the process had been exhausted properly. What happened then is history. Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman would be desirable to conduct the election process to LACRALO ALAC member again.What I would ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is that, in any event, to establish, clearly and a priori, the rules that apply to the election, ie: 1. When a call for nominations will open? 2. When the call for nominations will be closed? 3. What are the eligibility criteria? 4. What will be the time to listen to the SOI candidates? 5. Will there be a debate? 6. When will the vote take place? 7. If there is only one nomination was also vote? 8. If there are multiple nominations, candidates will be eliminated? 9. Will there be a single round of voting? 10. How many will be subtracted until only two candidates? 11. How the elected candidate will be appointed? Is it because most ALS vote? Is it because most currently certified ALS?Do abstentions are counted? 12. It is convenient to think of an Election Committee? We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin, where he will begin his term at the end whoever is elected, is to turn the corner. I make an urgent call to our President and Secretary to establish the rules, open the call and continue the reset procedure of choice. Inglés version ============ ===== Dear friends, I deeply regret That we are living esta situation. As you know, I supported the election of Lance Hinds, Considering That HAD Been exhausted the process properly. What happened after, is history. Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman, it would be desirable to conduct the election process of the LACRALO ALAC member again.What I would ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is That They Establish the rules That will run the election process in a very clear manner and, of course, a priori. For example, the following questions Come to my mind: 1. When will the call for nominations begin? 2. When will the call for nominations close? 3. What are the eligibility criteria? 4. What will be the time to listen to the candidates' SOIs? 5. Will there be a debate? 6.When will the vote take place? 7. If there is only one nomination there will still be a vote? 8. If there are multiple nominations, how candidates will be shortlisted? 9. Will there be a single round of voting? 10. Will there be several voting round Until there are only two candidates left? 11. How will the winning candidate Be Determined? Will it be Determined by majority of votes from ALS Those voting? Will it be Determined by majority of votes of all certified ALS?Will abstentions count? 12. Would it be convenient to think of an Electoral Committee? We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin, Where The Elected candidate will begin his / her term, is around the corner. I urged our President and Secretary to Establish the rules, open the call for nominations and continue to carry the voting process. Greetings, Best regards Lion The 08/04/2015, at 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com <mailto:aidanoblia@gmail.com> > He wrote: If I interpret, understand that its two clear and appropriate proposals. I agree with them because they solve this situation and seek to resolve in the future to again the problem does not occur. 1. promote the change of the current rule to a clear rule that removes the complication that was generated in this opportunity: For example if there is a single candidate and the deadline did not show other, nor were objections: that it gives. Without survey. Personally I think the clearest and simplest solution. 2. Since the event that already occurred: the survey was done and gave the results to solve this case already given: making new election. It seems reasonable to get by now to move forward on other issues of great importance. Greetings to all 08/04/2015 11:06 GMT-03: 00 <crg(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> >: [[Translated text (en -> en) -]] Subject: Re: Rule 11.2 From: crg(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Dear members of LACRALO, I hope we can have a reasonable feedback from all members Opinion of the Ombudsman, in particular its final recommendations you give "In this case I am aware that is not criticism of the decision to hold a survey with a number considering that the spear Hinds It must be selected by virtue of being the only candidate without the need for a survey. Looking ahead, it would be useful to have a consensus view on whether the rules should be amended to provide this specifically.But in a situation where there has been a vote against a candidate, the process would be fair rerun election, and that's my recommendation. " Sincerely Carlos Raul Gutierrez +506 8837 7176 <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> Skype: carlos.raulg On August 3, 2015, at 15:55, Chris LaHatte wrote: > Members of LACRALO will be aware that I have been asked to look at the > election process to give my view as to whether this has been a fair > procedure. As the ICANN ombudsman it is part of my mandate to look at > matters of unfairness within the ICANN community, which therefore > includes an involvement where a process has taken place, and where I > receive a complaint of unfairness. > > The process for nomination as the LACRALO representative for the > period 2015 Ã¢â¬â 2017 began with the 30 April announcement of the call > for nominations, and for statements by anyone nominated. The > nomination period lasted from 30 April to the 9th May, and during that > period Lance Hinds was nominated by Jose Francisco Arce. There were no > other nominations. The timetable would have included an election > period if there were other candidates, but as no other nominations > were received, an announcement was made that Lance Hinds was elected > by acclamation. However some members of LACRALO expressed concern that > because there was only one nominee, that previous precedent required > that there had to be a poll to certify that the majority of the ALS > supported the sole nomination. > > On 20 July there was a scheduled LACRALO conference call, where it was > suggested that Lance Hinds was not eligible because it was alleged > that he had participation in businesses which created a conflict of > interest. Lance has asserted strongly that while he does own a small > software development company, and is the president of a local business > support organisation (a volunteer position) that he had no conflict. > He asserted neither of those interests had anything to do with ICANN > policy development. Normally this should be decided by the election > process rather than a poll subsequently held. > > The next step was that the poll took place and staff announced the > results based on the process announced by Humberto and Alberto, which > were 21 against, 19 in favour and 3 abstentions. The abstentions were > not counted. Accordingly the LACRALO chair and secretary declared that > the results meant that there had to be a new election. > > I have spoken to some, but unfortunately have not had time to talk to > all of the interested parties. I express regret that in a volunteer > organisation, there appeared to be attempts to silo categories of > persons eligible, when there are clearly only a limited number of > people with the enthusiasm and time, especially in smaller countries. > > It has been said to me that particularly in the Caribbean, there are > only a small number of people who have the qualifications and ability > to serve, and that they will often wear several different hats. In my > view it would be a great pity to try to exclude enthusiastic > volunteers, but of course there is an election process to properly > canvass those issues. > > > In general, when there is an election process which has been > challenged, the fairest way to proceed is to rerun the process. There > is also an issue of perceived fairness. Even if the process was run > correctly, if there are strong views about the process, then an open > and transparent procedure calling a further election would answer any > issues of perceived unfairness, as the parties can then go into the > second process fully aware of the issues. > > In this case I am conscious that there is criticism of the decision to > hold a poll, with a number considering that Lance Hinds should have > been selected by virtue of being the sole nominee, without the need > for a poll. Looking forward, it would be valuable to have a consensus > view on whether the rules should be amended to provide for this > specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a > candidate, the fair process would be to rerun the election, and that > is my recommendation. > > I am available to discuss this further if needed and invite anyone to > contact me, in confidence if necessary. > > > > Chris LaHatte > Ombudsman > Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ > Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman > > > Confidentiality > All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as > confidential. > The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to > preserve the > privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the > complaint > being investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall only make > inquiries > about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity > of, a > complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The > Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if > staff > and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a > complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such > information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a > complaint > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/46ea936b2b.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2
by aidanoblia＠gmail.com Aug. 4, 2015

