Re: [lac-discuss-en] [lac-discuss-es] Alcance y Compromiso SC
Dear Alberto, I will comment on the issues of the Outreach and Engagement and CROPP issues separately. Despite the two groups being chaired by the same person, they operate under different rules and processes. Subcommittee on Outreach and Engagement The Subcommittee (SC) is composed of two members named by each RALO plus any other people that chose to participate. Operationally, the SC does not distinguish between the two types of participants. The SC leadership is selected by the SC itself. See (<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Subcommittee+on+Outreach+and+Engagement>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Subcommittee+on+Outreach+and+Engagement) for further details. There are 14 members from LACRALO, more than from any other region. Any work product of the SC should be a product of the entire SC, or at least those who choose to be active and participate. That certainly should include the official members selected by the region. The SC may decide to ask RALOs for input, but even if it doesnt, it is the responsibility of the regional members to ensure that the region is involved. In a multistakeholder environment, every participant cannot get exactly what they want, but every participant should have an opportunity to be heard. If a work product is about a particular region (as it is for the CROPP strategies), that region clearly has a very important role to play. In the case of LACRALO, we go to great efforts to ensure that the SC has Spanish interpretation to ensure that your members can participate equitably. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no major complaint from within the SC that people are not being listened to. The Independence of RALOs, like most things in life, is not absolute. In many cases, an ALAC SC or WG carries out work on behalf of ALAC and At-Large. They do this with the participation of people from all regions. Generally these decisions or documents do not impact what a RALO can do, but occasionally the ALAC gives a SC explicit responsibility to take action on behalf of ALAC and At-Large even if the results do not go back to the ALAC for ratification. In the specific case of the CROPP strategy document, I am not an expert, but I do not see a wide difference between the resultant document and what I have heard is of specific interest to LACRALO. The exact words may be different, but the intent seems the same. But regardless of how I read it, IF the region has a problem, it should be dealt with within the SC and by those appointed by LACRALO to work on the SC. If there is a situation where the SC members and the Chair and Co-Chairs cannot resolve an issue, I expect it to be presented to me or the ALAC Leadership Team, ensuring that the ALT Member from the region is aware of the issue. You mention that the internal LACRALO document had more concrete details. That is quite reasonable. As I understand the situation, the plans to be submitted to GSE did not require that level of detail and implementation. As long as the two were complementary and did not conflict, there is no problem. CROPP Program Last year, the CROPP program within At-Large was carried out by the CROPP Review Team (RT) from the previous year. The current RT is composed of two people from each region, one appointed by the Members of the Finance and Budget Subcommittee, and one by the Members of the Outreach and Engagement SC. A requests for use of CROPP funds goes from the originator to the RALO and then to the CROPP RT. Exactly how the RALO approves a project is up to the RALO. I suspect that most RALOs do this with their leadership team and perhaps a few others. Once the CROPP RT is notified by RALO leadership that a request is approved by the RALO, the CROPP RT must review it. They have the duty to ensure that the request meets the regional strategy and is in all ways a good request. If they are not satisfied, they can either reject the request or refer it back to the originator or RALO for modification. My understanding is that the LACRALO trip to Haiti and the Dominican Republic was satisfactory and I do not see the need to review the process it followed at this time. For the record, Dev Anand Teelucksingh did not travel to Buenos Aires on CROPP funds. His trip was funded by GSE under a completely different program. I hope that this addresses all of your issues. Regards, Alan
TRANSLATION BY SILVIA VIVANCO:
Dear Alan, I am obliged as President of LACRALO to get in touch about this issue:
The insistence of the Chairman of a Subcommittee of the ALAC (Outreach and Engagement SC ) in making decisions which should, by regulation be made inside of LACRALO and with full participation of its members ALSs, compels me to do so. Repeated clarifications do not justify such a decision.
Comments from Pisanty and myself have been cited as if they were an approval of the Plan generated in the O/E Subcommittee, which acted without previously consulting the document which we already had prepared. Both mine, and the opinion of Alejandro Pisanty were critical of such document. Subsequently, and despite the bad procedure, we, in display of good will and seeking peace in our Region, accepted this plan, despite the fact that ours had more concrete details about the countries, according to the list that I promptly submitted, and long before this Strategic Plan.
