- lac-discuss-es - lists.iana.org

Re: [lac-discuss-es] [lac-discuss-en] State of the BA LAC
by Tracy F. Hackshaw ＠ Google Aug. 6, 2015

Aug. 6, 2015

+1 On Aug 5, 2015 5:27 PM, <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] > > Subject: Re: State of the BA LAC > From: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com > > Thanks for sharing Antonio. What is telling is the lack of a recognizable > Caribbean voice on the agenda. > > > > http://www.cepal.org/en/eventos/v-conferencia-ministerial-sobre-sociedad-de… > > > -Carlton > > > > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > * Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround * > ============================= > > > 05/08/2015 12:13 GMT-05: 00 Antonio Medina Gomez <amedinagomez(a)gmail.com> > : > > > > > http://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/38605-estado-de-la-banda-ancha-en-ame… > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lac-discuss-es mailing list > > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > > > http://www.lacralo.org > > > > > > [[--Original text (es) > http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/4f915e027f.html > --]] > > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en >

2 1

Re: [lac-discuss-es] Estado de la LAC BA
by tracyhackshaw＠gmail.com Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Estado de la LAC BA De: tracyhackshaw(a)gmail.com 1 El 05 de agosto 2015 17:27, <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> escribió: > > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] > > Subject: Re: State of the BA LAC > From: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com > > Thanks for sharing Antonio. What is telling is the lack of a recognizable > Caribbean voice on the agenda. > > > > http://www.cepal.org/en/eventos/v-conferencia-ministerial-sobre-sociedad-de… > > > -Carlton > > > > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > * Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround * > ============================= > > > 05/08/2015 12:13 GMT-05: 00 Antonio Medina Gomez <amedinagomez(a)gmail.com> > : > > > > > http://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/38605-estado-de-la-banda-ancha-en-ame… > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lac-discuss-es mailing list > > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > > > http://www.lacralo.org > > > > > [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/fb8a5786fd.html --]]

1 0

Estado de la BA LAC
by Antonio Medina Gómez Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

http://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/38605-estado-de-la-banda-ancha-en-ame…

2 1

Re: [lac-discuss-es] Regla 11.2
by crg＠isoc-cr.org Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2 De: crg(a)isoc-cr.org Queridos miembros de LACRALO, Espero que podamos tener una retroalimentación razonable de todos los miembros de la Opinión del Defensor del Pueblo, en particular sus recomendaciones finales "En este caso soy consciente de que no es la crítica de la decisión de celebrar una encuesta, con un número teniendo en cuenta que la lanza Hinds debe haber sido seleccionados por el hecho de ser el único candidato, sin la necesidad de una encuesta. Mirando hacia el futuro, sería útil tener un opinión de consenso sobre si las normas deben modificarse para prever esto específicamente. Pero en una situación en la que ha habido un voto en contra de un candidato, el proceso justo sería volver a ejecutar la elección, y esa es mi recomendación ". Atentamente Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg El 03 de agosto 2015, a las 15:55, Chris LaHatte escribió: > Members of LACRALO will be aware that I have been asked to look at the > election process to give my view as to whether this has been a fair > procedure. As the ICANN ombudsman it is part of my mandate to look at > matters of unfairness within the ICANN community, which therefore > includes an involvement where a process has taken place, and where I > receive a complaint of unfairness. > > The process for nomination as the LACRALO representative for the > period 2015 â 2017 began with the 30 April announcement of the call > for nominations, and for statements by anyone nominated. The > nomination period lasted from 30 April to the 9th May, and during that > period Lance Hinds was nominated by Jose Francisco Arce. There were no > other nominations. The timetable would have included an election > period if there were other candidates, but as no other nominations > were received, an announcement was made that Lance Hinds was elected > by acclamation. However some members of LACRALO expressed concern that > because there was only one nominee, that previous precedent required > that there had to be a poll to certify that the majority of the ALS > supported the sole nomination. > > On 20 July there was a scheduled LACRALO conference call, where it was > suggested that Lance Hinds was not eligible because it was alleged > that he had participation in businesses which created a conflict of > interest. Lance has asserted strongly that while he does own a small > software development company, and is the president of a local business > support organisation (a volunteer position) that he had no conflict. > He asserted neither of those interests had anything to do with ICANN > policy development. Normally this should be decided by the election > process rather than a poll subsequently held. > > The next step was that the poll took place and staff announced the > results based on the process announced by Humberto and Alberto, which > were 21 against, 19 in favour and 3 abstentions. The abstentions were > not counted. Accordingly the LACRALO chair and secretary declared that > the results meant that there had to be a new election. > > I have spoken to some, but unfortunately have not had time to talk to > all of the interested parties. I express regret that in a volunteer > organisation, there appeared to be attempts to silo categories of > persons eligible, when there are clearly only a limited number of > people with the enthusiasm and time, especially in smaller countries. > > It has been said to me that particularly in the Caribbean, there are > only a small number of people who have the qualifications and ability > to serve, and that they will often wear several different hats. In my > view it would be a great pity to try to exclude enthusiastic > volunteers, but of course there is an election process to properly > canvass those issues. > > > In general, when there is an election process which has been > challenged, the fairest way to proceed is to rerun the process. There > is also an issue of perceived fairness. Even if the process was run > correctly, if there are strong views about the process, then an open > and transparent procedure calling a further election would answer any > issues of perceived unfairness, as the parties can then go into the > second process fully aware of the issues. > > In this case I am conscious that there is criticism of the decision to > hold a poll, with a number considering that Lance Hinds should have > been selected by virtue of being the sole nominee, without the need > for a poll. Looking forward, it would be valuable to have a consensus > view on whether the rules should be amended to provide for this > specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a > candidate, the fair process would be to rerun the election, and that > is my recommendation. > > I am available to discuss this further if needed and invite anyone to > contact me, in confidence if necessary. > > > > Chris LaHatte > Ombudsman > Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ > Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman > > > Confidentiality > All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as > confidential. > The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to > preserve the > privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the > complaint > being investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall only make > inquiries > about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity > of, a > complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The > Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if > staff > and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a > complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such > information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a > complaint > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en lac-discuss-en lista de correo 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/ca4c48f5a3.html --]]