Aug. 4, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Rule 11.2 From: aidanoblia(a)gmail.com If I interpret, understand that its two clear and appropriate proposals. I agree with them because they solve this situation and seek looking to solve again the problem does not occur. 1. promote the change of the current rule to a clear rule, removes the complication that was generated in this opportunity: For example if there is a single candidate and within the prescribed period not He presented another, nor were objections: that it gives. Without survey. Personally I think the clearest and simplest solution. 2. Since the event that already occurred: the survey was done and gave the result to solve this case already given: making new election. It seems reasonable to get by now to move forward on other issues of great importance. Greetings to all 08/04/2015 11:06 GMT-03: 00 <crg(a)isoc-cr.org> : > > [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] > > Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2 > De: crg(a)isoc-cr.org > > Queridos miembros de LACRALO, > > > Espero que podamos tener una retroalimentación razonable de todos los > miembros de la > Opinión del Defensor del Pueblo, en particular sus recomendaciones finales > das > "En este caso soy consciente de que no es la crítica de la > decisión de celebrar una encuesta, con un número teniendo en cuenta que > la lanza Hinds > debe haber sido seleccionados por el hecho de ser el único candidato, sin > la necesidad de una encuesta. Mirando hacia el futuro, sería útil tener un > opinión de consenso sobre si las normas deben modificarse para prever > esto específicamente. Pero en una situación en la que ha habido un voto > en contra de un candidato, el proceso justo sería volver a ejecutar la > elección, > y esa es mi recomendación ". > > > Atentamente > > > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > +506 8837 7176 > Skype: carlos.raulg > El 03 de agosto 2015, a las 15:55, Chris LaHatte escribió: > > > > Members of LACRALO will be aware that I have been asked to look at the > > election process to give my view as to whether this has been a fair > > procedure. As the ICANN ombudsman it is part of my mandate to look at > > matters of unfairness within the ICANN community, which therefore > > includes an involvement where a process has taken place, and where I > > receive a complaint of unfairness. > > > > The process for nomination as the LACRALO representative for the > > period 2015 â€“ 2017 began with the 30 April announcement of the call > > for nominations, and for statements by anyone nominated. The > > nomination period lasted from 30 April to the 9th May, and during that > > period Lance Hinds was nominated by Jose Francisco Arce. There were no > > other nominations. The timetable would have included an election > > period if there were other candidates, but as no other nominations > > were received, an announcement was made that Lance Hinds was elected > > by acclamation. However some members of LACRALO expressed concern that > > because there was only one nominee, that previous precedent required > > that there had to be a poll to certify that the majority of the ALS > > supported the sole nomination. > > > > On 20 July there was a scheduled LACRALO conference call, where it was > > suggested that Lance Hinds was not eligible because it was alleged > > that he had participation in businesses which created a conflict of > > interest. Lance has asserted strongly that while he does own a small > > software development company, and is the president of a local business > > support organisation (a volunteer position) that he had no conflict. > > He asserted neither of those interests had anything to do with ICANN > > policy development. Normally this should be decided by the election > > process rather than a poll subsequently held. > > > > The next step was that the poll took place and staff announced the > > results based on the process announced by Humberto and Alberto, which > > were 21 against, 19 in favour and 3 abstentions. The abstentions were > > not counted. Accordingly the LACRALO chair and secretary declared that > > the results meant that there had to be a new election. > > > > I have spoken to some, but unfortunately have not had time to talk to > > all of the interested parties. I express regret that in a volunteer > > organisation, there appeared to be attempts to silo categories of > > persons eligible, when there are clearly only a limited number of > > people with the enthusiasm and time, especially in smaller countries. > > > > It has been said to me that particularly in the Caribbean, there are > > only a small number of people who have the qualifications and ability > > to serve, and that they will often wear several different hats. In my > > view it would be a great pity to try to exclude enthusiastic > > volunteers, but of course there is an election process to properly > > canvass those issues. > > > > > > In general, when there is an election process which has been > > challenged, the fairest way to proceed is to rerun the process. There > > is also an issue of perceived fairness. Even if the process was run > > correctly, if there are strong views about the process, then an open > > and transparent procedure calling a further election would answer any > > issues of perceived unfairness, as the parties can then go into the > > second process fully aware of the issues. > > > > In this case I am conscious that there is criticism of the decision to > > hold a poll, with a number considering that Lance Hinds should have > > been selected by virtue of being the sole nominee, without the need > > for a poll. Looking forward, it would be valuable to have a consensus > > view on whether the rules should be amended to provide for this > > specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a > > candidate, the fair process would be to rerun the election, and that > > is my recommendation. > > > > I am available to discuss this further if needed and invite anyone to > > contact me, in confidence if necessary. > > > > > > > > Chris LaHatte > > Ombudsman > > Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ > > Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman > > > > > > Confidentiality > > All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as > > confidential. > > The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to > > preserve the > > privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the > > complaint > > being investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall only make > > inquiries > > about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity > > of, a > > complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The > > Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if > > staff > > and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a > > complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such > > information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a > > complaint > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lac-discuss-en mailing list > > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en > lac-discuss-en lista de correo > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/88d7591a0b.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2
by Roosevelt King Aug. 4, 2015

Aug. 4, 2015

Bartlett is correct. ROK -----Original Message----- From: lac-discuss-en-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bartlett Morgan Sent: Wednesday, 29 July 2015 10:31 To: Humberto Carrasco Cc: lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2 Hi Humberto, The controlling phrase in the rule is "in no case less than two weeks". Therefore even in the case of exceptions, that requirement would have to be complied with. I don't think your interpretation is faithful to the plain literal meaning of the rule. $.02 -- Bartlett Morgan Sent from my Cyanogen phone On Jul 29, 2015 9:33 AM, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Dev, > > There is no misunderstanding. > > The rule says "As a general rule", in spanish "Como regla General". This wording means, that there could be some exceptions. We used this exception. > > I explained the reasons before. > > > Regards > > > El 29/07/2015 a las 02:06 p.m., Dev Anand Teelucksingh escribió: >> >> I'll repost Rule 11.2 since there seems to be a misunderstanding. >> >> 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. >> >> 11.2 Como regla general. sólo se tratarán y se someterán a votación las resoluciones o enmiendas que se hayan distribuido con al menos dos semanas de anticipación, a todos los participantes de la Asamblea, en todos los idiomas con los que ésta trabaje. >> >> >> Dev Anand >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> lac-discuss-en mailing list >> >> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en >> > _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

8 16

FW: New Public Comment: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1)
by vanda＠etges.com.br Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: FW: New Public Comment: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1) From: vanda(a)etges.com.br Dear Attention to the new report of the WG on the provision of accounts ICANN. (ICANN Accountability) See below Hugs Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of ICANN Staff Date: Monday, August 3, 2015 at 18:56 To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: [ALAC-Announce] New Public Comment: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1) Dear All, Kindly note That the At-Large Workspace for the following public comment request has-been created: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1). Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/icannatlarge Twitter:ICANNAtLarge _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/db79f5bd5a.html --]]

1 0

FW: [ALAC-Announce] New Public Comment: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1)
by Vanda Scartezini Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

Estimados Atención para el nuevo report del WG sobre prestación de cuentas de ICANN.( ICANN Accountability) Vean abajo Abrazos Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Staff Date: Monday, August 3, 2015 at 18:56 To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: [ALAC-Announce] New Public Comment: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1) Dear All, Kindly note that the At-Large Workspace for the following public comment request has been created: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1). Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/icannatlarge Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization
by cveraq＠gmail.com Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization From: cveraq(a)gmail.com Vanda: if you say "I intend to vote in Please though I personally believe, and HAD Such statement made, That the review itself was really weak and did not touch Relevant several points." It sounds contradictory and the vote should be against? Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sguemecveraq > El 2/8/2015, a las 19:39, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> escribió: > > I intend to vote in favor though I personally believe, and had made such statement, that the review itself was really weak and did not touch several relevant points. [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/6e497ab67c.html --]]

4 6

????????? = Utf-8 q FW = 3A_ = 5BALAC-Announce = 5D_New_Public_C = = utf-8 q omment = 3A_Proposed_ICANN_Bylaws_Amendments = E2 = 80 = B9GNSO_Policy _ = = utf-8 q = 26_Implementation_Recommendations? ? =
by vanda＠etges.com.br Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject:????????? = Utf-8 q FW = 3A_ = 5BALAC-Announce = 5D_New_Public_C = = utf-8 q omment = 3A_Proposed_ICANN_Bylaws_Amendments = E2 = 80 = B9GNSO_Policy _ = = utf-8 q = 26_Implementation_Recommendations? ? = From: vanda(a)etges.com.br Veam the call to give feedback on the changes to the ICANN Bylaws regarding GNSO policy recommendations and implementation. Hugs Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of ICANN Staff Date: Monday, August 3, 2015 at 13:53 To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: [ALAC-Announce] New Public Comment: Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments <GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations Dear All, Kindly note That the At-Large workspace for the following public comment period has-been created: Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments-GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/icannatlarge Twitter:ICANNAtLarge _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/768bc72e9c.html --]]

1 0

FW: [ALAC-Announce] New Public Comment: Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments‹GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations
by Vanda Scartezini Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

Veam la llamada a dar opinion en los cambios de estatutos de ICANN sobre el GNSO relativo a políticas y a implementación de recomendaciones. Abrazos Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Staff Date: Monday, August 3, 2015 at 13:53 To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: [ALAC-Announce] New Public Comment: Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments‹GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations Dear All, Kindly note that the At-Large workspace for the following public comment period has been created: Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/icannatlarge Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

