October 2011 - lac-discuss-es

Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualizaci�n importante
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Oct. 13, 2011

Oct. 13, 2011

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualización importante A partir de: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com El Jue, Oct 12, 2011 a las 9:11 AM, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1(a)gov.nu.ca> escribió: > The members of the region, right now, have no idea if their ALAC rep is > showing up to meetings or giving any kind of substantive input while at > these meetings. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Móvil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y plazos de entrega * ============================= _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/670dab01b2.html --]]

1 0

Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualizaci�n importante
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Oct. 13, 2011

Oct. 13, 2011

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualización importante A partir de: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com Wolf escribió: "La deliberación clave debe ser: Los estándares de profesionalismo y esperamos que y la demanda de los demás, tenemos que cumplir en primera persona (típico trampa de credibilidad ;-)." Sí, señor Wolf. 1. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Móvil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y plazos de entrega * ============================= El Jue, Oct 12, 2011 a las 10:56 AM, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig(a)comunica-ch.net> escribió: > Hi all, > > I share Evan's basic question: "accountable to who?" and subsequent > considerations. And I would say: In a broader sense to the Internet users in > general, in a causal sense to the regional community that selected them = > the RALOs concerned by such an under-performing candidate should be "in > charge" of any potential "sanction" mechanisms because the two *RALO > selected* ALAC members are - first and foremost - accountable to their > electorate. A defective performance of a regional representative / ALAC > member affects performance and reputation of the particular region and > cannot be in their interest = be tolerated over a certain span of time > (except for serious circumstances such as sickness and the like). > > I understand Carlton's reservations against sanctions or punishments of > volunteers but as soon as limited seats (15 or 2 per region) and financial > (travel etc.) resources are associated with a volunteer's engagement, the > mandated person and his community have a special responsibility and > accountability towards ALAC and ICANN. Otherwise, we cannot fulfill our role > and commitments - what we stand for - diligently representing the users at > ICANN. > > The key deliberation must be: The standards and professionalism we expect > and demand from others, we must fulfill ourselves at first hand (typical > trap of credibility ;-). > > Best, > Wolf > > > Evan Leibovitch wrote Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:39: > >On 11 October 2011 19:04, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > > > >> Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, > >> does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of > >> the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A > >> is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks > >> good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the > >> moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person > >> is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people > >> supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out > >> there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not > >> accountable. > >> > >I guess the big question -- at least MY big question -- is, accountable to > >who? > > > >If that person was sent by a RALO, the RALO should be able to handle this > >issue through a recall or other similar measure. > > > >If the person was appointed by the NomCom, the procedure is different but > a > >mechanism is still required. By definition a NomCom ALAC appointee is not > >accountable to ALAC or the region, however it reflects badly on the NomCom > >and ICANN itself if non-performing ALAC members are chosen and allowed to > >under-serve for an entire two-year term. > > > >What bothers me the most is the prospect of ALAC passing judgment over its > >own members. If a RALO elects someone who reflects their viewpoint, and > that > >viewpoint is that only a small number of issues matter, this is indeed the > >RALO's choice to make and ALAC has no right to engage in top-down > >second-guessing. Education and persuasion, certainly, but not sanctions. > > > >I fully agree on requesting that every RALO has some kind of recall > >mechanism for their elected officials -- not just ALAC members but also > RALO > >chairs, secretariats and liaisons as applicable. Indeed I have long > >advocated this within my own RALO. I am also greatly in favour of staff's > >providing attendance and other performance metrics that allow a RALO to > act > >appropriately on factual inputs. But I am very much against any scheme > that > >has ALAC members being accountable to other ALAC members. > > > >It's bad enough that the ICANN Board has no legal, fiduciary duty to the > >public, but only to ICANN itself. Let's not justify, let alone propagate > >that mistake within our own bounds. > > > >But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate > >> stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which > >> are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The > >> debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later. > > > > > >I don't think there's any problem with that. As I've mentioned, it's > simply > >that the wording in the report right now could easily be interpreted by a > >casual reader to infer that we have already had the discussion, agreed on > a > >regime of sanctions, and are simply discussing appropriate implementation > >going forward. WE know the debate is incomplete, but that is not what the > >report indicates. > > > >- Evan > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > EuroDIG Secretariat > http://www.eurodig.org/ > mobile +41 79 204 83 87 > Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > > EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation > http://euralo.org > > Profile on LinkedIn > http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig > [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/b1c3b29fbf.html --]]

