Three things in my comment : 1) The statement needs to be updated to say that LACRALO does not support the changes removing the TLG liaison to the Board at this time which is the true intent of the statement. 2) Would removing the TLG liaision to the Board appointed by ETSI, W3C and ITU-T on a rotating basis each year to the Board be that much of a detriment? Given: - the proposed bylaw changes keeps the IETF liaison to the Board - the TLG expert panel will still be present to offer advice to the Board when requested by the Board and to offer advice to the Board in a "watchdog" capacity. I am thinking removing the TLG liaision to the Board would be ok given the two reasons above and I wanted to point those out for those persons that support keeping the TLG liaison on the Board for now. 3) The proposed bylaw changes removes the delegate from the TLG to the Nominating Committee. Given the concerns of having persons on the Board with sufficient technical expertise, this change should not be supported and the TLG should continue to be able to select a delegate to serve on the Nominating Committee. Dev Anand On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 12:19 PM, <aidanoblia@gmail.com> wrote:

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]

Subject: Re: = iso-8859-1 == q 3A_CONVOCATORIA_DE_COMENTARIOS FW = iso-8859-1 q = F3n_de_ALAC_sobre_los_estatutos_propu == 3A_Declaraci = iso-8859-1 q = F3n_con_el_Grupo_T = E9cnico_ estos_cambios_en_relaci????? ? == iso-8859-1? q? de_Enlace? = From: aidanoblia@gmail.com

Forgiveness but it is not clear what is the last modification proposed by DEV.

Entendque the problem is given in the last paragraph of the declaration and especially with regard in particular to the speaker of the "elimination" of technician link.

Maybe you could modify this paragraph shall be as the deadline of 3 is internal and the other period is 5 had mentioned to have the definitive 6.

Especially perhaps could change the word "elimination" of the other ms reflect the situacina referring Dev, as also Alejandro he understood that there is reason in the situation posed Dev

This looking for a solution because if the rest of the declaration is est according guess maybe modifying this may eliminate contradiction.

If I'm able to forgive a mistake, is too complex a topic for my at this time and is certainly not the only one.

Regards

- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________

[[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/43d644601f.html --]]

_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en