Much of the focus of the rules outlined here are on metrics and enforcement. That will probably not be a major focus of the Task Force. Regardless, RALOs can generally set their own rules and expectations over and above those set by the ALAC. The major requirements are that they be reasonable given the potential ALS audience, that they are documented clearly, and that they are enforced fairly and uniformly. Alan At 03/08/2015 09:00 AM, Jacqueline Morris wrote: >As you insist, of course this will be passed on as >relevant. Unfortunately, it being a working group of ALL RALOs and >not just LACRALO, I cannot say that the rest of the group will >agree with the LACRALO viewpoint. This is, after all, a WG to create >criteria to be applied globally. >And of course, I am thrilled that other members of LACRALO will be >participating and following the work. >Jacqueline >On 2 Aug 2015 23:15, <<mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com>jumaropi(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] > > Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = > - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > From: <mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com>jumaropi(a)yahoo.com > > Alejandro thanks for that reminder. We will be watching. > We insist on it. > Cordially > > > Sent from my Huawei Mobile > > > Alejandro Pisanty <<mailto:apisanty@gmail.com>apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Juan Manuel, answered with a copy to the list, because your > question is relevant to the community: > > > > > > June 24 I expressed what I reproduce below. In the course of 24 > hours (25 June) we met the consensus of Carlton Samuels, Jacqueline > Morris, Sergio Salinas, and several others. Goes: > > > > > > "Today at the monthly meeting face (f2) we held a brief > discussion on metrics. > > > > > > Subject to this discussion back to his place in a working group, > I think it worthwhile to make clear what the objective metrics.This > is well understood in the community, and those who say they do not > self-interest to distort the discussion. > > > > > > What we need is accountability and transparency among ourselves. > Individuals and organizations working activametne must be > identified. Organizations and individuals that do not contribute or > participate must decide whether they will participate or no longer > counted. And there's a middle ground and representatives of > organizations who find it difficult to participate but have the > will to do so. Among these there are many types of situations: a > representative who is sick or has to spend time with family or work > that sustains; a policy change or mandate; and many more circumstances. > > > > > > A good metric system would be simple, transparent, predictable, > and difficult to counterfeit.Would make a "triage", ie, would quite > clear what organizations 5-10 regularly participate and contribute, > the 20 that are practically abandoned, and an intermediate strip of > 10 or 15 with which we must work in hopes that recover their > participation or leave the organization voluntarily or by way of > the decertification. This assumes cycles of renewal of > certificates, which must institute. > > > > > > There is a classification of units that can help us further in > this process: > > > > > > 1. Regular and consistent participation in all activities and > contribution to substantive policy issues. Their proposals are > incorporated in resolutions of LACRALO and impact on policies and ICANN ALAC. > > > > > > 2. sporadic participation and / or dedicated to issues > Reglaments procedure formats agreements but not their contents, etc. > > > > > > 3.sporadic, little focus, and fundamentally conducive to "make > presence" for elections and selection processes for equity > participation in events, especially if they involve support for travel. > > > > > > Our observation or measurement of participation of organizations > should encourage the Type 1, Type 3 disadvantage, and encourage > those who make equity type 2 pass to level 1. > > > > > > If we can have agreement around these principles, the Working > Group Governance Metrics and only have to produce a good > implementation and their work will be more reliable, predictable > and achievable. " > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > 08.02.2015 20:28 GMT-05: 00 Juan Manuel Rojas > <<mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com>jumaropi(a)yahoo.com> : > > > > Thank you Alexander. We take those concerns before. TF. It > considered helpful to have clarity on the points that you mean specifically. > > > > Sent from my Huawei Mobile > > > > Alejandro Pisanty <<mailto:apisanty@gmail.com>apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Jacqueline, Juan Manuel, all, > > > > > > The regional point of view has been expressed in the consensus > that we out of the meeting in Buenos Aires, with general criteria > for ALS reached consensus and are of great strength and general validity. > > > > > > I hope these guidelines define what they will do our representatives. > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:12 PM, > <<mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com>jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: > > > > > > [[- Translated text (en -> en) -]] > > > > Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N > = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > > From: <mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com>jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com > > > > Thank you. I will do my best to represent the region in the > > WG. > > Jacqueline > > > > > > Jacqueline A. Morris > > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, necessary, invisible, > > Free.(After Chris Lehmann > <<http://twitter.com/chrislehmann>http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> ) > > > > > > The Sun, August 2, 2015 at 12:29 PM > <<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: > >> > >> [[Translated text (es -> en) -]] > >> > >> ??? Subject: = utf-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = > >> Utf-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > >> From: <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>asoto(a)ibero-americano.org > >> > >> Dear, on This issue we Have had four nominations. ACCORDING to the above > >> Opportunely criteria, They Have Been selected: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Jacqueline Morris > >> > >> > >> - Juan Manuel Rojas > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> We Know That esta WG will have a hard work, and the first meeting will be > >> Tomorrow August 3rd. I will notify Juan Manuel Jacqueline and > schedule the > >> Meeting. > >> > >> > >> Best regards > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Alberto Soto > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --- > Avast antivirus software >> esta email scanned for viruses. > >> <Http://www.avast.com>Http://www.avast.com > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >[[--Original text (es) ><http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/99d87e9353.html>http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/99d87e9353.html >--]] > > >_______________________________________________ >lac-discuss-en mailing list ><mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en > >_______________________________________________ >lac-discuss-en mailing list >lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ?????
by vanda＠uol.com.br Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? From: vanda(a)uol.com.br That I believe we all Representing LACRALO These points will carry on. What I expect is general consensus on a framework That Allows LACRALO and all other Ralos to define criteria under Their Own That framework. Best to all Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" On Behalf Of Alejandro Pisanty Date: Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 21:42 To: "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? Jacqueline, Juan Manuel, all, the regional point of view has been expressed in the consensus that we out of the meeting in Buenos Aires, with general criteria for ALS reached consensus and are of great strength and general validity. I hope that these guidelines will define what our representatives do. Alejandro Pisanty On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:12 PM, <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: [[Translated text (en -> en) -]] Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? From: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com Thank you. I will do my best to represent the region in the WG. Jacqueline Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, necessary, invisible, Free. (After Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> ) The Sun, August 2, 2015 at 12:29 PM <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: > > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] > > ??? Subject: = utf-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = > utf-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce =????? > From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org > > Dear, on this issue we have had four nominations. According to the above > criteria opportunely, they have been selected: > > > > > > > Jacqueline Morris > > > - Juan Manuel Rojas > > > > > > > We know that this WG will have a hard work, and the first meeting will be > tomorrow August 3rd. I will notify Juan Manuel Jacqueline and schedule the > meeting. > > > Best regards > > > > > > > Alberto Soto > > > > > > > --- > Avast antivirus software scanned this email for viruses. > http://www.avast.com > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/9c3c8af3c5.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ?????
by vanda＠uol.com.br Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? From: vanda(a)uol.com.br That I believe we all Representing LACRALO These points will carry on. What I expect is general consensus on a framework That Allows LACRALO and all other Ralos to define criteria under Their Own That framework. Best to all Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" On Behalf Of Alejandro Pisanty Date: Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 21:42 To: "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? Jacqueline, Juan Manuel, all, the regional point of view has been expressed in the consensus that we out of the meeting in Buenos Aires, with general criteria for ALS reached consensus and are of great strength and general validity. I hope that these guidelines will define what our representatives do. Alejandro Pisanty On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:12 PM, <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: [[Translated text (en -> en) -]] Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? From: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com Thank you. I will do my best to represent the region in the WG. Jacqueline Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, necessary, invisible, Free. (After Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> ) The Sun, August 2, 2015 at 12:29 PM <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: > > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] > > ??? Subject: = utf-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = > utf-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce =????? > From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org > > Dear, on this issue we have had four nominations. According to the above > criteria opportunely, they have been selected: > > > > > > > Jacqueline Morris > > > - Juan Manuel Rojas > > > > > > > We know that this WG will have a hard work, and the first meeting will be > tomorrow August 3rd. I will notify Juan Manuel Jacqueline and schedule the > meeting. > > > Best regards > > > > > > > Alberto Soto > > > > > > > --- > Avast antivirus software scanned this email for viruses. > http://www.avast.com > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/4df84c9ba3.html --]]

1 0

FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization
by vanda＠etges.com.br Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization From: vanda(a)etges.com.br Dear all, A vote in ALAC is calling on the propose of ratification of the draft ALAC statement on GNSO review (see email below), some of us just contribute. I need to vote till next Thursday. Please, if someone has any position against Please not posted on public comment That will demand a change on my vote, Please make it public. If none I intend to vote in Please though I personally believe, and HAD Such statement made, That the review itself was really weak and did not touch Relevant several points. Due the huge Involvement of GNSO on the new gTLDs During Such review I believe the time frame was not opportune. For the same reason I was in for ALAC review to postpone to leave IANA transition to finish and stewardship Could we pay all our attention on Such review. Appreciate any feedback. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of ICANN Staff Reply-To: ICANN Staff Date: Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 9:00 To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization Dear All, Alan Greenberg, Chair of the ALAC, you Asked That a vote be held by the ALAC on the Proposed ratification of a draft ALAC Statement in response to a public comment request. PLEASE NOTE THAT only the 15 ALAC members will cast votes in esta poll. ***** Question: Do you support the ratification of the "ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization" for the communication to Relevant parties? ***** PLEASE NOTE THAT the poll will be open from 01-August-2015 12:00 UTC to 06-August-2015 12:00 UTC. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/icannatlarge Twitter:ICANNAtLarge _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/490192feed.html --]]

