Dear All: Plus 1 to these observations. Plus 1 for the recommendations contained here. - Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Jacqueline Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>wrote:
Sorry I have taken so long - I really wanted to do proper research and make reasoned, logical comments in line with the role of the RALOs, the values and MSH model of ICANN, and the ALAC improvements. I also looked at the original emails around the formation of the RALOs to refresh my memory as to why certain specific clauses were in the Operating Principles.
I tried not to make it an academic treatise with loads of references and footnotes, but I do have them, in case anyone would like to know more about why I made specific comments.
Also sorry for the length of the document - I could not make it shorter, try as I might.
Comments on the proposal for modification of the LACRALO Operating Principles and Rules of Procedure
In general, I believe that the items contained in the proposal are overly broad and sweeping, will change the entire character of the LACRALO, and not for the better. They seem designed to create a massive bureaucratic organisation in which there are almost 30% chiefs, with few workers, and also seem designed to discard both the diverse nature of LACRALO and any pretense of democracy that remains in the organisation.
To specifics::
Paragraph 2:
This item is designed to allow for rules to be created to allow individual participation in LACRALO. This is something that has been in process for five years. Instead of treating with the substantive theme of this item, increased participation by all end-users in the region, the proposed modification seeks to insert participation requirements to limit participation by the ALSes, and ignores the individual user.
I suggest that the proposed modification be stricken, and a motion proposed instead that states:
Whereas Individuals who wish to participate in LACRALO are not able to so do solely because there is no accredited ALS in their country; We propose that Any individual seeking to participate must: be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the LAC region as defined by ICANN, not be a member of a certified ALS. Such individuals will be allowed to join LACRALO as individual members and participate in LACRALO activities including votes. Such individuals will be subject to all LACRALO rules and requirements.
Along with this, we propose a modification to the text of para 1 of the Operating Principles:
1. The LACRALO is composed of the ALSs of Latin America and the Caribbean accredited by the ALAC as a mechanism to promote and ensure participation by regional users in the process of developing ICANN policies
to
1. The LACRALO is composed of the ALSs of Latin America and the Caribbean region as defined by ICANN, as well as qualified individual members, accredited by the ALAC as a mechanism to promote and ensure participation by regional users in the process of developing ICANN policies
Proposed new text is shown in bold.
Paragraph 4
This proposal was the most difficult for me to wrap my mind around. To me, it seemed simply ridiculous. However, I will attempt to break it down and deal with each item.
“LACRALO’s supreme and sovereign governing body will be a General Assembly.”
This is inconsistent with the actuality of the LACRALO. The LACRALO only exists inside of and subject to ICANN, via the ALAC. Hence the insertion of the terms “supreme and sovereign” just seems ridiculous to me, and I suggest those terms be stricken and the original language retained.
“The governing body of the LACRALO will be a General Assembly”
Next:
“ Each ALS accredited in the General Assembly will be entitled to one vote.”
This removes the weighting provision that was specifically imposed to allow countries with fewer ALSes by virtue of smaller populations to have a more equitable voice alongside larger countries which may have many more ALSes. Removal of this provision will lead to capture of the LACRALO by larger countries, and I strongly object to the removal of the weighting system, and request that this text be stricken.
Next: “Said representatives shall also act for the duration of their appointment as official contacts of the ALS vis-à-vis the LACRALO,with the duties to keep their e-mails updated, to inform the Secretariat and the At-Large Staff of any change in same or in the names of said representatives.”
Just a wording change here - “emails” should be changed to “email addresses”
The removal of the text referring to LACRALO operating by consensus is against the values and principles of ICANN, which operates by consensus in all its activities, and I strongly request that it be retained.
Chair, Vice Chair, Secretariat, Vice Seecretariat, ALAC representatives, alternates, and Board.
This is patently ridiculous. The creation of a THIRTEEN member Board of LACRALO is unnecessary, overly bureaucratic and unworkable. I suggest this entire modification be stricken.
“Diversity requirements shall not be applicable among incumbent and alternate members with respect to each other.”
I totally disagree. Diversity requirements are needed to balance the voices of the much larger Latin American sub-region with the much smaller Caribbean region. Removal of diversity requirements will leave the smaller countries of the Caribbean without a voice in LACRALO.
“In the case of the election, the affiliation, residency and nationality coincidence of same with the ALS country represented, shall also be taken into account with respect to the person acting as a representative vis-à-vis ALAC on behalf of LAC [sic] appointed by the Nominating Committee (NOMCOM)“
This is counter to the ICANN bylaws governing the NomCom. The Nominating Committee reports only to the Board, and has extreme latitude in determining who they select. Additionally, the NomCom does not select any “representative vis-à-vis ALAC on behalf of LAC”. The NomCom selects appointees to the ALAC from specific regions, including the LAC, to act on behalf of ICANN and ALAC, in their capacity as individuals. These individuals are NOT selected to act on behalf of the LAC, and far less the LACRALO, hence the nationality of the person chosen should have no bearing on the diversity requirements within the LACRALO.The language of this paragraph shows a serious misunderstanding of, or disagreement with, the Bylaw-mandated role of the NomCom.
“. Each of these representatives shall have an alternate with the same powers as the incumbent in the event of resignation, absence, inability, incompatibilities or decease of the latter. Each incumbent and alternate shall be elected in the same election. For the purpose of better continuity in the discussion of policies, said representatives shall be renewed every other term, one representative having to be elected each year” Text note: Should be “former” in line 2, not “latter”. This is, I believe contrary to ICANN’s by-laws. LACRALO cannot simply create an alternate & send them to an ALAC meeting as representative “with the same powers as the incumbent in the event of resignation, absence, inability, incompatibilities or decease of the latter.” The rules for representatives to ALAC are clear and stated in the ICANN bylaws.
What I believe LACRALO can do is select an alternate in case of resignation, death or any other reason that the ALAC rep cannot fulfill the term, and submit that name to the ALAC in that case. However, until and unless those circumstances arise, the alternate as elected by LACRALO cannot have “the same powers as the incumbent in the event of resignation, absence, inability, incompatibilities or decease of the latter”, as such powers are granted by ALAC, and cannot be granted by LACRALO.
This proposal is basically a massive overreach on the part of LACRALO, to usurp the powers granted in the ICANN bylaws to ALAC.
“These five Policy Directors shall be selected by the Board members elected by the General Assembly. Each of them shall be entitled to one vote and decisions shall be taken by simple majority.“
Unnecessary, bureaucratic and undemocratic. This proposes a Board, created with no diversity requirement, in which over one-third of the members are hand-picked by the other members. If this is not obvious to all as the creation of a cabal, then ideas of good governance are sorely lacking.
“First Temporary Provision. The modifications established with the present reform, will be considered applicable to the terms of the current Chair and Secretariat of LACRALO, which are in power at the time of approval of these modifications by LACRALO’s General Assembly.”
This is contrary to all notions of good governance.
“Second Temporary Provision. The Board of LACRALO shall be constituted from the first election to be conducted immediately after these modifications are approved.”
Having strongly disagreed with the formation of the Board, it is obvious I will disagree with this proposal.
“For the purposes of constituting the first Board of LACRALO, those positions that have already been put to vote, it having been impossible to elect their respective alternates, shall be responsible for selecting their respective alternates for one time only. “
Setting up for corruption and cabal-ism. NO.
Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and Free. (after Chris Lehmann )
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en