1 0

Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualizaci�n importante
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Oct. 13, 2011

Oct. 13, 2011

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualización importante A partir de: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com 1. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Móvil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y plazos de entrega * ============================= El Mar, 11 de octubre 2011 a las 10:26 PM, Jacqueline Morris < jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> escribió: > Evan - I agree with the idea of recall, and have so advocated for > years, but I do have a problem with sanctions from ALAC. I understand > the problems, have dealt with them myself several times, and moral > suasion is not sufficient for some. But having the RALO appointees > accountable to the RALOs should be more than sufficient, and I am sure > the NomCom and Board would consider some sort of accountability for > NomCom appointees as well, were it to be raised. > Jacqueline A. Morris > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and > Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > On 11 October 2011 19:04, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, > >> does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of > >> the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A > >> is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks > >> good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the > >> moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person > >> is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people > >> supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out > >> there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not > >> accountable. > >> > > > > I guess the big question -- at least MY big question -- is, accountable > to > > who? > > > > If that person was sent by a RALO, the RALO should be able to handle this > > issue through a recall or other similar measure. > > > > If the person was appointed by the NomCom, the procedure is different but > a > > mechanism is still required. By definition a NomCom ALAC appointee is not > > accountable to ALAC or the region, however it reflects badly on the > NomCom > > and ICANN itself if non-performing ALAC members are chosen and allowed to > > under-serve for an entire two-year term. > > > > What bothers me the most is the prospect of ALAC passing judgment over > its > > own members. If a RALO elects someone who reflects their viewpoint, and > that > > viewpoint is that only a small number of issues matter, this is indeed > the > > RALO's choice to make and ALAC has no right to engage in top-down > > second-guessing. Education and persuasion, certainly, but not sanctions. > > > > I fully agree on requesting that every RALO has some kind of recall > > mechanism for their elected officials -- not just ALAC members but also > RALO > > chairs, secretariats and liaisons as applicable. Indeed I have long > > advocated this within my own RALO. I am also greatly in favour of staff's > > providing attendance and other performance metrics that allow a RALO to > act > > appropriately on factual inputs. But I am very much against any scheme > that > > has ALAC members being accountable to other ALAC members. > > > > It's bad enough that the ICANN Board has no legal, fiduciary duty to the > > public, but only to ICANN itself. Let's not justify, let alone propagate > > that mistake within our own bounds. > > > > But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate > >> stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which > >> are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The > >> debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later. > > > > > > I don't think there's any problem with that. As I've mentioned, it's > simply > > that the wording in the report right now could easily be interpreted by a > > casual reader to infer that we have already had the discussion, agreed on > a > > regime of sanctions, and are simply discussing appropriate implementation > > going forward. WE know the debate is incomplete, but that is not what the > > report indicates. > > > > - Evan > > _______________________________________________ > > lac-discuss-en mailing list > > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en > > > [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/720bedb75f.html --]]

1 0

Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualizaci�n importante
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Oct. 13, 2011