4 3

Re: [lac-discuss-en] = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ?????
by vanda＠uol.com.br Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? From: vanda(a)uol.com.br Jackie I will be in this group as ALAC member, and will be good to work with you. kisses Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" On Behalf Of Alejandro Pisanty Date: Monday, August 3, 2015 at 11:07 To: "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? Jacqueline, we trust you to take forward the agreement yourself you passed, and we transparently reports about the other positions existing. What do you know? How do they differ from ours? Alejandro Pisanty On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:01 a.m., <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: [[Translated text (en -> en) -]] Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? From: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com As you insist, of course, this is transmitted as relevant. Unfortunately, a working group and not just RALOs ALL LACRALO, I can not say that the rest of the group will agree with the Mirador LACRALO. This is, after all, a working group to create criteria for applied worldwide. And, of course, I am delighted that other members of LACRALO will participate in and follow the work. Jacqueline On August 2, 2015 23:15 <jumaropi(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] > > Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = > UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > From: jumaropi(a)yahoo.com > > Alejandro thanks for that reminder. We will be watching. > We insist on it. > Cordially > > > Sent from my Huawei Mobile > > > Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Juan Manuel, answered with a copy to the list, because your question is > relevant to the community: > > > > > > June 24 I expressed what I reproduce below. In the course of 24 hours > (25 June) we met the consensus of Carlton Samuels, Jacqueline Morris, > Sergio Salinas, and several others. Goes: > > > > > > "Today at the monthly meeting face (f2) we held a brief discussion on > metrics. > > > > > > Subject to this discussion back to his place in a working group, I > think it worthwhile to make clear what the objective metrics.This is well > understood in the community, and those who say they do not self-interest to > distort the discussion. > > > > > > What we need is accountability and transparency among ourselves. > Individuals and organizations working activametne must be identified. > Organizations and individuals that do not contribute or participate must > decide whether they will participate or no longer counted. And there's a > middle ground and representatives of organizations who find it difficult to > participate but have the will to do so. Among these there are many types of > situations: a representative who is sick or has to spend time with family > or work that sustains; a policy change or mandate; and many more > circumstances. > > > > > > A good metric system would be simple, transparent, predictable, and > difficult to counterfeit.Would make a "triage", ie, would quite clear what > organizations 5-10 regularly participate and contribute, the 20 that are > practically abandoned, and an intermediate strip of 10 or 15 with which we > must work in hopes that recover their participation or leave the > organization voluntarily or by way of the decertification. This assumes > cycles of renewal of certificates, which must institute. > > > > > > There is a classification of units that can help us further in this > process: > > > > > > 1. Regular and consistent participation in all activities and > contribution to substantive policy issues. Their proposals are incorporated > in resolutions of LACRALO and impact on policies and ICANN ALAC. > > > > > > 2. sporadic participation and / or dedicated to issues Reglaments > procedure formats agreements but not their contents, etc. > > > > > > 3.sporadic, little focus, and fundamentally conducive to "make > presence" for elections and selection processes for equity participation in > events, especially if they involve support for travel. > > > > > > Our observation or measurement of participation of organizations should > encourage the Type 1, Type 3 disadvantage, and encourage those who make > equity type 2 pass to level 1. > > > > > > If we can have agreement around these principles, the Working Group > Governance Metrics and only have to produce a good implementation and their > work will be more reliable, predictable and achievable. " > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > 08.02.2015 20:28 GMT-05: 00 Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi(a)yahoo.com> : > > > > Thank you Alexander. We take those concerns before. TF. It considered > helpful to have clarity on the points that you mean specifically. > > > > Sent from my Huawei Mobile > > > > Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Jacqueline, Juan Manuel, all, > > > > > > The regional point of view has been expressed in the consensus that we > out of the meeting in Buenos Aires, with general criteria for ALS reached > consensus and are of great strength and general validity. > > > > > > I hope these guidelines define what they will do our representatives. > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:12 PM, <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: > > > > > > [[- Translated text (en -> en) -]] > > > > Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = > = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > > From: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com > > > > Thank you. I will do my best to represent the region in the > > WG. > > Jacqueline > > > > > > Jacqueline A. Morris > > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, necessary, invisible, > > Free.(After Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> ) > > > > > > The Sun, August 2, 2015 at 12:29 PM <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: > >> > >> [[Translated text (es -> en) -]] > >> > >> ??? Subject: = utf-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = > = > >> Utf-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > >> From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org > >> > >> Dear, on This issue we Have had four nominations. ACCORDING to the > above > >> Opportunely criteria, They Have Been selected: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Jacqueline Morris > >> > >> > >> - Juan Manuel Rojas > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> We Know That esta WG will have a hard work, and the first meeting will > be > >> Tomorrow August 3rd. I will notify Juan Manuel Jacqueline and schedule > the > >> Meeting. > >> > >> > >> Best regards > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Alberto Soto > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --- > Avast antivirus software >> esta email scanned for viruses. > >> Http://www.avast.com > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/4587bb2ebe.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Call affiliation At-Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforc
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Call affiliation At-Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforc From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Dear Carlos, the application must be sent to the Staff of ALAC. Best regards Alberto Soto On August 3, 2015 12:32:54 GMT-03: 00, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Request to participate in this group. > > Sincerely > > Carlos Vera Quintana > 0988141143 > Follow mecveraq > >> On 03/08/2015, at 8:59, Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> > He wrote: >> >> Dear, I have received several inquiries regarding registration as > Participating in this group. >> I made the consultation of the Staff, and just send an email to the same > Making the request. >> >> Best Regards >> >> Alberto Soto >> >> >> >> Avast antivirus software has analyzed this email > For viruses. >> Www.avast.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lac-discuss-en mailing list >> Lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >> >> Http://www.lacralo.org - Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/858022f2a3.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Call affiliation At-Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforc
by cveraq＠gmail.com Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Call affiliation At-Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforc From: cveraq(a)gmail.com Request to participate in this group. Sincerely Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Follow mecveraq > El 3/8/2015, a las 8:59, Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> escribió: > > Estimados, he recibido varias consultas sobre la inscripción como participante en este grupo. > Realicé la consulta al Staff, y basta con enviar un mail al mismo realizando la solicitud. > > Saludos cordiales > > Alberto Soto > > > > El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. > www.avast.com > > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > http://www.lacralo.org [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/0ff3ede567.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization
by ariel.liang＠icann.org Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization From: ariel.liang(a)icann.org Hello All, May you view the "ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization "on ITS wiki workspace here, under 'FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC ': https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw. For future reference, please be so kind to Provide your input on the draft ALAC Statement STI During internal call for comments period and leave your comments in the wiki workspace of the draft ALAC Statement. In That Way, penholder (s) can keep track of the community comments and take them into When revising the draft consideration in a Timely manner. For every draft ALAC Statement, Staff send out a message to the alac-announce mailing list CALL FOR COMMENTS That Has in Its subject line and Indicates the method and deadline for Submitting input. If You have any question / comment ALAC advice related to development process, please dont hesitate to contact me. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype: ariel.liang.icann Mobile: +1 (310) 804-2761 Email: ariel.liang(a)icann.org Twitter:ICANNAtLarge < https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icannatlarge < https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> From: <lac-discuss-en-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Olivier Crepin Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Date: Monday, August 3, 2015 at 9:43 a.m. To: "lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)etges.com.br> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization Hello all, esta let me make quite clear from the outset: ALAC members are Asked to vote on the Statement, not on the GNSO Review Report. The ALAC Statement mentions It AGREES With the points it in the GNSO Review report. It mentions the points It Does not Agree with and is pretty strong on criticising the Consultants about the fact it completely missed the opportunity to Evaluate the GNSO Structure. The ALAC response About That is pretty clear. The call for comments was made on 15 July. The only ALAC member from LAC That was commented Vanda and her views were taken into account. The only That other member commented LACRALO was Carlton Samuels and his views were Also taken into account. Formulating the ALAC In response, unfortunately I received no other input from LACRALO members, DESPITE requests for feedback. Kind regards, Olivier On 08/03/2015 15:18, cveraq(a)gmail.com wrote: > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] > > Subject: Re: FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: > Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization > From: cveraq(a)gmail.com > > Vanda: if you say "I intend to vote in Please though I personally > believe, and HAD Such statement made, That the review itself was really weak > and did not touch Relevant several points." > > > It sounds contradictory and the vote should be against? > > > Carlos Vera Quintana > 0988141143 > Sguemecveraq > > >> El 2/8/2015, a las 19:39, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> >> <mailto:apisanty@gmail.com> escribió: >> >> I intend to vote in favor though I personally believe, and had made such >> statement, that the review itself was really weak and did not touch several >> relevant points. > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/2a5dbd13fc.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ?????
by apisanty＠gmail.com Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? From: apisanty(a)gmail.com Jacqueline, we trust you to take forward the agreement yourself you passed, and we transparently reports about the other positions existing. What do you know? How do they differ from ours? Alejandro Pisanty On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:01 a.m., <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: > > [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] > > Asunto: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = > UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > De: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com > > Como usted insiste, por supuesto, esto se transmitirá como relevantes. > Por desgracia, que es un grupo de trabajo de TODOS RALOs y no sólo > LACRALO, no puedo decir que el resto del grupo estará de acuerdo con la > Mirador LACRALO. Esto es, después de todo, un grupo de trabajo para crear > criterios para ser > aplicado a nivel mundial. > Y, por supuesto, estoy encantado de que otros miembros de LACRALO serán > participar y seguir el trabajo. > Jacqueline > El 02 de agosto 2015 23:15, <jumaropi(a)yahoo.com> escribió: > > > > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] > > > > Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = > > UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > > From: jumaropi(a)yahoo.com > > > > Alejandro thanks for that reminder. We will be watching. > > We insist on it. > > Cordially > > > > > > Sent from my Huawei Mobile > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Juan Manuel, answered with a copy to the list, because your question > is > > relevant to the community: > > > > > > > > > June 24 I expressed what I reproduce below. In the course of 24 hours > > (25 June) we met the consensus of Carlton Samuels, Jacqueline Morris, > > Sergio Salinas, and several others. Goes: > > > > > > > > > "Today at the monthly meeting face (f2) we held a brief discussion on > > metrics. > > > > > > > > > Subject to this discussion back to his place in a working group, I > > think it worthwhile to make clear what the objective metrics.This is well > > understood in the community, and those who say they do not self-interest > to > > distort the discussion. > > > > > > > > > What we need is accountability and transparency among ourselves. > > Individuals and organizations working activametne must be identified. > > Organizations and individuals that do not contribute or participate must > > decide whether they will participate or no longer counted. And there's a > > middle ground and representatives of organizations who find it difficult > to > > participate but have the will to do so. Among these there are many types > of > > situations: a representative who is sick or has to spend time with family > > or work that sustains; a policy change or mandate; and many more > > circumstances. > > > > > > > > > A good metric system would be simple, transparent, predictable, and > > difficult to counterfeit.Would make a "triage", ie, would quite clear > what > > organizations 5-10 regularly participate and contribute, the 20 that are > > practically abandoned, and an intermediate strip of 10 or 15 with which > we > > must work in hopes that recover their participation or leave the > > organization voluntarily or by way of the decertification. This assumes > > cycles of renewal of certificates, which must institute. > > > > > > > > > There is a classification of units that can help us further in this > > process: > > > > > > > > > 1. Regular and consistent participation in all activities and > > contribution to substantive policy issues. Their proposals are > incorporated > > in resolutions of LACRALO and impact on policies and ICANN ALAC. > > > > > > > > > 2. sporadic participation and / or dedicated to issues Reglaments > > procedure formats agreements but not their contents, etc. > > > > > > > > > 3.sporadic, little focus, and fundamentally conducive to "make > > presence" for elections and selection processes for equity participation > in > > events, especially if they involve support for travel. > > > > > > > > > Our observation or measurement of participation of organizations > should > > encourage the Type 1, Type 3 disadvantage, and encourage those who make > > equity type 2 pass to level 1. > > > > > > > > > If we can have agreement around these principles, the Working Group > > Governance Metrics and only have to produce a good implementation and > their > > work will be more reliable, predictable and achievable. " > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > > > > 08.02.2015 20:28 GMT-05: 00 Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi(a)yahoo.com> : > > > > > > Thank you Alexander. We take those concerns before. TF. It considered > > helpful to have clarity on the points that you mean specifically. > > > > > > Sent from my Huawei Mobile > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Jacqueline, Juan Manuel, all, > > > > > > > > > The regional point of view has been expressed in the consensus that we > > out of the meeting in Buenos Aires, with general criteria for ALS reached > > consensus and are of great strength and general validity. > > > > > > > > > I hope these guidelines define what they will do our representatives. > > > > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:12 PM, <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > [[- Translated text (en -> en) -]] > > > > > > Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = > > = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > > > From: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com > > > > > > Thank you. I will do my best to represent the region in the > > > WG. > > > Jacqueline > > > > > > > > > Jacqueline A. Morris > > > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, necessary, invisible, > > > Free.(After Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> ) > > > > > > > > > The Sun, August 2, 2015 at 12:29 PM <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> > wrote: > > >> > > >> [[Translated text (es -> en) -]] > > >> > > >> ??? Subject: = utf-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - > = > > = > > >> Utf-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > > >> From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org > > >> > > >> Dear, on This issue we Have had four nominations. ACCORDING to the > > above > > >> Opportunely criteria, They Have Been selected: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Jacqueline Morris > > >> > > >> > > >> - Juan Manuel Rojas > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> We Know That esta WG will have a hard work, and the first meeting > will > > be > > >> Tomorrow August 3rd. I will notify Juan Manuel Jacqueline and > schedule > > the > > >> Meeting. > > >> > > >> > > >> Best regards > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Alberto Soto > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> --- > > Avast antivirus software >> esta email scanned for viruses. > > >> Http://www.avast.com > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/2d41c31493.html --]]