6 6

Re: [lac-discuss-es] Regla 11.2
by carlos dionisio aguirre Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

La idea es evitar una nueva situación como la lamentable que hemos pasado Alberto. Y todo lo que se pueda definir para no dar lugar a duda evitará repetirla. <div>-------- Mensaje original --------</div><div>De: Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> </div><div>Fecha:04/08/2015 09:41 PM (GMT-03:00) </div><div>Para: 'carlosaguirre62' <carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com>,'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía' <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>,'Aida Noblia' <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> </div><div>Cc: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org </div><div>Asunto: RE: [lac-discuss-es] Regla 11.2 </div><div> </div> Estimados, están colocando parámetros que deben salir de la entrevista de los postulantes y no ser colocados como requisitos en el llamado a votación. No tenemos métricas para colocar como requisitos antigüedad y participación, y grados de conocimiento de la región y temas de ALAC. Saludos cordiales Alberto Soto De: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de carlosaguirre62 Enviado el: martes, 04 de agosto de 2015 09:12 p.m. Para: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>; Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> CC: <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-es] Regla 11.2 Totalmente de acuerdo contigo Felipe. Me parece devemos ser muy estrictos rn los criterios a los fines de no interpretar nada y que no haya dudas en cuanto a eso por lo que seguramente También deberá determinarse dentro de esos criterios de elegibilidad, Cuales seran los parametros de antiguedad y participación del candidato. Y cual se grado de conocimiento de la región y de los temas que ALAC tiene en agenda. 0,02 -------- Mensaje original -------- De: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Fecha:04/08/2015 08:59 PM (GMT-03:00) Para: Aida Noblia Cc: "" Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-es] Regla 11.2 ====English after Spanish version====== Queridos amigos, Lamento mucho que estemos viviendo esta situación. Como saben, apoyé la elección de Lance Hinds por considerar que el proceso se había agotado de manera adecuada. Lo sucedido después, es historia. Atendiendo a la recomendación del Ombudsman, sería deseable llevar a cabo el proceso de elección del ALAC member para LACRALO nuevamente. Lo que pediría al Presidente y Secretario de LACRALO es que, en todo caso, establezcan, claramente y a priori, las reglas que se aplicarán a la elección, es decir: 1. ¿Cuando se abrirá la convocatoria para nominaciones? 2. ¿Cuando se cerrará la convocatoria para nominaciones? 3. ¿Cuales serán los criterios de elegibilidad? 4. ¿Cuál será el período para escuchar los SOI de los candidatos? 5. ¿Existirá un debate? 6. ¿Cuando se llevará a cabo la votación? 7. ¿Si hay una sola nominación se votará igualmente? 8. ¿Si hay varias nominaciones, cómo se eliminarán candidatos? 9. ¿Habrá una sola vuelta de votación? 10. ¿Serán varias hasta que resten únicamente dos candidatos? 11. ¿cómo se designará al candidato electo?¿Será por mayoría de las ALS que voten? ¿Será por mayoría de las ALS certificadas actualmente? ¿Las abstenciones se contarán? 12. ¿Es conveniente pensar en un Comité Electoral? Tenemos muy poco tiempo para llevar a cabo este proceso. La reunión de Dublin, donde al finalizar deberá iniciar su período quien resulte electo, está al vuelta de la esquina. Hago un llamado urgente a nuestro Presidente y Secretario para que establezcan las reglas, abran la convocatoria y continúen el procedimiento de reposición de elección. =====English version============ Dear friends, I deeply regret that we are living this situation. As you know, I supported the election of Lance Hinds, considering that the process had been exhausted properly. What happened after, is history. Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman, it would be desirable to conduct the election process of the LACRALO ALAC member again. What I would ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is that they establish the rules that will run the election process in a very clear manner and, of course, a priori. For example, the following questions come to my mind: 1. When will the call for nominations begin? 2. When will the call for nominations close? 3. What are the eligibility criteria? 4. What will be the time to listen to the candidates’ SOIs? 5. Will there be a debate? 6.When will the vote take place? 7. If there is only one nomination will there still be a vote? 8. If there are multiple nominations, how will candidates be shortlisted? 9. Will there be a single round of voting? 10. Will there be several voting round until there are only two candidates left? 11. How will the winning candidate be determined? Will it be determined by majority of votes from those ALSs voting? Will it be determined by majority of votes of all certified ALSs? Will abstentions count? 12. Would it be convenient to think of an Electoral Committee? We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin, where the elected candidate will begin his/her term, is around the corner. I urge our President and Secretary to establish the rules, open the call for nominations and continue to carry the voting process. Saludos, Best regards León El 04/08/2015, a las 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com <mailto:aidanoblia@gmail.com> > escribió: Si mal no interpreto, entiendo que sus dos propuestas claras y adecuadas. Estoy de acuerdo con ellas porque resuelven la situación presente y buscan resolver a futuro para que no ocurra otra vez el problema. 1. La de promover el cambio de la regla actual a una regla clara, que elimine la complicación que se generó en esta oportunidad : Por ejemplo si hay un solo candidato y dentro del plazo establecido no se presentó otro, ni hubo objeciones: ese que da. Sin necesidad de encuesta. Personalmente me parece la solución más clara y sencilla. 