[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: FW: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding the Technical Liaison Group From: fatimacambronero@gmail.com Dear, In connection with this topic proposed by Alexander, and as expected ms LACRALO comments, I have consulted this with Gonzalo Navarro, who was Chair of the Charter for Board Technical Relations Working Group (BTR WG), the group was tasked with considering measures to improve coordination and cooperation between ICANN and other members of the art community Internet with the intention of, among other things, the dissolution Group Link Technician (TLG) ( http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/tlg/proposed-btr-charter-05aug11-en.p... ). The explanations given by Gonzalo on recommendations made by the ICANN Board and are currently open to comment can be summarized in the following points: -Personally I was very useful to understand that the proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws to remove the link Liaison Group Technician (TLG) in the Board (as non-voting member) and Comitde Nominations as a voting member, are still just that, proposals, and still has not taken any decision in this regard. I also seem to understand that an important part of the process, and still has not been solved, finding the best mechanism that can replace the technician liaison person at the Meeting. So it is that estabierta the whole community the opportunity to review and propose cul be the best mechanism / figure to replace the current one. In relacina this query, in Buenos Aires was made in a meeting that was invited people from different agencies and organizations techniques that are part of ICANN to discuss this matter. In Singapore it will to make a new reuniny be important that those interested in participate can do so (this can be addressed in another thread). -The Liaison Group representatives Technician estformado 4 organizations: 1) ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute; 2) ITU-T (International Telecommunications Union's Telecommunication Standardization Sector), 3) W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), IAB (Internet Architecture Board). Each year, rotates a member of ETSI, ITU-T and W3C that envan a liaison to the Board. IAB does not participate in this rotation because it has a permanent seat on the Board Travs IETF. From this derive, from my point of view, two important considerations: 1) Lack of reciprocity between ICANN and these organizations: this means that ICANN allows these organizations have members on their board, but these organizations do not permit same. ETSI, for example, has no representatives within the ICANN Board to participate in counseling or in decision-making.2) The criterion of annual rotation basis: everyone who participated in ICANN know that many of their bodies consider during first year of office is allowed to know the functioning of the organism (constituency) and freshly aoo during the second mandate, contributions they can make more informed and substantiated because it is understood how to do it. The role of the technician bond lasts only one year will prevent the some way that they can make these constructive contributions and pondrams emphasis on the person (who already own capabilities, knowledge, having affinities with the work of ICANN not all of these Internet organizations consider similar manner as does ICANN-skills to be inserted into the ICANN ecosystem, including others) in the role of technician link. That is, that the effectiveness of TLG estarams person subject to desempee this role and not the smisma contained in (this is my personal opinion). This point about reciprocity in the report also estmencionado Independent in charge JAS Communications LLC on the revision of TLG ( http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/tlg/tlg-review-final-report-03dec10-e... ). -Related to the previous point, and from my point of view, an argument very important to consider the changes of TLG is that ICANN and account internally within their own communities, with agencies / organizations / communities in charge of providing the technical advice, not only when I ask the Board if not before any situation that may affect the interests of their own members.This can be observed in the different AC (ADISORY Committee) as the SSAC, Safety and Stability; RSSAC for the Servers System of Raz, even ALAC that can advise the Board technicians on certain matters affecting the interests of Internet users (eg recordarn there was a group within At-Large dedicated to IDN that played a major role, although our region has not affected us particularly). Even this technical advice also comes from other bodies that are part of the ICANN structure as the NRO (which gathers all RIR) and participate in the ASO (Address Supporting Organization) and IETF, commented that as ms above has a permanent seat on the Board. Personally after having analyzed and understood these arguments, consider important to support this recommendation of the Board, to eliminate seat on the Board liaison technician, BUT ALL participating in Search of the best mechanism that can replace it.This is a process is still open and in which we continue to believe atencine involved to ensure our position as THIN also be taken into account. I also believe that no elimination deberllevarse out until you have not found the best mechanism TLG replace manager, a process in which all deberparticipar the ICANN community. Also, as another issue from my point of view may be opened with this decision is that if the technician link will be removed from the Board as a seat, because the techniques are to make inquiries (in fact, already are) internally to different constituencies, MUST NOT be each of these AC two seats on the Board as having the OS? A this left it as another issue to discuss in another thread. In a separate email I will send the draft declaration proposed on the modification of FIG Technical-link in the Board for if we agree, it can be sent as LACRALO declaration before ALAC to be adopted as a declaration of ALAC. Personally I thank Gonzalo Navarro for kindly been taken the time to explain this issue and for allowing me LACRALO share with all your explanations. Best Regards, Fatima Cambronero The 24 November 2013 20:49, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com> wrote:
Fátima,
mi reconocimiento por tomar esta iniciativa en el que es casi literalmente tu primer día hábil como representante de LACRALO ante ALAC. Buena señal; ojalá como comunidad sepamos hacer algo constructivo en esta forma.
Sobre tu pregunta en cuanto a la importancia de la modificación relativa al Grupo de Enlace Técnico (TLG), creo que Alberto Soto la captó perfectamente. El cambio propuesto implica que la persona de enlace (vote o no) ya no estará en las discusiones desde el principio. Será el Board el que decida si necesita o no asesoría técnica. Y creo que muchos de nosotros sabemos que para la hora que te das cuenta de que tienes un problema, puede ser demasiado tarde, o digamos un costo de oportunidad, no haber empezado el trabajo junto con el conocimiento técnico necesario.
Repito que esto no sólo se refiere a casos en que el enlace técnico te pudo haber dicho que estabas proponiendo algo incorrecto o inviable, sino al revés, que tu propuesta era demasiado timorata y no aprovechaba todo el potencial de la tecnología.