2 1

Call affiliation At-Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforc
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Call affiliation At-Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforc From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Dear, I have received several inquiries about registration as a participant in this group. I made the consultation of the Staff, and just send an email to the same making the request. Best regards Alberto Soto --- Avast antivirus software scanned this email for viruses. https://www.avast.com/antivirus [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/4ec02d2c9b.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ?????
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Dear Jacqueline, which meant Alexander, is that representatives of LACRALO must defend the views of our Region. Not to impose it, explain it. It is known that there may be differences of opinion on a particular issue, there will be a vote, then they may act accordingly. As all applicants stated in their presentation, are representatives of our region. Best regards Alberto Soto On August 3, 2015 10:01:31 GMT-03: 00, jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com wrote: > > [[- Translated text (en -> en) -]] > > Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = > UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > De: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com > >Como usted insiste, por supuesto, esto se transmitir� como relevantes. > Por desgracia, que es un grupo de trabajo de TODOS RALOs y no s�lo >LACRALO, no puedo decir que el resto del grupo estar� de acuerdo con la > >Mirador LACRALO. Esto es, despu�s de todo, un grupo de trabajo para >crear criterios para ser > aplicado a nivel mundial. >Y, por supuesto, estoy encantado de que otros miembros de LACRALO ser�n > > participar y seguir el trabajo. > Jacqueline > El 02 de agosto 2015 23:15, <jumaropi(a)yahoo.com> escribi�: > > >> [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] >> >> Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - >= = >> UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? >> From: jumaropi(a)yahoo.com >> >> Alejandro thanks for that reminder. We will be watching. >> We insist on it. >> Cordially >> >> >> Sent from my Huawei Mobile >> >> >> Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Juan Manuel, answered with a copy to the list, because your >question is >> relevant to the community: >> > >> > >> > June 24 I expressed what I reproduce below. In the course of 24 >hours >> (25 June) we met the consensus of Carlton Samuels, Jacqueline Morris, >> Sergio Salinas, and several others. Goes: >> > >> > >> > "Today at the monthly meeting face (f2) we held a brief discussion >on >> metrics. >> > >> > >> > Subject to this discussion back to his place in a working group, I >> think it worthwhile to make clear what the objective metrics.This is >well >> understood in the community, and those who say they do not >self-interest to >> distort the discussion. >> > >> > >> > What we need is accountability and transparency among ourselves. >> Individuals and organizations working activametne must be identified. >> Organizations and individuals that do not contribute or participate >must >> decide whether they will participate or no longer counted. And >there's a >> middle ground and representatives of organizations who find it >difficult to >> participate but have the will to do so. Among these there are many >types of >> situations: a representative who is sick or has to spend time with >family >> or work that sustains; a policy change or mandate; and many more >> circumstances. >> > >> > >> > A good metric system would be simple, transparent, predictable, >and >> difficult to counterfeit.Would make a "triage", ie, would quite clear >what >> organizations 5-10 regularly participate and contribute, the 20 that >are >> practically abandoned, and an intermediate strip of 10 or 15 with >which we >> must work in hopes that recover their participation or leave the >> organization voluntarily or by way of the decertification. This >assumes >> cycles of renewal of certificates, which must institute. >> > >> > >> > There is a classification of units that can help us further in >this >> process: >> > >> > >> > 1. Regular and consistent participation in all activities and >> contribution to substantive policy issues. Their proposals are >incorporated >> in resolutions of LACRALO and impact on policies and ICANN ALAC. >> > >> > >> > 2. sporadic participation and / or dedicated to issues Reglaments >> procedure formats agreements but not their contents, etc. >> > >> > >> > 3.sporadic, little focus, and fundamentally conducive to "make >> presence" for elections and selection processes for equity >participation in >> events, especially if they involve support for travel. >> > >> > >> > Our observation or measurement of participation of organizations >should >> encourage the Type 1, Type 3 disadvantage, and encourage those who >make >> equity type 2 pass to level 1. >> > >> > >> > If we can have agreement around these principles, the Working >Group >> Governance Metrics and only have to produce a good implementation and >their >> work will be more reliable, predictable and achievable. " >> > >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > >> > Alejandro Pisanty >> > >> > >> > 08.02.2015 20:28 GMT-05: 00 Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi(a)yahoo.com> >: >> > >> > Thank you Alexander. We take those concerns before. TF. It >considered >> helpful to have clarity on the points that you mean specifically. >> > >> > Sent from my Huawei Mobile >> > >> > Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Jacqueline, Juan Manuel, all, >> > >> > >> > The regional point of view has been expressed in the consensus >that we >> out of the meeting in Buenos Aires, with general criteria for ALS >reached >> consensus and are of great strength and general validity. >> > >> > >> > I hope these guidelines define what they will do our >representatives. >> > >> > >> > Alejandro Pisanty >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:12 PM, <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > [[- Translated text (en -> en) -]] >> > >> > Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = >- = >> = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? >> > From: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com >> > >> > Thank you. I will do my best to represent the region in the >> > WG. >> > Jacqueline >> > >> > >> > Jacqueline A. Morris >> > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, necessary, >invisible, >> > Free.(After Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> ) >> > >> > >> > The Sun, August 2, 2015 at 12:29 PM <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> >wrote: >> >> >> >> [[Translated text (es -> en) -]] >> >> >> >> ??? Subject: = utf-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N >= - = >> = >> >> Utf-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? >> >> From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org >> >> >> >> Dear, on This issue we Have had four nominations. ACCORDING to >the >> above >> >> Opportunely criteria, They Have Been selected: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jacqueline Morris >> >> >> >> >> >> - Juan Manuel Rojas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> We Know That esta WG will have a hard work, and the first meeting >will >> be >> >> Tomorrow August 3rd. I will notify Juan Manuel Jacqueline and >schedule >> the >> >> Meeting. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Alberto Soto >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> Avast antivirus software >> esta email scanned for viruses. >> >> Http://www.avast.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/36215296b9.html --]]