The main detail was that the plan should take into account as a priority, those countries that had the lowest rate of Internet penetration, as a way to start that required greater support and major actions to coordinate with ICANN GSE. I asked for clarifications to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on our last monthly meeting. At that meeting, he not only insisted on his mistake, but he confirmed that the persons forming such Subcommittee would be in charge of the implementation of such plan and they were also analyzing the alternatives of the CROPP Program for its implementation by of such Subcommittee.
In summary: first an ALS presents a project, which shall be approved by consensus within LACRALO and then leadership of LACRALO sends it for approval through the CROPP program and then to GSE.
They are assuming a power which does not correspond to them, even though I requested by email and at the last monthly meeting that they did not.
He also insisted that the Sub-Committee was formed by members of LACRALO, erroneously understanding this validated such actions.
The MOU that LACRALO has signed with ICANN, gives us the independence in decisions, which should be taken within the scope of our Region and within our normative discussions area, not within a Sub-Committee of ALAC, despite the fact that this is composed of members of LACRALO.
In the links listed in the email below, you can see that a similar program for AFRALO was approved by the members of AFRALO on September 21, 2015; of APRALO by their leaders on July 3, 2015; of NARALO by Glenn McKnight 4l 4 August 2015; of EURALO by Dev Anand Teelucksingh the 29th September 2015; and the LACRALO also by Dev Anand Teelucksingh on September 15, 2015. At least for LACRALO, he has taken a role which does not correspond to him.
In the emails cited by the Chair of the Subcommittee, there are inconsistencies such as the exchange of emails for the proposal by Carlton Samuels to go to Surinam; this was only presented by Dev Anand Teelucksingh in the meeting which we had on the Haiti and Dominican Republic. There was such urgency that we did not have time to submit it to LACRALO and exceptionally we decided with Humberto at that meeting so as to avoid losing our CROPP trip allocation.
In the meeting previous to the last meeting of ICANN in Buenos Aires, it is said that we agreed and published the names of who would travel to such meeting.
CROPP?s Chair, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, published such names, but omitted in the list his own name, because he travelled to Argentina with a travel allocation of such program.
To safeguard our decisions, our autonomy and hoping to avoid future inconvenient, I request that you proceed to issue the appropriate Directive to such Subcommittee.
At 11/01/2016 07:16 AM, Alberto Soto wrote:
Estimado Alan, me veo obligado como Presidente de LACRALO a ponerme en contacto por este tema.
La insistencia del Presidente de un Subcomité de ALAC (Alcance y compromiso SC) en tomar decisiones que por norma deben tomarse en el interior de LACRALO y con participación de sus ALSs miembros, me obliga a ello. Las repetidas aclaraciones no justifican esa decisión.
Se ha citado comentarios de Alejando Pisanty y míos como si hubieran sido de aprobación del Plan generado en ese subcomité sin haber consultado previamente el documento con el que ya contábamos. Tanto la opinión de Alejandro como la mía, eran críticas de tal documento. A posteriori y pese a ese mal procedimiento, como muestra de buena voluntad y buscando la paz en nuestra Región, dimos como aceptado dicho Plan, pese a que el nuestro tenía detalles más concretos sobre los países, según la lista que yo oportunamente presentara, y mucho antes de este Plan Estratégico. El detalle principal era que se debía tener en cuenta como prioridad, a aquellos países que tuvieran el menor índice de penetración de Internet, como una forma de comenzar por los que requerían mayor apoyo y mayores acciones a coordinar con GSE de ICANN.
Pedí aclaraciones al Presidente del Subcomité en nuestra última reunión mensual; allí no solo insistió en su error, sino que confirmó que las personas integrante de dicho Subcomité se harían cargo de la implementación de dicho plan, y además estaban analizado las alternativas del programa CROPP para su implementación por parte de dicho Subcomité. Como síntesis de este tema en particular: primero una ALS presenta un proyecto, se aprueba por consenso en LACRALO y luego el liderazgo de LACRALO lo envía para su aprobación al programa CROPP y de allí a GSE. Se están arrogando una atribución que no corresponde, pese a que se pidió por mail y en la última reunión mensual que no lo hicieran.