Oct. 13, 2011

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualización importante A partir de: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com Sí señor! En ambas cuestiones de fondo que recibe - y logró ampliar y aclarar - las preocupaciones que tengo. Ojalá me hubiera visto esto antes, así que podría haber salvado mis dedos con un "1 "....... Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Móvil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y plazos de entrega * ============================= El Mar, 11 de octubre 2011 a las 6:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> escribió: > > On 11 October 2011 19:04, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > > > >> Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, >> does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of >> the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A >> is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks >> good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the >> moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person >> is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people >> supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out >> there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not >> accountable. >> > > I guess the big question -- at least MY big question -- is, accountable to > who? > > If that person was sent by a RALO, the RALO should be able to handle this > issue through a recall or other similar measure. > > If the person was appointed by the NomCom, the procedure is different but a > mechanism is still required. By definition a NomCom ALAC appointee is not > accountable to ALAC or the region, however it reflects badly on the NomCom > and ICANN itself if non-performing ALAC members are chosen and allowed to > under-serve for an entire two-year term. > > What bothers me the most is the prospect of ALAC passing judgment over its > own members. If a RALO elects someone who reflects their viewpoint, and that > viewpoint is that only a small number of issues matter, this is indeed the > RALO's choice to make and ALAC has no right to engage in top-down > second-guessing. Education and persuasion, certainly, but not sanctions. > > I fully agree on requesting that every RALO has some kind of recall > mechanism for their elected officials -- not just ALAC members but also RALO > chairs, secretariats and liaisons as applicable. Indeed I have long > advocated this within my own RALO. I am also greatly in favour of staff's > providing attendance and other performance metrics that allow a RALO to act > appropriately on factual inputs. But I am very much against any scheme that > has ALAC members being accountable to other ALAC members. > > It's bad enough that the ICANN Board has no legal, fiduciary duty to the > public, but only to ICANN itself. Let's not justify, let alone propagate > that mistake within our own bounds. > > But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate >> stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which >> are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The >> debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later. > > > I don't think there's any problem with that. As I've mentioned, it's simply > that the wording in the report right now could easily be interpreted by a > casual reader to infer that we have already had the discussion, agreed on a > regime of sanctions, and are simply discussing appropriate implementation > going forward. WE know the debate is incomplete, but that is not what the > report indicates. > > - Evan > > > [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/3e8dac2b37.html --]]

1 0

Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualizaci�n importante
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Oct. 13, 2011

Oct. 13, 2011

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualización importante A partir de: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com Estimado Olivier: En verdad comprendo tu punto de vista y reconoce incluso que el 'Fer-ejemplo "de grabar, sin duda un caso extremo, es posible ..... y preocupante. Pero estoy convencido de que "las sanciones" hablar es la mentalidad equivocada para hacer frente a esto. Las personas que son nombrados por un período. Ese período puede ser ajustado por el diseño y en el contexto del proceso de nombramiento. Que lo de menos sin embargo. Cuando se trata de miembros electos, las elecciones tienen un objetivo en particular en nuestro contexto en general, sino que presagia el proceso de "abajo hacia arriba" para que los nombres y haciendo números de la política se dice que es comprometido. Las personas que son elegidos por un período. La historia me absuelve, todo el mundo sabe que soy consciente de los electores puede, de hecho, el retorno «inadecuadas» las personas.Sin embargo, porque hay que pagar más que buenas palabras para este ideal de "abajo hacia arriba", el ALAC, no pueden adoptar este tipo una actitud arrogante hacia el rechazo de "abajo hacia arriba" que por excelencia acción que la anulación de esa elección mensaje. Luego están las "consecuencias imprevistas" se pueden anticipar. Siempre he advertido en contra de esta charla de "sanciones", incluso cuando respetados colegas han tratado en privado mis opiniones en las circunstancias donde los miembros del ALAC se consideran "levantar objetos livianos en el trabajo de ALAC. Me siento igual de fuerte que a medida que esta mentalidad se mantiene con vida y los tallos marco, es malo para nuestro negocio. AsÃ que de acuerdo con mis propios puntos de vista e intuir, me opondrÃ©. Mejor, Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels MÃ³vil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, PlanificaciÃ³n, Gobierno, EvaluaciÃ³n y plazos de entrega * ============================= El Mar, 11 de octubre 2011 a las 6:04 PM, MJ Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> escribiÃ³: > Carlton, > > On 11/10/2011 15:49, Carlton Samuels wrote : > > As I have already stated, I cannot vote for any report that recommends > "sanctions" on volunteers, even if they are yet to be determined. The state > of mind that delivers this gem can only be repudiated for cause. > > > Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, > does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of the > ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A is > basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks good on > their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the moment, > nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person is > occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people supposed to > act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out there. That person > is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not accountable. > > Yes, that person is a volunteer, but when you volunteer for ALAC, you're > not doing it as a piece of fun. There is a deep responsibility that goes > along with that. There is accountability to users in the rest of the world. > > But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate stage, > with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which are > completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The debate on > sanctions/no sanctions will happen later. (and in Dakar we have a session on > metric which might touch on that... or we might have to wait until after > Dakar. In any case, there will be plenty of times to debate this) > > Warmest regards, > > Olivier > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/394dfbab0f.html --]]