1 0

FW: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization
by Vanda Scartezini Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

Dear all, A vote is calling in ALAC on the propose of ratification of the ALAC draft statement on GNSO review ( see email below) , some of us just contribute. I need to vote till next Thursday. Please, if someone has any position against please not posted on public comment that will demand a change on my vote, please make it public. If none I intend to vote in favor though I personally believe, and had made such statement, that the review itself was really weak and did not touch several relevant points. Due the huge involvement of GNSO on the new gTLDs during such review I believe the time frame was not opportune. For the same reason I was in favor to postpone ALAC review to leave IANA stewardship transition to finish and we could pay all our attention on such review. Appreciate any feedback. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Staff Reply-To: ICANN Staff Date: Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 09:00 To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization Dear All, Alan Greenberg, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a vote be held by the ALAC on the proposed ratification of a draft ALAC Statement in response to a public comment request. Please note that only the 15 ALAC members will cast votes in this poll. ***** Question: Do you support the ratification of the "ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization" for the communication to relevant parties? ***** Please note that the poll will be open from 01-August-2015 12:00 UTC to 06-August-2015 12:00 UTC. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/icannatlarge Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

4 3

Re: [lac-discuss-en] = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ?????
by jumaropi＠yahoo.com Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? From: jumaropi(a)yahoo.com Alejandro thanks for that reminder. We will be watching. We insist on it. Cordially Sent from my Huawei Mobile Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Juan Manuel, answered with a copy to the list, because your question is relevant to the community: > > > June 24 I expressed what I reproduce below. In the course of 24 hours (25 June) we met the consensus of Carlton Samuels, Jacqueline Morris, Sergio Salinas, and several others. Goes: > > > "Today at the monthly meeting face (f2) we held a brief discussion on metrics. > > > Subject to this discussion back to his place in a working group, I think it worthwhile to make clear what the objective metrics.This is well understood in the community, and those who say they do not self-interest to distort the discussion. > > > What we need is accountability and transparency among ourselves. Individuals and organizations working activametne must be identified. Organizations and individuals that do not contribute or participate must decide whether they will participate or no longer counted. And there's a middle ground and representatives of organizations who find it difficult to participate but have the will to do so. Among these there are many types of situations: a representative who is sick or has to spend time with family or work that sustains; a policy change or mandate; and many more circumstances. > > > A good metric system would be simple, transparent, predictable, and difficult to counterfeit.Would make a "triage", ie, would quite clear what organizations 5-10 regularly participate and contribute, the 20 that are practically abandoned, and an intermediate strip of 10 or 15 with which we must work in hopes that recover their participation or leave the organization voluntarily or by way of the decertification. This assumes cycles of renewal of certificates, which must institute. > > > There is a classification of units that can help us further in this process: > > > 1. Regular and consistent participation in all activities and contribution to substantive policy issues. Their proposals are incorporated in resolutions of LACRALO and impact on policies and ICANN ALAC. > > > 2. sporadic participation and / or dedicated to issues Reglaments procedure formats agreements but not their contents, etc. > > > 3.sporadic, little focus, and fundamentally conducive to "make presence" for elections and selection processes for equity participation in events, especially if they involve support for travel. > > > Our observation or measurement of participation of organizations should encourage the Type 1, Type 3 disadvantage, and encourage those who make equity type 2 pass to level 1. > > > If we can have agreement around these principles, the Working Group Governance Metrics and only have to produce a good implementation and their work will be more reliable, predictable and achievable. " > > > Best regards, > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > 08.02.2015 20:28 GMT-05: 00 Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi(a)yahoo.com> : > > Thank you Alexander. We take those concerns before. TF. It considered helpful to have clarity on the points that you mean specifically. > > Sent from my Huawei Mobile > > Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Jacqueline, Juan Manuel, all, > > > The regional point of view has been expressed in the consensus that we out of the meeting in Buenos Aires, with general criteria for ALS reached consensus and are of great strength and general validity. > > > I hope these guidelines define what they will do our representatives. > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:12 PM, <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: > > > [[- Translated text (en -> en) -]] > > Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > From: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com > > Thank you. I will do my best to represent the region in the > WG. > Jacqueline > > > Jacqueline A. Morris > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, necessary, invisible, > Free.(After Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> ) > > > The Sun, August 2, 2015 at 12:29 PM <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: >> >> [[Translated text (es -> en) -]] >> >> ??? Subject: = utf-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = >> Utf-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? >> From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org >> >> Dear, on This issue we Have had four nominations. ACCORDING to the above >> Opportunely criteria, They Have Been selected: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jacqueline Morris >> >> >> - Juan Manuel Rojas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> We Know That esta WG will have a hard work, and the first meeting will be >> Tomorrow August 3rd. I will notify Juan Manuel Jacqueline and schedule the >> Meeting. >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Alberto Soto >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- Avast antivirus software >> esta email scanned for viruses. >> Http://www.avast.com >> >> >> > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/99d87e9353.html --]]

2 1

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Proposal CCWG-Accountability webinar
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Proposal CCWG-Accountability webinar From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Thanks Len. My apologies for the mistake, pensque was sending my bad after midnight. Of aquen ms, harreferencia hours a day. Best regards Alberto Soto From: Len Felipe Sanchez Amba [mailto: leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx] Posted on: Monday, August 3, 2015 1:22 a.m. To: Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> CC: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] CCWG-Accountability Proposal webinar Alberto thank you very much. Specifying that it is only Tuesday August 4 at 19:00 UTC. Cheers, Len The 02/08/2015, at 22:57, Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> > Wrote: Dear, today morning habrun important webinar, given by the CCWG Accountability, at 19:00 UTC. Tendruna duration of two hours. The link to participate in Adobe: < https://icann.adobeconnect.com/si-webinar/> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/si-webinar/ It is also feasible Telefonica will participate with translation in six languages \u200b\u200b(via Adigo). This is one of the substantive issues that we must address, Best regards Alberto Soto _____ < https://www.avast.com/antivirus> Avast antivirus software has analyzed this e-mail in search virus. < https://www.avast.com/antivirus> _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/75f2a9f9f2.html --]]