También insistió en que dicho subcomité estaba conformado por miembros de LACRALO, entendiendo erróneamente que ello convalidaba tales acciones. El MOU que LACRALO tiene firmado con ICANN, nos da la independencia en las decisiones, las que deben tomarse dentro del ámbito de nuestra Región y en nuestro ámbito normativo de discusiones, y no dentro de un Subcomité de ALAC, pese a que esté integrado por miembros de LACRALO.
En los links que están indicados en el mail de abajo, se puede ver que el programa similar de AFRALO fue aprobado por los miembros de AFRALO el 21 de septiembre de 2015; el de APRALO por sus líderes el 3 de julio de 2015; el de NARALO por Glenn McKnight 4l 4 de agosto de 2015; el de EURALO por Dev Anand Teelucksingh el 29de septiembre de 2015; y el de LACRALO también por Dev Anand Teelucksingh el 15 de septiembre de 2015. Al menos por LACRALO, se ha tomado una atribución que no le corresponde.
En los mail citados por el Presidente del subcomité, hay inconsistencias tales como el intercambio de correos para la propuesta de Carlton Samuels para ir a Surinam; esto solo fue presentado por Dev Anand Teelucksingh en una reunión que mantuvimos por el tema de Haití y República Dominica. Era con tal urgencia que no tuvimos tiempo de presentarlo ante LACRALO y excepcionalmente lo definimos con Humberto en esa reunión para no perder un viaje de CROPP. En la reunión previa al último meeting de ICANN en Buenos Aires, se cita que concordamos y fueron publicados los nombres de quienes viajarían a dicho meeting. El Presidente del CROPP, Dev Anand Teelucksingh publicó dichos nombres, pero omitió en la lista el suyo propio, dado que viajó con una vacante de dicho programa.
Por el resguardo de nuestras decisiones, nuestra autonomía, y esperando evitar futuros inconvenientes, solicito tengas a bien dar la directiva correspondiente a ese Subcomité.
Saludos cordiales
Alberto Soto
Dear Alberto, It is unfortunate that there still exist such enormous level of distrust in LACRALO. The situation is now untenable. Please remove my name from all mailing lists. I do not wish to be a member of this group. Regards, Karlene Francis
On 17 Feb 2016, at 7:48 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Dear Alberto,
I will comment on the issues of the Outreach and Engagement and CROPP issues separately. Despite the two groups being chaired by the same person, they operate under different rules and processes.
Subcommittee on Outreach and Engagement
The Subcommittee (SC) is composed of two members named by each RALO plus any other people that chose to participate. Operationally, the SC does not distinguish between the two types of participants. The SC leadership is selected by the SC itself. See ( https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Subcommittee+on+Outreach+an... ) for further details.
There are 14 members from LACRALO, more than from any other region.
Any work product of the SC should be a product of the entire SC, or at least those who choose to be active and participate. That certainly should include the official members selected by the region. The SC may decide to ask RALOs for input, but even if it doesn’t, it is the responsibility of the regional members to ensure that the region is involved. In a multistakeholder environment, every participant cannot get exactly what they want, but every participant should have an opportunity to be heard. If a work product is about a particular region (as it is for the CROPP strategies), that region clearly has a very important role to play. In the case of LACRALO, we go to great efforts to ensure that the SC has Spanish interpretation to ensure that your members can participate equitably.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no major complaint from within the SC that people are not being listened to.
The Independence of RALOs, like most things in life, is not absolute. In many cases, an ALAC SC or WG carries out work on behalf of ALAC and At-Large. They do this with the participation of people from all regions. Generally these decisions or documents do not impact what a RALO can do, but occasionally the ALAC gives a SC explicit responsibility to take action on behalf of ALAC and At-Large even if the results do not go back to the ALAC for ratification.
In the specific case of the CROPP strategy document, I am not an expert, but I do not see a wide difference between the resultant document and what I have heard is of specific interest to LACRALO. The exact words may be different, but the intent seems the same. But regardless of how I read it, IF the region has a problem, it should be dealt with within the SC and by those appointed by LACRALO to work on the SC. If there is a situation where the SC members and the Chair and Co-Chairs cannot resolve an issue, I expect it to be presented to me or the ALAC Leadership Team, ensuring that the ALT Member from the region is aware of the issue.