1 0

Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualizaci�n importante
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualización importante A partir de: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com Como ya he dicho, no puedo votar por cualquier informe que recomienda "Sanciones" de los voluntarios, aunque aún no se han determinado. El estado de la mente que ofrece esta joya sólo puede ser repudiado por la causa. Hay un peligroso coqueteo con el principio y aún así, yo estaba dispuesto a tapo la nariz y votar por un informe que compara el apoyo de viaje requeridos para ejecutar una misión voluntaria como un "regalo" que pueden ser retenidas por la ICANN, el empresa! No se requiere ninguna introspección profunda para ver cómo esta postura devalúa el tiempo, esfuerzo, los productos de conocimiento y sí, incluso los fondos voluntarios regalo para esta cosa de la nuestra, este desarrollo de las políticas de nombres y números complejo. Así que aquí está. Dentro del marco que operamos, que a veces puede pasar por alto la gente se mal dirigido. Pero estoy unánime el concepto de "Sanciones" a un voluntario comprometido en un esfuerzo voluntario que realmente es ofensiva a la razón. Yo personalmente no soportan muchos de esos. Éste es rechazado. Yo se vote NO. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Móvil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y plazos de entrega * ============================= El Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> escribió: > Dear ALAC ExCom members, > > I want to inform you of some changes to the Improvements report based on > information Heidi and Seth received from Samantha Eisner of ICANN Legal. > Legal's view is that the only "final report" appropriate for Board > approval would come once the ALAC can report having implemented *all* > the recommendations of the ALAC Review WG. > > At this stage, however, we could report that the ALAC has completed a > substantial amount of ALAC Improvements work, including developing > specific proposals for the implementation of the ALAC Review WG > recommendations. Consequently, Sam suggests the current status report > which need only be submitted by staff (not by the ALAC) not be called > a final report; we are thinking of calling it the "ALAC/At-Large > Improvements Project Milestone Report." > > Still, an endorsement of this Milestone Report by the ALAC would send a > strong message to the Board. So I have instructed Staff to start a vote > endorsing the report on Sunday. > > The next steps in the At-Large Improvements Project will be for the ALAC > to discuss the implementation of the remaining ALAC Review > recommendations and WT proposals in Dakar, including allocating them to > existing At-Large Working Groups, creating timelines for their > completion, and determining potential resource implications. > > I would like to be able to submit these details to the Board as soon as > practical but hopefully no later than the meeting in Costa Rica (11-16 > March 2012). The ALAC could then aim to submit the actual final Final > Report -- marking the completion of the implementation of all > Improvements recommendations -- to the Board in Prague (24-28 June 2012). > > Would you kindly let me know your thoughts on this as soon as possible? > Seth and others are working to convert the report into a "Milestone" > report as we speak. > > Best regards, > > Olivier Crépin-Leblond > ALAC Chair > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-ExCom mailing list > ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom > [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/8e643fb04f.html --]]