1 0

Proposal CCWG-Accountability webinar
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Proposal CCWG-Accountability webinar From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Dear, today morning habrun important webinar, given by the CCWG Accountability, at 19:00 UTC. Tendruna duration of two hours. The link to participate in Adobe: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/si-webinar/ It is also feasible Telefonica will participate with translation in six languages \u200b\u200b(via Adigo). This is one of the substantive issues that we must address, Best regards Alberto Soto --- Avast antivirus software has analyzed this e-mail for viruses. https://www.avast.com/antivirus [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/04c60853d6.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Vanda, I agree with Alexander. Moreover, I agree with an observation made by Olivier Crepin-Leblond: "For example, recommendation # 23, approving new GNSO Constituencies. (And other new GNSO Constituency Recommendations) I am concerned about the creation of more Constituencies, all of Which Might probably end up in the Non-Contracted Party House, just thus further fragmenting the Non-Contracted Party House and Increasing voltage Between Constituencies. We all know about the voltage Between NCUC and NPOC. Having more Consituencies Might only continue to Strengthen the Contracted Party House since Their vote will be more homogeneous and They Will Be able to "pick and mix" within the Non-Contracted Party House in order to Obtain a majority. Finally, I am very concerned That none of the Recommendations address the wider malaise about the balance of power in the GNSO and the potential for capture Caused by a fragmented Non-Contracted Party House and a solid Contracted Party House. We keep on hearing "the GNSO is broken and needs to be reformed" and yet there is not one line in the report whos That investigates the validity of esta assertion. I see this as an opportunity missed. " The differences between NCUC and NPOC are becoming more noticeable, and actually increase it, it would be risky. And I do not correct it, a missed opportunity. Best regards Alberto Soto From: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] In the name of Alejandro Pisanty Posted on: Sunday, August 2, 2015 9:40 pm To: Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)etges.com.br> CC: LACRALO list <lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> ; lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization Vanda, report failures, as far as I could identify them, they are important. Have the courage to vote against and do the job is well done. Alejandro Pisanty On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)etges.com.br <mailto:vanda@etges.com.br> > Wrote: Dear all, A vote in ALAC is calling on the propose of ratification of the draft ALAC statement on GNSO review (see email below), some of us just contribute. I need to vote till next Thursday.Please, if someone has any position against Please not posted on public comment That will demand a change on my vote, Please make it public. If none I intend to vote in Please though I personally believe, and HAD Such statement made, That the review itself was really weak and did not touch Relevant several points. Due the huge Involvement of GNSO on the new gTLDs During Such review I believe the time frame was not opportune. For the same reason I was in for ALAC review to postpone to leave IANA transition to finish and stewardship Could we pay all our attention on Such review. Appreciate any feedback. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > On Behalf Of ICANN Staff Reply-To: ICANN Staff Date: Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 9:00 To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org> " Subject: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization Dear All, Alan Greenberg, Chair of the ALAC, you Asked That a vote be held by the ALAC on the Proposed ratification of a draft ALAC Statement in response to a public comment request. PLEASE NOTE THAT only the 15 ALAC members will cast votes in esta poll. ***** Question: Do you support the ratification of the "ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization < https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw> ***** PLEASE NOTE THAT the poll will be open from 01-August-2015 12:00 UTC to 06-August-2015 12:00 UTC. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann < https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> AtLarge < https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ < https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> ICANNAtLarge < https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/9cb763e64e.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ?????
by amedinagomez＠gmail.com Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? From: amedinagomez(a)gmail.com Alejandro mail and also very interesting logic reflects reality. Consistent and provides space to make decisions to improve performance we want. Thank you very much for the contribution The 02/08/2015 20:41, "Alejandro Pisanty" <apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Juan Manuel, contesto con copia a la lista, pues tu pregunta es pertinente > para la comunidad: > > el 24 de junio expresé lo que a continuación reproduzco. En el curso de > las siguientes 24 horas (25 de junio) conocimos el consenso de Carlton > Samuels, Jacqueline Morris, Sergio Salinas, y varios más. Va: > > "hoy en la reunión mensual, presencial (f2) sostuvimos una breve > discusión sobre métricas. > > A reserva de regresar esta discusión a su lugar en un Grupo de Trabajo, > creo que vale la pena dejar claro cuál es el objetivo de las métricas. > Éste está perfectamente entendido en la comunidad, y quienes dicen que no > lo hacen por un interés propio de distorsionar la discusión. > > Lo que necesitamos es rendición de cuentas y transparencia entre nosotros > mismos. Las personas y organizaciones que trabajan activametne deben ser > identificadas. Las organizaciones y personas que no contribuyen ni > participan deben decidir si van a participar o dejan de ser contadas. Y hay > una franja intermedia de organizaciones y representantes que encuentran > difícil participar pero tienen la voluntad de hacerlo. Entre éstas hay > muchos tipos de situaciones: un representante que se enferma o tiene que > dedicar tiempo a la familia o al trabajo que lo sostiene; un cambio de > directiva o de mandato; y muchas más circunstancias. > > Un buen sistema de métricas sería sencillo, transparente, predecible, y > difícil de falsificar. Haría un "triage", es decir, haría bastante evidente > cuáles son las 5-10 organizaciones que regularmente participan y > contribuyen, las 20 que están prácticamente abandonadas, y una franja > intermedia de 10 o 15 con las que hay que trabajar con esperanzas de que > recuperen su participación o abandonen la organización voluntariamente o > por la vía de la decertificación. Esto asume ciclos de renovación de las > certificaciones, que debemos instituir. > > Hay una clasificación de las participaciones que nos puede ayudar aún más > en este proceso: > > 1. participación regular y consistente en todas las actividades, y > contribución a aspectos sustantivos de política. Sus propuestas son > incorporadas en resoluciones de LACRALO y tienen impacto en las políticas > de ALAC y de ICANN. > > 2. participación esporádica y/o dedicada a asuntos de procedimiento > reglaments, formatos de acuerdos pero no sus contenidos, etc. > > 3. participaciones esporádicas, poco enfocadas, y fundamentalmente > conducentes a "hacer presencia" para elecciones y procesos de selección > para la participación en eventos, especialmente si conllevan apoyos para > viajes. > > Nuestra observación o medición de la participación de las organizaciones > debe favorecer el tipo 1, desfavorecer el tipo 3, e impulsar que quienes > hacen participaciones del tipo 2 pasen al nivel 1. > > Si podemos tener acuerdo alrededor de estos principios, el Grupo de > Trabajo de Gobernanza y el de Métricas sólo tienen que producir una buena > implementación y su trabajo será más confiable, predecible y alcanzable." > > Saludos cordiales, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > 2015-08-02 20:28 GMT-05:00 Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi(a)yahoo.com>: > >> Muchas gracias Alejandro. Llevaremos esas inquietudes ante el. TF. >> Consideraría útil tener claridad sobre los puntos a los que te refieres >> específicamente. >> >> Sent from my Huawei Mobile >> >> Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Jacqueline, Juan Manuel, todos, >> >> el punto de vista regional se ha expresado en el consenso que logramos al >> salir de la reunión de Buenos Aires, con criterios generales para las ALS >> que lograron consenso y son de gran solidez y validez general. >> >> Espero que esos lineamientos definan lo que van a hacer nuestros >> representantes. >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:12 PM, <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] >>> >>> Asunto: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = >>> UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? >>> De: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com >>> >>> Muchas gracias. Haré mi mejor esfuerzo para representar a toda la >>> región en el >>> WG. >>> Jacqueline >>> >>> >>> Jacqueline A. Morris >>> La tecnología debe ser como el oxígeno: Ubicuo, necesario, invisible y >>> Gratis. (Después de que Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> >>> ) >>> >>> >>> El Sol, 02 de agosto 2015 a las 12:29 PM <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> >>> escribió: >>> > >>> > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] >>> > >>> > ??? Subject: = utf-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - >>> = = >>> > utf-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce =????? >>> > From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org >>> > >>> > Dear, on this issue we have had four nominations. According to the >>> above >>> > criteria opportunely, they have been selected: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Jacqueline Morris >>> > >>> > >>> > - Juan Manuel Rojas >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > We know that this WG will have a hard work, and the first meeting >>> will be >>> > tomorrow August 3rd. I will notify Juan Manuel Jacqueline and schedule >>> the >>> > meeting. >>> > >>> > >>> > Best regards >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Alberto Soto >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > --- >>> > Avast antivirus software scanned this email for viruses. >>> > http://www.avast.com >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/0d8fe932e2.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ?????
by apisanty＠gmail.com Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? From: apisanty(a)gmail.com Juan Manuel, answered with a copy to the list, for your question is relevant for the community: June 24 I expressed what I reproduce below. During the 24 hours (25 June) met the consensus of Carlton Samuels, Jacqueline Morris, Sergio Salinas, and several others. Goes: "Today at the monthly meeting face (f2) we held a brief discussion on metrics. Subject to this discussion back to his place in a working group, I think it is worth to make clear what the objective metrics. East It is well understood in the community, and those who say they do not They made by self-interest to distort the discussion. What we need we are accountability and transparency between us thereof. Individuals and organizations working activametne be identified. Organizations and individuals that do not contribute They involved to decide whether they will participate or no longer counted. And there an intermediate strip of organizations and representatives who are difficult to participate but have the will to do so. Among these there Many types of situations: a representative who is sick or has to spend time with family or work that sustains; changing directive or mandate; and many more circumstances. A good metric system would be simple, transparent, predictable, and difficult to counterfeit. Would make a "triage", ie would rather obvious 5-10 which are regularly participating organizations and They contribute 20 which are practically abandoned, and a strip intermediate 10 or 15 with which we must work in hopes that recover their participation or leave the organization voluntarily or by way of decertification.This assumes renewal cycles certifications, we must institute. There is a classification of units that can help us further in this process: 1. Regular and consistent participation in all activities, and contribution to substantive policy issues. His proposals are LACRALO incorporated into resolutions and have impact on policy ALAC and ICANN. 2. sporadic participation and / or devoted to procedural matters Reglaments, formats agreements but not their contents, etc. 3. sporadic appearances, little focus, and fundamentally leading to "make presence" for elections and selection processes for participation in events, especially if they involve support for travel. Our observation or measurement of participation of organizations should favor the type 1, type 3 disadvantage, and encourage those who make appearances type 2 pass to level 1. If we can have agreement around these principles, the Working Group Governance Metrics and only have to produce a good implementation and their work will be more reliable, predictable and achievable. " Best regards, Alejandro Pisanty 08/02/2015 20:28 GMT-05: 00 Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi(a)yahoo.com> : > Muchas gracias Alejandro. Llevaremos esas inquietudes ante el. TF. > Consideraría útil tener claridad sobre los puntos a los que te refieres > específicamente. > > Sent from my Huawei Mobile > > Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Jacqueline, Juan Manuel, todos, > > el punto de vista regional se ha expresado en el consenso que logramos al > salir de la reunión de Buenos Aires, con criterios generales para las ALS > que lograron consenso y son de gran solidez y validez general. > > Espero que esos lineamientos definan lo que van a hacer nuestros > representantes. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:12 PM, <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: > >> >> [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] >> >> Asunto: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = >> UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? >> De: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com >> >> Muchas gracias. Haré mi mejor esfuerzo para representar a toda la región >> en el >> WG. >> Jacqueline >> >> >> Jacqueline A. Morris >> La tecnología debe ser como el oxígeno: Ubicuo, necesario, invisible y >> Gratis. (Después de que Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> >> ) >> >> >> El Sol, 02 de agosto 2015 a las 12:29 PM <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> >> escribió: >> > >> > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] >> > >> > ??? Subject: = utf-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = >> = >> > utf-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce =????? >> > From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org >> > >> > Dear, on this issue we have had four nominations. According to the >> above >> > criteria opportunely, they have been selected: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Jacqueline Morris >> > >> > >> > - Juan Manuel Rojas >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > We know that this WG will have a hard work, and the first meeting will >> be >> > tomorrow August 3rd. I will notify Juan Manuel Jacqueline and schedule >> the >> > meeting. >> > >> > >> > Best regards >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Alberto Soto >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > --- >> > Avast antivirus software scanned this email for viruses. >> > http://www.avast.com >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/f9714188f9.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ?????
by apisanty＠gmail.com Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? From: apisanty(a)gmail.com Jacqueline, Juan Manuel, all, the regional point of view has been expressed in the consensus we achieved to out of the meeting in Buenos Aires, with general criteria for ALS which they reached consensus and are of great strength and general validity. I hope these guidelines define what they will do our representatives. Alejandro Pisanty On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:12 PM, <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: > > [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] > > Asunto: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = > UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > De: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com > > Muchas gracias. Haré mi mejor esfuerzo para representar a toda la región > en el > WG. > Jacqueline > > > Jacqueline A. Morris > La tecnología debe ser como el oxígeno: Ubicuo, necesario, invisible y > Gratis. (Después de que Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> ) > > > El Sol, 02 de agosto 2015 a las 12:29 PM <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> > escribió: > > > > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] > > > > ??? Subject: = utf-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = > > utf-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce =????? > > From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org > > > > Dear, on this issue we have had four nominations. According to the above > > criteria opportunely, they have been selected: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jacqueline Morris > > > > > > - Juan Manuel Rojas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We know that this WG will have a hard work, and the first meeting will > be > > tomorrow August 3rd. I will notify Juan Manuel Jacqueline and schedule > the > > meeting. > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alberto Soto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > Avast antivirus software scanned this email for viruses. > > http://www.avast.com > > > > > > > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/bbfcc5232b.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization
by apisanty＠gmail.com Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization From: apisanty(a)gmail.com Vanda, report failures, far as I can identify are important. Have the courage to vote against it and make it work It is well finished. Alejandro Pisanty On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)etges.com.br> wrote: > Dear all, > A vote is calling in ALAC on the propose of ratification of the ALAC > draft statement on GNSO review ( see email below) , some of us just > contribute. > I need to vote till next Thursday. Please, if someone has any position > against please not posted on public comment that will demand a change on my > vote, please make it public. > If none I intend to vote in favor though I personally believe, and had > made such statement, that the review itself was really weak and did not > touch several relevant points. Due the huge involvement of GNSO on the new > gTLDs during such review I believe the time frame was not opportune. For > the same reason I was in favor to postpone ALAC review to leave IANA > stewardship transition to finish and we could pay all our attention on such > review. > Appreciate any feedback. > > > *Vanda Scartezini* > *Polo Consultores Associados* > *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004* > *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil* > *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253* > *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 * > *So**rry for any typos. * > > > From: <alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of ICANN > Staff > Reply-To: ICANN Staff > Date: Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 09:00 > To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > Subject: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft > Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization > > Dear All, > > Alan Greenberg, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a vote be held by the > ALAC on the proposed ratification of a draft ALAC Statement in response to > a public comment request. Please note that only the 15 ALAC members will > cast votes in this poll. > > ***** > Question: Do you support the ratification of the "ALAC Statement on the > Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization > <https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw>" for the communication to relevant > parties? > ***** > > Please note that the poll will be open from *01**-August-2015 12:00 UTC* > to *06**-August-**2015 12**:00** UTC**.* > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > Peregrine and Terri Agnew > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> > atlarge <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> > Twitter: @ <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge > <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> > _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce At-Large > Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > http://www.lacralo.org > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM Faculty of Chemistry Av.University 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico + 52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD SMS FROM MEXICO +525541444475 +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty UNAM Join the LinkedIn group, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/c85121c378.html --]]