2. Dado el caso de que ya ocurrió: se hizo la encuesta y dio el resultado para resolver este caso que ya está dada: hacer nueva elección. Parece razonable para salir del paso ahora y poder avanzar en otros temas de gran importancia. Saludos a todos 2015-08-04 11:06 GMT-03:00 <crg(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> >: [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2 De: crg(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Queridos miembros de LACRALO, Espero que podamos tener una retroalimentación razonable de todos los miembros de la Opinión del Defensor del Pueblo, en particular sus recomendaciones finales das "En este caso soy consciente de que no es la crítica de la decisión de celebrar una encuesta, con un número teniendo en cuenta que la lanza Hinds debe haber sido seleccionados por el hecho de ser el único candidato, sin la necesidad de una encuesta. Mirando hacia el futuro, sería útil tener un opinión de consenso sobre si las normas deben modificarse para prever esto específicamente. Pero en una situación en la que ha habido un voto en contra de un candidato, el proceso justo sería volver a ejecutar la elección, y esa es mi recomendación ". Atentamente Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> Skype: carlos.raulg El 03 de agosto 2015, a las 15:55, Chris LaHatte escribió: > Members of LACRALO will be aware that I have been asked to look at the > election process to give my view as to whether this has been a fair > procedure. As the ICANN ombudsman it is part of my mandate to look at > matters of unfairness within the ICANN community, which therefore > includes an involvement where a process has taken place, and where I > receive a complaint of unfairness. > > The process for nomination as the LACRALO representative for the > period 2015 â€“ 2017 began with the 30 April announcement of the call > for nominations, and for statements by anyone nominated. The > nomination period lasted from 30 April to the 9th May, and during that > period Lance Hinds was nominated by Jose Francisco Arce. There were no > other nominations. The timetable would have included an election > period if there were other candidates, but as no other nominations > were received, an announcement was made that Lance Hinds was elected > by acclamation. However some members of LACRALO expressed concern that > because there was only one nominee, that previous precedent required > that there had to be a poll to certify that the majority of the ALS > supported the sole nomination. > > On 20 July there was a scheduled LACRALO conference call, where it was > suggested that Lance Hinds was not eligible because it was alleged > that he had participation in businesses which created a conflict of > interest. Lance has asserted strongly that while he does own a small > software development company, and is the president of a local business > support organisation (a volunteer position) that he had no conflict. > He asserted neither of those interests had anything to do with ICANN > policy development. Normally this should be decided by the election > process rather than a poll subsequently held. > > The next step was that the poll took place and staff announced the > results based on the process announced by Humberto and Alberto, which > were 21 against, 19 in favour and 3 abstentions. The abstentions were > not counted. Accordingly the LACRALO chair and secretary declared that > the results meant that there had to be a new election. > > I have spoken to some, but unfortunately have not had time to talk to > all of the interested parties. I express regret that in a volunteer > organisation, there appeared to be attempts to silo categories of > persons eligible, when there are clearly only a limited number of > people with the enthusiasm and time, especially in smaller countries. > > It has been said to me that particularly in the Caribbean, there are > only a small number of people who have the qualifications and ability > to serve, and that they will often wear several different hats. In my > view it would be a great pity to try to exclude enthusiastic > volunteers, but of course there is an election process to properly > canvass those issues. > > > In general, when there is an election process which has been > challenged, the fairest way to proceed is to rerun the process. There > is also an issue of perceived fairness. Even if the process was run > correctly, if there are strong views about the process, then an open > and transparent procedure calling a further election would answer any > issues of perceived unfairness, as the parties can then go into the > second process fully aware of the issues. > > In this case I am conscious that there is criticism of the decision to > hold a poll, with a number considering that Lance Hinds should have > been selected by virtue of being the sole nominee, without the need > for a poll. Looking forward, it would be valuable to have a consensus > view on whether the rules should be amended to provide for this > specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a > candidate, the fair process would be to rerun the election, and that > is my recommendation. > > I am available to discuss this further if needed and invite anyone to > contact me, in confidence if necessary. > > > > Chris LaHatte > Ombudsman > Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ > Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman > > > Confidentiality > All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as > confidential. > The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to > preserve the > privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the > complaint > being investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall only make > inquiries > about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity > of, a > complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The > Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if > staff > and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a > complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such > information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a > complaint > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en lac-discuss-en lista de correo lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/ca4c48f5a3.html --]] _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org <http://www.lacralo.org/> -- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org --- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-es] Regla 11.2
by carlosaguirre62 Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