2 1

Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualizaci�n importante
by jam＠jacquelinemorris.com Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualización importante A partir de: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com Evan - Estoy de acuerdo con la idea de recordar, y han abogado por lo años, pero tengo un problema con las sanciones de la ALAC. Entiendo los problemas, se han ocupado de ellos yo mismo varias veces, y moral La persuasión no es suficiente para algunos. Pero tener los designados RALO rendir cuentas a la RALO debe ser más que suficiente, y estoy seguro de el Comité de nominaciones y de la Junta sería considerar algún tipo de rendición de cuentas Nombramientos del Comité de nominaciones, así, que iban a ser planteadas. Jacqueline A. Morris La tecnología debe ser como el oxígeno: ubicua, necesaria, Invisible y Libre. (AfterChris Lehmann) El Mar, 11 de octubre 2011 a las 7:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> escribió: > On 11 October 2011 19:04, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > > > >> Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, >> does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of >> the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A >> is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks >> good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the >> moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person >> is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people >> supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out >> there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not >> accountable. >> > > I guess the big question -- at least MY big question -- is, accountable to > who? > > If that person was sent by a RALO, the RALO should be able to handle this > issue through a recall or other similar measure. > > If the person was appointed by the NomCom, the procedure is different but a > mechanism is still required. By definition a NomCom ALAC appointee is not > accountable to ALAC or the region, however it reflects badly on the NomCom > and ICANN itself if non-performing ALAC members are chosen and allowed to > under-serve for an entire two-year term. > > What bothers me the most is the prospect of ALAC passing judgment over its > own members. If a RALO elects someone who reflects their viewpoint, and that > viewpoint is that only a small number of issues matter, this is indeed the > RALO's choice to make and ALAC has no right to engage in top-down > second-guessing. Education and persuasion, certainly, but not sanctions. > > I fully agree on requesting that every RALO has some kind of recall > mechanism for their elected officials -- not just ALAC members but also RALO > chairs, secretariats and liaisons as applicable. Indeed I have long > advocated this within my own RALO. I am also greatly in favour of staff's > providing attendance and other performance metrics that allow a RALO to act > appropriately on factual inputs. But I am very much against any scheme that > has ALAC members being accountable to other ALAC members. > > It's bad enough that the ICANN Board has no legal, fiduciary duty to the > public, but only to ICANN itself. Let's not justify, let alone propagate > that mistake within our own bounds. > > But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate >> stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which >> are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The >> debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later. > > > I don't think there's any problem with that. As I've mentioned, it's simply > that the wording in the report right now could easily be interpreted by a > casual reader to infer that we have already had the discussion, agreed on a > regime of sanctions, and are simply discussing appropriate implementation > going forward. WE know the debate is incomplete, but that is not what the > report indicates. > > - Evan > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en > [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/bb89ba37de.html --]]

1 0

Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualizaci�n importante
by jam＠jacquelinemorris.com Oct. 11, 2011

Oct. 11, 2011

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualización importante A partir de: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com Carlton - Estoy totalmente de acuerdo. La gente está renunciando a sus conocimientos, esfuerzo y el tiempo de trabajo productivo ($ $) y el tiempo personal y familiar a entregar el producto del conocimiento gratis para ICANN. Es ofensivo para considerar "Sanciones" en ellos. Jacqueline A. Morris La tecnología debe ser como el oxígeno: ubicua, necesaria, Invisible y Libre. (AfterChris Lehmann) El Mar, 11 de octubre 2011 a las 9:49 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> escribió: > As I have already stated, I cannot vote for any report that recommends > "sanctions" on volunteers, even if they are yet to be determined. The state > of mind that delivers this gem can only be repudiated for cause. > > There is a dangerous flirting with principle and even so, I was willing to > hold my nose and vote for a report that equates travel support required to > execute a voluntary mission as a "gift" that can be withheld by ICANN, the > corporation! > > It doesn't require any deep introspection to see how this posture devalues > the time, effort, the knowledge products and yes, even funds that volunteers > gift to this thing of ours, this names and numbers policy development > complex. > > So here it is. Within the framework that we operate, I can sometimes > overlook people being wrong headed. But I am unanimous the whole concept of > "sanctions" for a volunteer engaged in a voluntary effort really is > offensive to reason. > > I personally cannot stomach too many of those. This one is rejected. I > shall vote NO. > > Carlton > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > > > On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>wrote: > >> Dear ALAC ExCom members, >> >> I want to inform you of some changes to the Improvements report based on >> information Heidi and Seth received from Samantha Eisner of ICANN Legal. >> Legal's view is that the only "final report" appropriate for Board >> approval would come once the ALAC can report having implemented *all* >> the recommendations of the ALAC Review WG. >> >> At this stage, however, we could report that the ALAC has completed a >> substantial amount of ALAC Improvements work, including developing >> specific proposals for the implementation of the ALAC Review WG >> recommendations. Consequently, Sam suggests the current status report >> which need only be submitted by staff (not by the ALAC) not be called >> a final report; we are thinking of calling it the "ALAC/At-Large >> Improvements Project Milestone Report." >> >> Still, an endorsement of this Milestone Report by the ALAC would send a >> strong message to the Board. So I have instructed Staff to start a vote >> endorsing the report on Sunday. >> >> The next steps in the At-Large Improvements Project will be for the ALAC >> to discuss the implementation of the remaining ALAC Review >> recommendations and WT proposals in Dakar, including allocating them to >> existing At-Large Working Groups, creating timelines for their >> completion, and determining potential resource implications. >> >> I would like to be able to submit these details to the Board as soon as >> practical but hopefully no later than the meeting in Costa Rica (11-16 >> March 2012). The ALAC could then aim to submit the actual final Final >> Report -- marking the completion of the implementation of all >> Improvements recommendations -- to the Board in Prague (24-28 June 2012). >> >> Would you kindly let me know your thoughts on this as soon as possible? >> Seth and others are working to convert the report into a "Milestone" >> report as we speak. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Olivier Crépin-Leblond >> ALAC Chair >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC-ExCom mailing list >> ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom >> > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en > [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/1354bbc545.html --]]