Es esto lo que propongo que evitemos.
En cuanto a que la persona de enlace vote o no vote: en el Board en general se aspira a un consenso informado y amplio, en el que la votación desde luego es importante pero si está muy dividida se siga explorando el espacio de los acuerdos posibles. El enlace técnico ayuda mucho a esto en los temas que le tocan.
Atención. el asunto no está exento de problemas. El TLG está formado, entre otros, por la UIT y ETSI, que no siempre son afines a los temas de Internet, y dependiendo de la persona pueden hacer contribuciones constructivas o no. Pero esto es algo que requiere creatividad para resolverlo y no, como dije antes, arrojar al niño con el agua de la bañera.
Alejandro Pisanty
2013/11/24 Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero@gmail.com>
Alejandro, todos,
Gracias por llamarnos la atención sobre este tema.
Adherimos a la idea de contar con una discusión y un pronunciamiento de LACRALO sobre este asunto. Estamos trabajando con Dev y León, analizando los documentos y haciendo las consultas necesarias para poder presentar un borrador de declaración ante LACRALO sobre este asunto. Luego si logramos consenso en LACRALO, lo presentaríamos como declaración ante ALAC.
Alejandro, ¿podrías ayudarnos a entender por qué tú dices que Estas modificaciones remueven a la persona de enlace del TLG de las decisiones del Board cuando esta persona de enlace es una persona non-voting? Esto podría ayudarnos a elaborar una mejor posición sobre el tema.
Estos son los documentos que se deberían revisar para entender mejor este asunto:
-La Wiki de At-Large donde se encuentran los borradores y comentarios presentados sobre este tema: http://bit.ly/1bgvfid
-El reporte final del Grupo de Trabajo de la Junta sobre Relaciones Técnicas (traducción propia, nombre en inglés Final Report from the Board Technical Relations Working Group): http://bit.ly/1bgvtpu
-El borrador de las modificaciones propuestas a los Estatutos de ICANN en las secciones correspondientes: http://bit.ly/1bgvwkY
Agradecemos todos los comentarios que nos puedan hacer llegar o las propuestas de declaración que quieran presentar.
Saludos cordiales,
Fatima
2013/11/24 Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org>
Si bien mi inglés es malo, coincido con Alejandro. Parecería que en lugar de una acción directa del Grupo de enlace técnico (TLG), habrá una "respuesta a una solicitud de información...". Es decir, que si no hay una solicitud de información, no habrá información. Y no parecería correcto una acción preventiva a una acción correctiva on demand.
Por favor, lean y opinen.
Saludos cordiales
Alberto Soto
-----Mensaje original----- De: lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Enviado el: domingo, 24 de noviembre de 2013 03:25 p.m. Para: lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org Asunto: [lac-discuss-es] RV: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding the Technical Liaison Group
Colegas,
el asunto de la consulta a la que se refiere este mensaje es de importancia relativamente alta. Trata de las modificaciones que se están proponiendo a las reglas aplicables al Grupo de Enlace Técnico (Technical Liaison Group o TLG). Estas modificaciones remueven a la persona de enlace del TLG de las decisiones del Board y otros espacios.
Como consecuencia, el contacto del Board con la tecnología se diluye y vuelve demasiado indirecto.
Les pregunto si están Uds. de acuerdo en que LACRALO emita una opinión al ALAC, e instruya a nuestros/as representantes a defenderla con su voto contra las modificaciones propuestas, en los términos que describo de inmediato. La alternativa que debemos proponer es que se siga estudiando el tema con una solución alterna que haga efectivo al TLG sin removerlo de su función actual. El texto que propongo ya lo subí como comentario en la página de ALAC y dice:
"I do not think this reform is going in a good direction. It makes the relationship of the Board with the technical community much more tenuous and indirect.
ALAC as an Interrnet users representation (or voice, at least) should be concerned that the Board may advance more in its debates and decisions without necessary technical views before actually soliciting them, instead of having the Technical Liaison Group's voice as one more when decisions are being shaped, since the early stages.
We run the risk of privileging representation and diversity in the composition of the Board while sacrificing the soundness of its decisions.
The technical liaison acts not only as described - "watchdog" acting as a backstop against decisions which could be technically wrong but also can push for more creative solutions to problems. It is not only the knowledge of the technology's constraints but the creativity based on the deep awareness of its potential that we could all be losing.
By removing the liaison instead of fixing it, we may be supporting an act of throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Let's not."
Quedo atento a sus comentarios y en su momento en función de ellos solicitaré acción de la Presidencia y la Secretaría.
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
________________________________________ Desde: alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de ICANN At-Large Staff [staff@atlarge.icann.org] Enviado el: sábado, 23 de noviembre de 2013 06:42 Hasta: alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org Asunto: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding the Technical Liaison Group
Dear All,
Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for comments be made on the draft "ALAC Statement on the Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding the Technical Liaison Group< https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg
" in preparation for the start of the ALAC ratification process.
The current draft can be found on the At-Large Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding the Technical Liaison Group Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg>.
Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 06-Dec-2013 23:59 UTC.
A vote is to commence after comments have been collected.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
--- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast! Antivirus está activa. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
-- *Fatima Cambronero*
Abogada-Argentina
Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero
*Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
*Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:* http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/
*Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
* Fatima * Cambronero Attorney-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @ facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero * Join the LACRALO / ICANN discussions: * https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es * Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions: * http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ * Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): * http://www.internetsociety.org/ _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/8c33ec7ed4.html --]]