Totalmente de acuerdo contigo Felipe. Me parece devemos ser muy estrictos rn los criterios a los fines de no interpretar nada y que no haya dudas en cuanto a eso por lo que seguramente También deberá determinarse dentro de esos criterios de elegibilidad, Cuales seran los parametros de antiguedad y participación del candidato. Y cual se grado de conocimiento de la región y de los temas que ALAC tiene en agenda. 0,02 <div>-------- Mensaje original --------</div><div>De: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> </div><div>Fecha:04/08/2015 08:59 PM (GMT-03:00) </div><div>Para: Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> </div><div>Cc: "<lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>" <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> </div><div>Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-es] Regla 11.2 </div><div> </div> ====English after Spanish version====== Queridos amigos, Lamento mucho que estemos viviendo esta situación. Como saben, apoyé la elección de Lance Hinds por considerar que el proceso se había agotado de manera adecuada. Lo sucedido después, es historia. Atendiendo a la recomendación del Ombudsman, sería deseable llevar a cabo el proceso de elección del ALAC member para LACRALO nuevamente. Lo que pediría al Presidente y Secretario de LACRALO es que, en todo caso, establezcan, claramente y a priori, las reglas que se aplicarán a la elección, es decir: 1. ¿Cuando se abrirá la convocatoria para nominaciones? 2. ¿Cuando se cerrará la convocatoria para nominaciones? 3. ¿Cuales serán los criterios de elegibilidad? 4. ¿Cuál será el período para escuchar los SOI de los candidatos? 5. ¿Existirá un debate? 6. ¿Cuando se llevará a cabo la votación? 7. ¿Si hay una sola nominación se votará igualmente? 8. ¿Si hay varias nominaciones, cómo se eliminarán candidatos? 9. ¿Habrá una sola vuelta de votación? 10. ¿Serán varias hasta que resten únicamente dos candidatos? 11. ¿cómo se designará al candidato electo?¿Será por mayoría de las ALS que voten? ¿Será por mayoría de las ALS certificadas actualmente? ¿Las abstenciones se contarán? 12. ¿Es conveniente pensar en un Comité Electoral? Tenemos muy poco tiempo para llevar a cabo este proceso. La reunión de Dublin, donde al finalizar deberá iniciar su período quien resulte electo, está al vuelta de la esquina. Hago un llamado urgente a nuestro Presidente y Secretario para que establezcan las reglas, abran la convocatoria y continúen el procedimiento de reposición de elección. =====English version============ Dear friends, I deeply regret that we are living this situation. As you know, I supported the election of Lance Hinds, considering that the process had been exhausted properly. What happened after, is history. Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman, it would be desirable to conduct the election process of the LACRALO ALAC member again. What I would ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is that they establish the rules that will run the election process in a very clear manner and, of course, a priori. For example, the following questions come to my mind: 1. When will the call for nominations begin? 2. When will the call for nominations close? 3. What are the eligibility criteria? 4. What will be the time to listen to the candidates’ SOIs? 5. Will there be a debate? 6.When will the vote take place? 7. If there is only one nomination will there still be a vote? 8. If there are multiple nominations, how will candidates be shortlisted? 9. Will there be a single round of voting? 10. Will there be several voting round until there are only two candidates left? 11. How will the winning candidate be determined? Will it be determined by majority of votes from those ALSs voting? Will it be determined by majority of votes of all certified ALSs? Will abstentions count? 12. Would it be convenient to think of an Electoral Committee? We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin, where the elected candidate will begin his/her term, is around the corner. I urge our President and Secretary to establish the rules, open the call for nominations and continue to carry the voting process. Saludos, Best regards León > El 04/08/2015, a las 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> escribió: > > Si mal no interpreto, entiendo que sus dos propuestas claras y adecuadas. > > Estoy de acuerdo con ellas porque resuelven la situación presente y buscan resolver a futuro para que no ocurra otra vez el problema. > > 1. La de promover el cambio de la regla actual a una regla clara, que elimine la complicación que se generó en esta oportunidad : > > Por ejemplo si hay un solo candidato y dentro del plazo establecido no se presentó otro, ni hubo objeciones: ese que da. Sin necesidad de encuesta. > > Personalmente me parece la solución más clara y sencilla. > > 2. Dado el caso de que ya ocurrió: se hizo la encuesta y dio el resultado para resolver este caso que ya está dada: hacer nueva elección. > > Parece razonable para salir del paso ahora y poder avanzar en otros temas de gran importancia. > > Saludos a todos > > > > 2015-08-04 11:06 GMT-03:00 <crg(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>>: > > [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] > > Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2 > De: crg(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> > > Queridos miembros de LACRALO, > > > Espero que podamos tener una retroalimentación razonable de todos los miembros de la > Opinión del Defensor del Pueblo, en particular sus recomendaciones finales > das > "En este caso soy consciente de que no es la crítica de la > decisión de celebrar una encuesta, con un número teniendo en cuenta que la lanza Hinds > debe haber sido seleccionados por el hecho de ser el único candidato, sin > la necesidad de una encuesta. Mirando hacia el futuro, sería útil tener un > opinión de consenso sobre si las normas deben modificarse para prever > esto específicamente. Pero en una situación en la que ha habido un voto > en contra de un candidato, el proceso justo sería volver a ejecutar la