1 0

Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualizaci�n importante
by carlosaguirre62＠hotmail.com Oct. 11, 2011

Oct. 11, 2011

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualización importante A partir de: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com Bueno, dijo Carlton! Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con usted. Pero también reconozco que es un tema difícil en algunos casos y, a veces. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA Consejo de la GNSO - ICANN el ex miembro de ALAC por LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Córdoba - Argentina - * 54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org > From: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:49:25 -0500 > To: ocl(a)gih.com > CC: lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update > > As I have already stated, I cannot vote for any report that recommends > "sanctions" on volunteers, even if they are yet to be determined. The state > of mind that delivers this gem can only be repudiated for cause. > > There is a dangerous flirting with principle and even so, I was willing to > hold my nose and vote for a report that equates travel support required to > execute a voluntary mission as a "gift" that can be withheld by ICANN, the > corporation! > > It doesn't require any deep introspection to see how this posture devalues > the time, effort, the knowledge products and yes, even funds that volunteers > gift to this thing of ours, this names and numbers policy development > complex. > > So here it is. Within the framework that we operate, I can sometimes > overlook people being wrong headed. But I am unanimous the whole concept of > "sanctions" for a volunteer engaged in a voluntary effort really is > offensive to reason. > > I personally cannot stomach too many of those. This one is rejected. I > shall vote NO. > > Carlton > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > > > On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>wrote: > > > Dear ALAC ExCom members, > > > > I want to inform you of some changes to the Improvements report based on > > information Heidi and Seth received from Samantha Eisner of ICANN Legal. > > Legal's view is that the only "final report" appropriate for Board > > approval would come once the ALAC can report having implemented *all* > > the recommendations of the ALAC Review WG. > > > > At this stage, however, we could report that the ALAC has completed a > > substantial amount of ALAC Improvements work, including developing > > specific proposals for the implementation of the ALAC Review WG > > recommendations. Consequently, Sam suggests the current status report > > which need only be submitted by staff (not by the ALAC) not be called > > a final report; we are thinking of calling it the "ALAC/At-Large > > Improvements Project Milestone Report." > > > > Still, an endorsement of this Milestone Report by the ALAC would send a > > strong message to the Board. So I have instructed Staff to start a vote > > endorsing the report on Sunday. > > > > The next steps in the At-Large Improvements Project will be for the ALAC > > to discuss the implementation of the remaining ALAC Review > > recommendations and WT proposals in Dakar, including allocating them to > > existing At-Large Working Groups, creating timelines for their > > completion, and determining potential resource implications. > > > > I would like to be able to submit these details to the Board as soon as > > practical but hopefully no later than the meeting in Costa Rica (11-16 > > March 2012). The ALAC could then aim to submit the actual final Final > > Report -- marking the completion of the implementation of all > > Improvements recommendations -- to the Board in Prague (24-28 June 2012). > > > > Would you kindly let me know your thoughts on this as soon as possible? > > Seth and others are working to convert the report into a "Milestone" > > report as we speak. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Olivier Crépin-Leblond > > ALAC Chair > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC-ExCom mailing list > > ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom > > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/e89e25478b.html --]]