You mention that the internal LACRALO document had more concrete details. That is quite reasonable. As I understand the situation, the plans to be submitted to GSE did not require that level of detail and implementation. As long as the two were complementary and did not conflict, there is no problem.
CROPP Program
Last year, the CROPP program within At-Large was carried out by the CROPP Review Team (RT) from the previous year. The current RT is composed of two people from each region, one appointed by the Members of the Finance and Budget Subcommittee, and one by the Members of the Outreach and Engagement SC.
A requests for use of CROPP funds goes from the originator to the RALO and then to the CROPP RT. Exactly how the RALO approves a project is up to the RALO. I suspect that most RALOs do this with their leadership team and perhaps a few others. Once the CROPP RT is notified by RALO leadership that a request is approved by the RALO, the CROPP RT must review it. They have the duty to ensure that the request meets the regional strategy and is in all ways a good request. If they are not satisfied, they can either reject the request or refer it back to the originator or RALO for modification. My understanding is that the LACRALO trip to Haiti and the Dominican Republic was satisfactory and I do not see the need to review the process it followed at this time.
For the record, Dev Anand Teelucksingh did not travel to Buenos Aires on CROPP funds. His trip was funded by GSE under a completely different program.
I hope that this addresses all of your issues.
Regards, Alan
TRANSLATION BY SILVIA VIVANCO:
Dear Alan, I am obliged as President of LACRALO to get in touch about this issue:
The insistence of the Chairman of a Subcommittee of the ALAC (Outreach and Engagement SC ) in making decisions which should, by regulation be made inside of LACRALO and with full participation of its members ALSs, compels me to do so. Repeated clarifications do not justify such a decision.
Comments from Pisanty and myself have been cited as if they were an approval of the Plan generated in the O/E Subcommittee, which acted without previously consulting the document which we already had prepared. Both mine, and the opinion of Alejandro Pisanty were critical of such document. Subsequently, and despite the bad procedure, we, in display of good will and seeking peace in our Region, accepted this plan, despite the fact that ours had more concrete details about the countries, according to the list that I promptly submitted, and long before this Strategic Plan.
The main detail was that the plan should take into account as a priority, those countries that had the lowest rate of Internet penetration, as a way to start that required greater support and major actions to coordinate with ICANN GSE. I asked for clarifications to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on our last monthly meeting. At that meeting, he not only insisted on his mistake, but he confirmed that the persons forming such Subcommittee would be in charge of the implementation of such plan and they were also analyzing the alternatives of the CROPP Program for its implementation by of such Subcommittee.
In summary: first an ALS presents a project, which shall be approved by consensus within LACRALO and then leadership of LACRALO sends it for approval through the CROPP program and then to GSE.
They are assuming a power which does not correspond to them, even though I requested by email and at the last monthly meeting that they did not.
He also insisted that the Sub-Committee was formed by members of LACRALO, erroneously understanding this validated such actions.
The MOU that LACRALO has signed with ICANN, gives us the independence in decisions, which should be taken within the scope of our Region and within our normative discussions area, not within a Sub-Committee of ALAC, despite the fact that this is composed of members of LACRALO.
In the links listed in the email below, you can see that a similar program for AFRALO was approved by the members of AFRALO on September 21, 2015; of APRALO by their leaders on July 3, 2015; of NARALO by Glenn McKnight 4l 4 August 2015; of EURALO by Dev Anand Teelucksingh the 29th September 2015; and the LACRALO also by Dev Anand Teelucksingh on September 15, 2015. At least for LACRALO, he has taken a role which does not correspond to him.
In the emails cited by the Chair of the Subcommittee, there are inconsistencies such as the exchange of emails for the proposal by Carlton Samuels to go to Surinam; this was only presented by Dev Anand Teelucksingh in the meeting which we had on the Haiti and Dominican Republic. There was such urgency that we did not have time to submit it to LACRALO and exceptionally we decided with Humberto at that meeting so as to avoid losing our CROPP trip allocation.
In the meeting previous to the last meeting of ICANN in Buenos Aires, it is said that we agreed and published the names of who would travel to such meeting.