elección, > y esa es mi recomendación ". > > > Atentamente > > > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > +506 8837 7176 <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> > Skype: carlos.raulg > El 03 de agosto 2015, a las 15:55, Chris LaHatte escribió: > > > > Members of LACRALO will be aware that I have been asked to look at the > > election process to give my view as to whether this has been a fair > > procedure. As the ICANN ombudsman it is part of my mandate to look at > > matters of unfairness within the ICANN community, which therefore > > includes an involvement where a process has taken place, and where I > > receive a complaint of unfairness. > > > > The process for nomination as the LACRALO representative for the > > period 2015 â€“ 2017 began with the 30 April announcement of the call > > for nominations, and for statements by anyone nominated. The > > nomination period lasted from 30 April to the 9th May, and during that > > period Lance Hinds was nominated by Jose Francisco Arce. There were no > > other nominations. The timetable would have included an election > > period if there were other candidates, but as no other nominations > > were received, an announcement was made that Lance Hinds was elected > > by acclamation. However some members of LACRALO expressed concern that > > because there was only one nominee, that previous precedent required > > that there had to be a poll to certify that the majority of the ALS > > supported the sole nomination. > > > > On 20 July there was a scheduled LACRALO conference call, where it was > > suggested that Lance Hinds was not eligible because it was alleged > > that he had participation in businesses which created a conflict of > > interest. Lance has asserted strongly that while he does own a small > > software development company, and is the president of a local business > > support organisation (a volunteer position) that he had no conflict. > > He asserted neither of those interests had anything to do with ICANN > > policy development. Normally this should be decided by the election > > process rather than a poll subsequently held. > > > > The next step was that the poll took place and staff announced the > > results based on the process announced by Humberto and Alberto, which > > were 21 against, 19 in favour and 3 abstentions. The abstentions were > > not counted. Accordingly the LACRALO chair and secretary declared that > > the results meant that there had to be a new election. > > > > I have spoken to some, but unfortunately have not had time to talk to > > all of the interested parties. I express regret that in a volunteer > > organisation, there appeared to be attempts to silo categories of > > persons eligible, when there are clearly only a limited number of > > people with the enthusiasm and time, especially in smaller countries. > > > > It has been said to me that particularly in the Caribbean, there are > > only a small number of people who have the qualifications and ability > > to serve, and that they will often wear several different hats. In my > > view it would be a great pity to try to exclude enthusiastic > > volunteers, but of course there is an election process to properly > > canvass those issues. > > > > > > In general, when there is an election process which has been > > challenged, the fairest way to proceed is to rerun the process. There > > is also an issue of perceived fairness. Even if the process was run > > correctly, if there are strong views about the process, then an open > > and transparent procedure calling a further election would answer any > > issues of perceived unfairness, as the parties can then go into the > > second process fully aware of the issues. > > > > In this case I am conscious that there is criticism of the decision to > > hold a poll, with a number considering that Lance Hinds should have > > been selected by virtue of being the sole nominee, without the need > > for a poll. Looking forward, it would be valuable to have a consensus > > view on whether the rules should be amended to provide for this > > specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a > > candidate, the fair process would be to rerun the election, and that > > is my recommendation. > > > > I am available to discuss this further if needed and invite anyone to > > contact me, in confidence if necessary. > > > > > > > > Chris LaHatte > > Ombudsman > > Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ <https://omblog.icann.org/> > > Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman <http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman> > > > > > > Confidentiality > > All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as > > confidential. > > The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to > > preserve the > > privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the > > complaint > > being investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall only make > > inquiries > > about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity > > of, a > > complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The > > Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if > > staff > > and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a > > complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such > > information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a > > complaint > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lac-discuss-en mailing list > > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en> > lac-discuss-en lista de correo > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en> > > > > [[--Original text (en) > http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/ca4c48f5a3.html <http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/ca4c48f5a3.html> > --]] > > > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es> > > http://www.lacralo.org <http://www.lacralo.org/> > > > > -- > Aida Noblia > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > http://www.lacralo.org _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org

2 1

Fw: Nuevo Comentario p�blico: Grupo de Trabajo sobre el aumento de la Cruz Comunidad de Responsabilidad ICANN segundo Proyecto de Informe (Corriente de trabajo 1)
by vanda＠etges.com.br Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Fw: Nuevo Comentario público: Grupo de Trabajo sobre el aumento de la Cruz Comunidad de Responsabilidad ICANN segundo Proyecto de Informe (Corriente de trabajo 1) De: vanda(a)etges.com.br Estimados Atención párrafo el informe nuevo del WG Sobre prestación de cuentas de ICANN. (ICANN Rendición de Cuentas) Vean abajo Abrazos Vanda Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, CJ 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brasil Línea del terreno: +55 11 3266.6253 Móvil: + 55 11 98181.1464 Lo siento por los errores tipográficos. De: <alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> en nombre del personal de ICANN Fecha: Lunes, 03 de agosto 2015 a las 18:56 Para: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Asunto: [ALAC-Anuncie] Nuevo Comentario público: Grupo de Trabajo de la Cruz Comunidad sobre el fomento de la ICANN de Responsabilidad segundo proyecto de informe (Corriente de trabajo 1) Queridos todos, Por favor tenga en cuenta que el área de trabajo de At-Large para la siguiente solicitud de comentarios públicos ha sido creado: Grupo de Trabajo de la Cruz Comunidad sobre el fomento de la ICANN de Responsabilidad segundo proyecto de informe (Corriente de trabajo 1). Saludos, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine y Terri Agnew El personal de ICANN Política en apoyo de ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/icannatlarge Twitter:ICANNAtLarge _______________________________________________ ALAC-Anuncie lista de correo ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/bdb0700c92.html --]]

1 0

FW: [ALAC-Announce] New Public Comment: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1)
by Vanda Scartezini Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

Estimados Atención para el nuevo report del WG sobre prestación de cuentas de ICANN.( ICANN Accountability) Vean abajo Abrazos Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Staff Date: Monday, August 3, 2015 at 18:56 To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: [ALAC-Announce] New Public Comment: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1) Dear All, Kindly note that the At-Large Workspace for the following public comment request has been created: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1). Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/icannatlarge Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-es] Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce
by alan.greenberg＠mcgill.ca Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce De: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca Gran parte de la atención de las reglas descritas aquí son en métricas y cumplimiento. Eso probablemente no será un foco importante de la tarea Fuerza. Independientemente, RALOs general puede establecer sus propias reglas y expectativas más allá de los establecidos por el ALAC. El mayor requisitos son que sean razonables teniendo en cuenta el potencial de la ELA audiencia, que se documentan claramente, y que son forzada de manera justa y uniforme. Alan Al 03.08.2015 09 a.m., Jacqueline Morris escribió: > Como usted insiste, por supuesto, esto se transmitirá como > Relevante. Por desgracia, que es un grupo de trabajo de TODOS RALOs y > No sólo LACRALO, no puedo decir que el resto del grupo lo hará > De acuerdo con el punto de vista de LACRALO. Esto es, después de todo, un grupo de trabajo para crear > criterios que deben aplicarse a nivel mundial. > Y, por supuesto, estoy encantado de que otros miembros de LACRALO serán > Participantes y tras el trabajo. > Jacqueline > El 02 de agosto 2015 23:15, < <mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com> jumaropi(a)yahoo.com> escribió: > > [[- Texto Traducido (es -> es) -]] > > Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = > - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > From: <mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com>jumaropi(a)yahoo.com > > Alejandro thanks for that reminder. We will be watching. > We insist on it. > Cordially > > > Sent from my Huawei Mobile > > > Alejandro Pisanty <<mailto:apisanty@gmail.com>apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Juan Manuel, answered with a copy to the list, because your > question is relevant to the community: > > > > > > June 24 I expressed what I reproduce below. In the course of 24 > hours (25 June) we met the consensus of Carlton Samuels, Jacqueline > Morris, Sergio Salinas, and several others. Goes: > > > > > > "Today at the monthly meeting face (f2) we held a brief > discussion on metrics. > > > > > > Subject to this discussion back to his place in a working group, > I think it worthwhile to make clear what the objective metrics.This > is well understood in the community, and those who say they do not > self-interest to distort the discussion. > > > > > > What we need is accountability and transparency among ourselves. > Individuals and organizations working activametne must be > identified. Organizations and individuals that do not contribute or > participate must decide whether they will participate or no longer > counted. And there's a middle ground and representatives of > organizations who find it difficult to participate but have the > will to do so. Among these there are many types of situations: a > representative who is sick or has to spend time with family or work > that sustains; a policy change or mandate; and many more circumstances. > > > > > > A good metric system would be simple, transparent, predictable, > and difficult to counterfeit.Would make a "triage", ie, would quite > clear what organizations 5-10 regularly participate and contribute, > the 20 that are practically abandoned, and an intermediate strip of > 10 or 15 with which we must work in hopes that recover their > participation or leave the organization voluntarily or by way of > the decertification. This assumes cycles of renewal of > certificates, which must institute. > > > > > > There is a classification of units that can help us further in > this process: > > > > > > 1. Regular and consistent participation in all activities and > contribution to substantive policy issues. Their proposals are > incorporated in resolutions of LACRALO and impact on policies and ICANN ALAC. > > > > > > 2. sporadic participation and / or dedicated to issues > Reglaments procedure formats agreements but not their contents, etc. > > > > > > 3.sporadic, little focus, and fundamentally conducive to "make > presence" for elections and selection processes for equity > participation in events, especially if they involve support for travel. > > > > > > Our observation or measurement of participation of organizations > should encourage the Type 1, Type 3 disadvantage, and encourage > those who make equity type 2 pass to level 1. > > > > > > If we can have agreement around these principles, the Working > Group Governance Metrics and only have to produce a good > implementation and their work will be more reliable, predictable > and achievable. " > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > 08.02.2015 20:28 GMT-05: 00 Juan Manuel Rojas > <<mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com>jumaropi(a)yahoo.com> : > > > > Thank you Alexander. We take those concerns before. TF. It > considered helpful to have clarity on the points that you mean specifically. > > > > Sent from my Huawei Mobile > > > > Alejandro Pisanty <<mailto:apisanty@gmail.com>apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Jacqueline, Juan Manuel, all, > > > > > > The regional point of view has been expressed in the consensus > that we out of the meeting in Buenos Aires, with general criteria > for ALS reached consensus and are of great strength and general validity. > > > > > > I hope these guidelines define what they will do our representatives. > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:12 PM, > <<mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com>jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: > > > > > > [[- Translated text (en -> en) -]] > > > > Subject: Re: = UTF-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N > = - = = UTF-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > > From: <mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com>jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com > > > > Thank you. I will do my best to represent the region in the > > WG. > > Jacqueline > > > > > > Jacqueline A. Morris > > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, necessary, invisible, > > Free.(After Chris Lehmann > <<http://twitter.com/chrislehmann>http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> ) > > > > > > The Sun, August 2, 2015 at 12:29 PM > <<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: > >> > >> [[Translated text (es -> en) -]] > >> > >> ??? Subject: = utf-8 q = C3 = CONVOCATORIA_DE_AFILIACI 3A_At 93N = - = = > >> Utf-8 q Large_ALS_Criterios_y_Expectativas_Taskforce = ????? > >> From: <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>asoto(a)ibero-americano.org > >> > >> Dear, on This issue we Have had four nominations. ACCORDING to the above > >> Opportunely criteria, They Have Been selected: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Jacqueline Morris > >> > >> > >> - Juan Manuel Rojas > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> We Know That esta WG will have a hard work, and the first meeting will be > >> Tomorrow August 3rd. I will notify Juan Manuel Jacqueline and > schedule the > >> Meeting. > >> > >> > >> Best regards > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Alberto Soto > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --- > Avast antivirus software >> esta email scanned for viruses. > >> <Http://www.avast.com>Http://www.avast.com > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/3c3404910f.html --]]

