[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] [[--This message had format issues and was not translated properly--]] Subject:Re: Voto ALAC sobre KSK Desde:Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> In accordance with the fundamentals expressed by Alan. It seems reasonable to me. One of our fundamental objectives now is to achieve greater participation of the ALs in quantity and quality. Greetings to all Aida On April 6, 2018, 11:01 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: [[--Translated text (en -> es) -]] [[--This message had format issues and was not defined properly--]] Subject: Re: Vote ALAC on KSK From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Alejandro, you are right that although there are exceptions, ALSes have not been effective vehicles for ICANN policy work. That has to and will change There are two initiatives that come together that I hope and in fact I think will change things. Several years ago, we started a small group that looked at "ALS Criteria and Expectations".The premise was simple. One of the main reasons to have ALSes is to be a communication channel for its members. There is no benefit in having an ALS with many members if only the formal (voting) representative is involved. The plan was to regularly send understandable information to ALS and REQUIRE them to distribute them to their members. We know that only a few people have a great interest in ICA NN policy work, but if we can reach enough people, SOME of them will be interested.Unfortunately, the IANA transition and ICANN accountability efforts started and took up all our time and the ALS project did not make much progress. Now we are near the end of the At-Large Review. It will not be surprising that the review discovered that ALS were not very effective in contributing to policy work. Our plan (I hope it is approved by the Board in Panama) is to revive and improve the ALS project. So the ALS will be forced to be more active. This plan has been actively supported within the ALAC and all RALOs.We can not force any ALS to have all its members communicate with their Internet Service Providers related to Rollover KSK. But if we can send them understandable and actionable information, hopefully many will. In the future, if there is an ALS just for your representative to vote or request a trip, I would like to think that they will not be judged as an effective part of a RALO or A t-Large and we will take action. Alan On 04/06/2018 03:52 PM, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:> Humberto,>> We look forward to the details.In my original move I> emphasized the shortness of deadlines. Given that the ALAC deadlines are> exceeding, compliance with the procedures will make it difficult> to give a formal mandate to our ALAC representatives, who will have> the option to vote in conscience. Anticipating that you would not> organize the procedure on time, my movement gives the alternative to> manifest ex-post. >> Dev's objection ratifies what I oppose: ALSs do not assume> responsibilities, they only serve as petitioners. This deepens the> arguments that are advanced against the At Large community as> everything.Dev's expression subverts the analysis and goodwill shown in> Broad explanation by Alan Greenberg. >> ALS that act with responsibility for users, as Vanda has done> expressed very well, will continue to have to act outside and> in spite of LACRALO, in the silence of the doz ens of organizations> whose existence only manifests itself for vote and fly. Sincerely, in> the future, the ALAC representation will take these matters to the> forum in a timely manner without having to wait for the ALSs to submit them. [ERROR: Sentence too long to translate (1321> 1000 bytes)] - Aida Noblia [[--Original text (es) Translated by transbot 2.18-2.04 http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/8eeb16b2a1.html --]]