1 0

= utf-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = utf-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce =?????
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org Aug. 2, 2015

Aug. 2, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] ??? Subject: = utf-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = utf-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce =????? From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Dear, on this issue we have had four nominations. According to the above criteria opportunely, they have been selected: Jacqueline Morris - Juan Manuel Rojas We know that this WG will have a hard work, and the first meeting will be tomorrow August 3rd. I will notify Juan Manuel Jacqueline and schedule the meeting. Best regards Alberto Soto --- Avast antivirus software scanned this email for viruses. http://www.avast.com [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/2b0f96a077.html --]]

2 1

Re: [lac-discuss-en] ??? Q = utf-8 CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI = C3 = 93N = 3A__At = = utf-8 q -Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce =?????
by crg＠isoc-cr.org Aug. 2, 2015

Aug. 2, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re:??? Q = utf-8 CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI = C3 = 93N = 3A__At = = utf-8 q -Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce =????? From: crg(a)isoc-cr.org Thanks Alberto, Please Put me as a "participant" in the working group. Thank you Carlos Raul Gutierrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg On 2 Aug 2015, at 10:28 Alberto Soto wrote: > Estimados, respecto de este tema hemos tenido cuatro postulaciones. > Según los criterios citados oportunamente, han sido seleccionados: > > > > -Jacqueline Morris > > - Juan Manuel Rojas > > > > Ya sabemos que este WG tendrá un intenso trabajo, y la primera > reunión será mañana 3 de agosto. Les avisaré a Jacqueline y a > Juan Manuel el horario de dicha reunión. > > Saludos cordiales > > > > Alberto Soto > > > > --- > El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico > en busca de virus. > http://www.avast.com > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > http://www.lacralo.org lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/7d97a409e5.html --]]

1 0

Fwd: US Circuit Court Upholds ICANN's Defense of the New gTLD Program
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

FYI ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= [image: ICANN] <https://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-07-31-en ------------------------------ US Circuit Court Upholds ICANN's Defense of the New gTLD Program 31 July 2015 *Los Angeles, California*... The United States' Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of antitrust and other claims against ICANN made by a company called name.space, related to ICANN's new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Program, in an opinion published today <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/namespace-ninth-circuit-affirmi…> [PDF, 116 KB]. In 2013, a federal district court dismissed all of name.space's claims, and today the Ninth Circuit affirmed that dismissal in all respects. name.space alleged that ICANN violated the Sherman Act, and various trademark and other laws, in establishing the New gTLD Program and setting the application fee for new gTLD applications at US$185,000. name.space also suggested that ICANN should set aside names found in name.space's “alternative internet.” The plaintiff claimed that the rules and procedures governing the 2012 New gTLD Program Application Round were the result of an illegal conspiracy between ICANN, its board members and domain-name industry insiders, citing U.S. antitrust law (specifically Section 1 of the Sherman Act). "We are pleased that the Ninth Circuit agreed with the dismissal of the claims against ICANN in this matter", said John Jeffrey, ICANN's General Counsel and Secretary. "The rules and procedures governing the New gTLD Program were created through a global, inclusive, open and multistakeholder process, following a bottom-up policy development process leading to consensus-based policy recommendations. Accordingly, the Court found it could not "infer an anticompetitive agreement' from the facts presented in this case." In finding in favor of ICANN, the Court determined that “ICANN is not a competitor” in the three relevant markets the plaintiff identified as the basis of its monopolization claim (citing the tests from Section 2 of the Sherman Act): 1. The market to act as a TLD registry; 2. The international market for domain names; 3. The market for blocking or defensive registration services. Finally, the Court also found that name.space's trademark claims were not ripe, and its common law claims did not allege sufficient facts to be able to state a claim against ICANN. ICANN was represented in this matter by Jones Day.

1 0

Fwd: Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

FYI & A ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= [image: ICANN] <https://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-31-en ------------------------------ Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations 31 July 2015 *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 31 July 2015 *Categories/Tags:* Policy Processes *Purpose (Brief):* During its meeting on 24 June 2015, the GNSO Council unanimously adopted the recommendations of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun…) which was tasked to address a number of questions as they relate to GNSO policy and implementation. Among others, these recommendations include three proposed new GNSO processes, two of which—the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) and the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP)—require changes to the ICANN Bylaws1 <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en#foot1> subject to ICANN Board approval. Per its resolution of 28 July 2015 (see: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-07-28-en#1.c) the ICANN Board has directed that these proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws be posted for public comment prior to ICANN Board consideration. *Public Comment Box Link:* https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en 1 <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en#note1>These proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws are accompanied by a GGP and EPDP Manual, which can be found in Annex D and F of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Final Report (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun…) and would be incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures following adoption of the proposed ICANN Bylaws changes by the ICANN Board.

1 0

Fw: Initial Report on Data & Metrics for Policy Making
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

FYI &A ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-29-en ------------------------------ Initial Report on Data & Metrics for Policy Making 29 July 2015 *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 29 July 2015 *Categories/Tags:* Policy Processes *Purpose (Brief):* This public comment proceeding seeks to obtain community input on the Initial Report from the GNSO's Working Group (WG) on possible recommendations for the use of Data and Metrics for Policy Making. The WG's intent is to develop solutions that will improve the way in which consensus policies are developed and help ensure that the most critical registrant, registry, and registrar issues are addressed by evolving the culture to better informed, fact-based policy development and decision-making. *Public Comment Box Link:* https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29…

1 0