1 0

Re: FW: VOTO AVISO: Declaraci�n de ALAC sobre el Proyecto de Informe: Revisi�n de los nombres gen�ricos Organizaci�n de Apoyo
by ocl＠gih.com Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: FW: VOTO AVISO: Declaración de ALAC sobre el Proyecto de Informe: Revisión de los nombres genéricos Organización de Apoyo De: ocl(a)gih.com Estimado Alejandro, gracias por esto. Ya que estamos de haber aumentado la transparencia, voy también aumentar la comprensión y responder a sus inquietudes. Tu dices: "Me parece que el proyecto carece de la comprensión de las tensiones necesarias en el espacio no comercial, y en no hacer un análisis de los efectos de la creciente complejidad estructural en la GNSO en general ". Citando la Declaración de ALAC: / "Si bien el apoyo de ALAC casi todas las recomendaciones formuladas en el Westlake Informe, la ALAC le preocupa que la gran mayoría de la recomendaciones se centran en los grupos de trabajo de la GNSO y sugieren hacer pequeñas ajustes en lugar de tomar una mirada seria a la bicameral GNSOs estructura .// // // De hecho, el Informe Westlake, en la revisión de las recomendaciones BGCS desde la primera revisión de la GNSO llega a una conclusión que el ALAC encuentra apresurada y mal investigado: // // // "Recomendaciones BGC 10 y 11. (miembros del Consejo Reestructurar y límites concejal plazo) // // // // Observaciones // Se reestructuró el Consejo, siguiendo las recomendaciones de BGC. Término límites se introdujeron al mismo tiempo. El Consejo parece funcional. Está construido para equilibrar los distintos intereses .// // // // Análisis // La estructura actual ha puesto en práctica hace relativamente poco tiempo.Es no roto, y no se recomienda ningún cambio en este momento. "// // // El ALAC es sorprendido con este análisis .// // // Numerosas áreas necesitan ser revisados \u200b\u200by abajo incluye algunos ejemplos: // // La estructura actual del Consejo de la GNSO proporciona la capacidad para una más voto unido en el Contratado Partes House mientras fragmentar el No contratado Partes casa hasta el punto de desequilibrio. // // En el contrato, el crecimiento sin precedentes de las Partes Contratadas causado por el nuevo Programa de gTLD no se ha abordado. Lo que podría haber sido un homogénea Grupo de partes interesadas podría ser ahora más heterogénea y la No se han estudiado las posibles consecuencias de este cambio. Por ejemplo, la ciudad de dominios de primer nivel son una nueva raza de matrícula; también lo son Marca TLD. ¿Cómo afecta esto a la situación actual? ¿Cómo sería la ciudad administradores, empresas y personas que utilizan City TLD tienen su voz oído en los procesos GNSO? // // ¿Cuál sería la consecuencia de la adición de más actores / grupos, ya sea en la casa del partido o Contratado No contratado Party House?El ALAC observa que no son fuertes indicios de que ninguna de las partes interesadas dentro de la no contratado Casa del partido parecía querer nuevo grupo .// // Otros comentaristas en la Comunidad At-Large han señalado que la propuestas de representación más equilibrada geográficamente parecían ser centrado en la búsqueda de nuevos participantes de fuera de las habituales GNSOs territorio. Una pregunta es cuántos registros gTLD y gTLD son con domicilio legal y operativamente en cada una de las regiones de ICANN tanto antes como después de la reciente expansión del espacio de gTLD bajo la Auspicios de la GNSO. El Westlake revisión pierde la oportunidad de potencialmente revelar un cuadro escondido que la ICANN GNSO es refuerza a sí mismo el nombre de dominio de negocios geopolíticamente. Westlakes observación de que las circunscripciones GNSOs concentran en América del Norte y Europa puede sostener tal patrón oculto .// // Grupos de Trabajo de la GNSO están abiertas para todos los participantes, incluyendo no GNSO Miembros de la circunscripción, pero el Consejo de la GNSO, gracias a su muy estructura, tiene la capacidad de afectar a los Grupos de Trabajo resultados.Votación es una de las formas de apoyar o detener las recomendaciones de una de abajo hacia arriba PDP .// // // El ALAC cree que los complejos problemas de la estructura y de la GNSO procesos necesitan ser estudiados ahora. El ALAC recuerda a los revisores de la At-Large Desafíos Futuros Libro Blanco R3 Grupo de Trabajo (Http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-01oct12-en.htm) redactada en 2012 y que incluyan propuestas que deben ser exploradas .// // // Varios miembros del ALAC recuerdan que durante la primera revisión de la GNSO, era entiende que los distritos electorales y la creación de los grupos de interesados iban a ser revisados \u200b\u200ben la próxima iteración. Trágicamente, este es falta en el informe actual .// // // Para ser claros, el ALAC está decepcionado de que la revisión no tiene evaluado en qué medida la actual estructura de la GNSO se encuentra con el GNSO y ICANN necesita. La estructura, con las partes contratadas que representan la mitad de los derechos de voto del Consejo, fue inventado como un resultado de la última GNSO revisión, antes del Programa de nuevos gTLD y antes de los registros podían poseer registradores.El ALAC está muy preocupado de que la estructura actual puede no ser capaz de abordar adecuadamente las cuestiones que el interés público está en conflicto con los intereses de las partes contratadas. Esto es esencial en luz de: // Mayor enfoque // de la ICANN en el Interés Público; // // El aumento del deseo y la necesidad de ser demostrable responsable; y // // Las recomendaciones de política e implementación del GT que será Exigir que todos los temas de política para volver a la GNSO para la resolución de lugar de ser abordado a nivel de Junta, donde miembros de la Junta tienen el deber de el equilibrio de las partes interesadas desea vs el interés público. "/ --- Fin de la cita --- Realmente no creo que sea para el ALAC para hacer un análisis de la efectos de la creciente complejidad estructural en la GNSO en general. ICANN está pagando un consultor de una gran cantidad de dinero y la Declaración de ALAC dice que es el consultor que debe hacer este trabajo. En cuanto a "la comprensión de las tensiones necesarias en el no comercial espacio ", estoy seguro de lo que usted se refiere y agradecerás ayudar aquí.La Declaración de ALAC está alegando la Casa Contratado es más estable que la Cámara no contratado. No tiene que ver con espacio comercial o no comercial. Si he perdido algo, por favor explicamos, por lo que podemos señalar que en el futuro. (Que es demasiado tarde para esto Declaración de ahora) Gracias! Olivier El 03/08/2015 23:58, el Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch escribió: > Olivier, > > I'm speaking about the ALAC draft. > > But look, something good has happened: at least one ALAC member has > spoken out explaining her position. Transparency welcome. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Facultad de Química UNAM > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Desde:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl(a)gih.com] > *Enviado el:* lunes, 03 de agosto de 2015 16:53 > *Hasta:* Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > *CC:* Vanda Scartezini > *Asunto:* Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement > on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization > > Dear Alejandro, > > thanks for your kind note. Which draft are you speaking about? The > Westlake draft or the ALAC Statement draft? > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 03/08/2015 20:44, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >> Olivier, >> >> I find the draft lacking in understanding the necessary tensions in >> the non-commercial space, and in not making an analysis of the >> effects of increasing structural complexity on the GNSO in general. >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> Facultad de Química UNAM >> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> >> >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, >> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Desde:* lac-discuss-en-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [lac-discuss-en-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Olivier >> MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl(a)gih.com] >> *Enviado el:* lunes, 03 de agosto de 2015 08:43 >> *Hasta:* lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> *CC:* Vanda Scartezini >> *Asunto:* Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement >> on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization >> >> Hello all, >> >> let me make this quite clear from the outset: ALAC members are asked >> to vote on the Statement, not on the GNSO Review Report. The ALAC >> Statement mentions the points it agrees with in the GNSO Review >> report. It mentions the points it does not agree with and is pretty >> strong on criticising the Consultants about the fact it completely >> missed the opportunity to evaluate the GNSO Structure. The ALAC >> response is pretty clear about that. >> The call for comments was made on 15 July. The only ALAC member from >> LAC that commented was Vanda and her views were taken into account. >> The only other LACRALO member that commented was Carlton Samuels and >> his views were also taken into account. >> >> In formulating the ALAC response, I unfortunately received no other >> input from LACRALO members, despite requests for feedback. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> On 03/08/2015 15:18, cveraq(a)gmail.com wrote: >>> [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] >>> >>> Subject: Re: FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization >>> From: cveraq(a)gmail.com >>> >>> Vanda: if you say "I intend to vote in Please though I personally believe, and HAD Such statement made, That the review itself was really weak and did not touch Relevant several points." >>> >>> >>> It sounds contradictory and the vote should be against? >>> >>> >>> Carlos Vera Quintana >>> 0988141143 >>> Sguemecveraq >>> >>> >>>> El 2/8/2015, a las 19:39, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> escribió: >>>> >>>> I intend to vote in favor though I personally believe, and had made such statement, that the review itself was really weak and did not touch several relevant points. [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/be62e6fe29.html --]]

1 0