CROPP?s Chair, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, published such names, but omitted in the list his own name, because he travelled to Argentina with a travel allocation of such program.
To safeguard our decisions, our autonomy and hoping to avoid future inconvenient, I request that you proceed to issue the appropriate Directive to such Subcommittee.
At 11/01/2016 07:16 AM, Alberto Soto wrote:
Estimado Alan, me veo obligado como Presidente de LACRALO a ponerme en contacto por este tema.
La insistencia del Presidente de un Subcomité de ALAC (Alcance y compromiso SC) en tomar decisiones que por norma deben tomarse en el interior de LACRALO y con participación de sus ALSs miembros, me obliga a ello. Las repetidas aclaraciones no justifican esa decisión.
Se ha citado comentarios de Alejando Pisanty y míos como si hubieran sido de aprobación del Plan generado en ese subcomité sin haber consultado previamente el documento con el que ya contábamos. Tanto la opinión de Alejandro como la mía, eran críticas de tal documento. A posteriori y pese a ese mal procedimiento, como muestra de buena voluntad y buscando la paz en nuestra Región, dimos como aceptado dicho Plan, pese a que el nuestro tenía detalles más concretos sobre los países, según la lista que yo oportunamente presentara, y mucho antes de este Plan Estratégico. El detalle principal era que se debía tener en cuenta como prioridad, a aquellos países que tuvieran el menor índice de penetración de Internet, como una forma de comenzar por los que requerían mayor apoyo y mayores acciones a coordinar con GSE de ICANN.
Pedí aclaraciones al Presidente del Subcomité en nuestra última reunión mensual; allí no solo insistió en su error, sino que confirmó que las personas integrante de dicho Subcomité se harían cargo de la implementación de dicho plan, y además estaban analizado las alternativas del programa CROPP para su implementación por parte de dicho Subcomité. Como síntesis de este tema en particular: primero una ALS presenta un proyecto, se aprueba por consenso en LACRALO y luego el liderazgo de LACRALO lo envía para su aprobación al programa CROPP y de allí a GSE. Se están arrogando una atribución que no corresponde, pese a que se pidió por mail y en la última reunión mensual que no lo hicieran.
También insistió en que dicho subcomité estaba conformado por miembros de LACRALO, entendiendo erróneamente que ello convalidaba tales acciones. El MOU que LACRALO tiene firmado con ICANN, nos da la independencia en las decisiones, las que deben tomarse dentro del ámbito de nuestra Región y en nuestro ámbito normativo de discusiones, y no dentro de un Subcomité de ALAC, pese a que esté integrado por miembros de LACRALO.
En los links que están indicados en el mail de abajo, se puede ver que el programa similar de AFRALO fue aprobado por los miembros de AFRALO el 21 de septiembre de 2015; el de APRALO por sus líderes el 3 de julio de 2015; el de NARALO por Glenn McKnight 4l 4 de agosto de 2015; el de EURALO por Dev Anand Teelucksingh el 29de septiembre de 2015; y el de LACRALO también por Dev Anand Teelucksingh el 15 de septiembre de 2015. Al menos por LACRALO, se ha tomado una atribución que no le corresponde.
En los mail citados por el Presidente del subcomité, hay inconsistencias tales como el intercambio de correos para la propuesta de Carlton Samuels para ir a Surinam; esto solo fue presentado por Dev Anand Teelucksingh en una reunión que mantuvimos por el tema de Haití y República Dominica. Era con tal urgencia que no tuvimos tiempo de presentarlo ante LACRALO y excepcionalmente lo definimos con Humberto en esa reunión para no perder un viaje de CROPP. En la reunión previa al último meeting de ICANN en Buenos Aires, se cita que concordamos y fueron publicados los nombres de quienes viajarían a dicho meeting. El Presidente del CROPP, Dev Anand Teelucksingh publicó dichos nombres, pero omitió en la lista el suyo propio, dado que viajó con una vacante de dicho programa.
Por el resguardo de nuestras decisiones, nuestra autonomía, y esperando evitar futuros inconvenientes, solicito tengas a bien dar la directiva correspondiente a ese Subcomité.
Saludos cordiales
Alberto Soto
lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Karlene Francis