1 0

RECORDATORIO: Pre-Dakar ICANN Actualizaci�n de Pol�ticas de Invitaci�n Webinar
by staff＠atlarge.icann.org Oct. 10, 2011

Oct. 10, 2011

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: RECORDATORIO: Pre-Dakar ICANN Actualización de Políticas de Invitación Webinar A partir de: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20sep11-en.htm Pre-Dakar ICANN Actualización de Políticas Webinar Invitación Para poder participar, confirmar su asistencia vía correo electrónico a la Secretaría de la GNSO (gnso.secretariat @ gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> ) Para recibir los detalles de la llamada. Si usted planea participar en la próxima reunión de ICANN en Dakar a distancia o en persona, usted está invitado a un rápido recordatorio de los antecedentes y estado actual de cada problema de política actualmente en discusión en ICANN. El personal de políticas de ICANN ofrecerá una conferencia el jueves 13 de octubre a las 12.00 UTC y jueves 13 de octubre a las 19.00 UTC, resumiendo las cuestiones políticas a través de las Organizaciones de Apoyo a la ICANN diferentes, a saber, la Organización de Apoyo para Nombres Genéricos (GNSO), los nombres de países Código de la Organización de Apoyo (ccNSO ) y la Dirección de la Organización de Apoyo (ASO). Entre otros temas, las actualizaciones se referirá a: * Uniforme de Solución de Controversias político n º Informe (GNSO) * Dominio después del vencimiento recuperación de nombres de Dominio (GNSO) * Trabajos recientes WHOIS * Estudio sobre el uso de nombres de países y territorios (ccNSO) * Marco de Interpretación del Grupo de Trabajo para la delegación y volver de los ccTLD (ccNSO) * Conjunto de DNS de Seguridad y el Grupo de Análisis de Estabilidad de Trabajo Las dos sesiones son duplicados, prevista para dar cabida a las diferentes zonas horarias. En cada sesiÃ³n, tendrÃ¡ una duraciÃ³n de 90 minutos, se llevarÃ¡ a cabo sÃ³lo en InglÃ©s. La reuniÃ³n se llevarÃ¡ a cabo en Adobe Connect con una presentaciÃ³n de diapositivas, junto con una marcaciÃ³n de puente de conferencia de audio. Los participantes tendrÃ¡n la oportunidad de hacer preguntas al final de cada sesiÃ³n. Durante el transcurso del seminario, las preguntas pueden ser presentadas mediante la funciÃ³n de chat de Adobe Connect. Si no son capaces de participar en cualquiera de las sesiones en vivo, la grabaciÃ³n de la sesiÃ³n se pondrÃ¡ a disposiciÃ³n poco despuÃ©s de la reuniÃ³n. La polÃtica de personal estÃ¡ siempre disponible para responder a cualquier pregunta que usted correo electrÃ³nico a policy-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org> . Para poder participar, confirmar su asistencia vÃa correo electrÃ³nico a la SecretarÃa de la GNSO (gnso.secretariat @ gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> ) Para recibir los detalles de la llamada. Por favor, indique que se pide que le gustarÃa participar, el jueves a las 12.00 horas UTC o jueves a las 19.00 UTC (para convertir esos momentos en su hora local, vea: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) Nosotros le enviaremos un recordatorio por correo electrÃ³nico antes del evento con inicio de sesiÃ³n y de acceso telefÃ³nico en los detalles. Por favor NO confirmar su asistencia a cualquier otro personal de la ICANN miembros de direcciÃ³n de correo electrÃ³nico. Glen de Saint Gry SecretarÃa de la GNSO gnso.secretariat @ gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/f3f7996022.html --]]

1 0