[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject:Re: Nota de Contracte Party House (CPH) sobre revisión At-Large Desde:Vanda Scartezini <vanda@etges.com.br> Thanks Alberto, very timely. From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org> Date: Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 12: 24To: "lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [lac-discuss-en] Note from Contracte Party House (CPH) on At-Large Review Dear, in the note of NSCG, this note of the Contracted Party House is mentioned, whose terms are similar for the At-Large Review. It is an unofficial translation and the short link to see the original published in ICANNhttps://goo.gl/NQzaVC Best regards Alberto Soto May 7, 2018 FAO: Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) of ICANN Board and Cherine Chalaby, Chairman of the ICANN Board Re: Statement of concern for At-Large Review Implementation Implementation Proposal Dear members of Cherine and the Committee: On behalf of the Contracted Party House (CPH) I would like to express our deep concern with the content and intent of the General Proposal for Implementation of the At-Large Review, which was published on April 20, 2018. This proposal follows the 2017 At-Large Review.During the public comment period CPH, among many other SO / AC, sent critical comments that were subsequently included in the recommendations in the final report of ITEMS International. These recommendations, together with the feasibility assessment of the At-Large review and recommendations, and the ICANN staff designed the implementation plan with direct questions for ALAC. The CPH considers that the aforementioned proposal does not address these issues, nor does it respond to the specific criticisms raised in the At-Large review report. In fact, all the recommendations have been rejected or modified.Furthermore, if the proposal is adopted by the OEC and the ICANN Board without the ALAC properly addressing the concerns of the wider ICANN community, this would set an alarming precedent for any future ICANN review. If critical opinions and recommendations, particularly those that are widely supported within the ICANN community, are perceived as ultimately ignorant, The ICANN reviews will lose credibility. The CPH believes that the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the ICANN Board should not consider the ALAC proposal until such time as ALAC provides a detailed response that addresses the criticisms raised by the At-Large review report, and the questions kindly gathered by the ICANN staff. This response must be submitted to the entire ICANN community, so that any additional input or discussion with the community can be arranged, to see the Review to an appropriate end. Yours sincerely, Graeme Bunton Chair RrSG _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org http://www.lacralo.org [[--Original text (es) Translated by transbot 2.18-2.04 http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/4592652412.html --]]