My recollection of events, and forgive me for not going back right now to the archives to confirm this, is that we have had widespread agreement on the inclusion of Spanish as an official language of the NA-RALO since our first discussions. I recall that it was mentioned specifically in one of the earlier drafts. I don't recall when or why it was deleted. Nick, please help me on this, but I seem to recall that you or someone from ICANN said that we were covered for Spanish translations because official ICANN documents would be translated into Spanish as part of ICANN's work with the LAC-RALO. Am I remembering correctly? I'll check in more detail on the history here, but if Spanish was agreed earlier and deleted from the OP in error, I would recommend simply adding it back in as a correction of a "scrivener's error," as we call these things in the law. If it was removed deliberately and/ or never there in the first instance, then let's put it on the agenda for a vote in the next month. This is an important omission and we should correct it as early as feasible. Bret On Jul 12, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
Evan:
I can agree with you to hold-up changes to our core documents for another six month but if there is no opposition (meaning a lot of discussion is generated around this), then we should do it now.
Regarding the Spanish language, it was included in the original MOU and ICANN requested to eliminate the specific languages from it and relinquish them to the Ops document. I though the language part was to be included as it was in the original MOU since that was the document that got signed by everybody.
Like I said, I did not want to bring this issue during our meeting in San Juan to help focus in getting the MOU finalized.
Spanish is the language that I use in Puerto Rico and the one that we use to outreach to other organizations regarding NARALO matters, ICANN, etc. We need other organizations in Puerto Rico to start getting involved with the NARALO. However, not all of them understand English that well.
One of the NARALO goals is to increase the membership by 50% in 2008. I am already working on it.
-ed
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:30 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP
Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Further to the thoughts below, I would like to propose that we need to make some changes to our Operating Principals. Things are coming up now that we never envisioned when we agreed to the OP. [...] This is what I would like to suggest, anyways.
My personal response to this is an enthusiastic "yes, but...". Every single one of Darlene's points is valid, however...
We've barely voted on the original MOU/OP. While it's natural that we will find flaws and accidental omissions, I am scared to death of being locked into forever debating our core documents while our actual reasons for being here (policy, increasing the voice and influence of at- large) threaten to get sidelined (or at least at a lower priority than they should be IMO).
Frankly, I was stunned to see that the ALAC -- with a long head start over NARALO -- is still debating things such as "how to pick a chair" or "how to conduct a proper vote for its Board rep". THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIVIA that must not consume the group for it to be effective.
To this end, I suggest a semi-annual review of the OP as a standing agenda item. We collect the various issues that come up, and debate them every six months as a single set of amendments. This allows for a (reasonably) timely and regular review of how we work, while giving the review a fixed context that prevents operational details from dominating the day-to-day work.
This is just a suggestion, that has worked for me in other groups. In no way am I belittling Darlene's suggestions, but would like to at least have the ink dry on the existing documents before we start changing them. A little forced pause between OP modifications may even help help the debate, by forcing extra thought on changes that may be too hasty or based on short-term problems.
If there are issues that MUST be dealt with immediately, let's do it. I'm not convinced that anything on Darlene's list can't wait until a review. (If having Spanish as an official language was time-sensitive, it should have been raised in the original doc.) Let's try to make the existing OP work before demonstrating that it needs fixing.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct