Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Dev Anand Teelucksingh.
Heidi Ulrich: Hi, Dev.
Operator: Joined.
Heidi Ulrich: Hi, Dev.
Unidentified Participant: Hi, Dev.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Hi.
Heidi Ulrich: This is Heidi.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Hi, Heidi. Yes, how is everything?
Heidi Ulrich: I'm fine. Just into the final stretch for Nairobi.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Ah, yes. A lot of work.
Heidi Ulrich: A lot of work. We're just wondering about Carlton because I know that he said he would be on this call and he was going to speak on the behalf of Vanda.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay. Well he said he was—he is going to come in just now. Might be a little late on it to come in.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Well I saw Vanda's email to the discussion list if that's what you're referring to.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes. I think the confusion is that Andres was supposed to write something to the list about the process and he didn't do that.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Oh. So, well he's online right now, so I take it he's not on the Spanish channel as yet.
Heidi Ulrich: Andres is on the Spanish channel, yes.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Oh, okay.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, I think it's important to get Carlton on the call so he can discuss – put forth (inaudible).
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, I think I’m online right now.
Spanish Interpreter: And I’m sorry, guys. So just so you know, we have Cristian Casas, Jose Ovid Salgueiro. We've got Sylvia Leite, and Antonio Medina in Spanish. And we should have Andres because he's the first one that came in. He didn't respond just now when I called his name. Actually he's now with us. Andres. He's just joined us.
Carlton Samuels: Carlton.
Heidi Ulrich: Ah, there he is.
Operator: Joined.
Carlton Samuels: Hello.
Heidi Ulrich: Hi, Carlton.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Hello, Carlton.
Carlton Samuels: Hey, Dev, how are you?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, good.
Heidi Ulrich: Hi, Carlton. It's Heidi.
Carlton Samuels: Hi, Heidi. How are you there?
Heidi Ulrich: I'm fine.
Carlton Samuels: Lovely.
Heidi Ulrich: Very happy that you've joined.
Carlton Samuels: Yes, I'm – I can stay for at least 45 minutes.
Heidi Ulrich: Perfect.
Spanish Interpreter: And Carlton, Spanish sends a warm greeting to you.
Carlton Samuels: Ah, and the same to my friends.
Heidi Ulrich: Carlton, my understanding is that you're going to speak on behalf of Vanda's suggestions at the start of the meeting?
Carlton Samuels: I didn't quite know that, but I certainly could since I support them.
Heidi Ulrich: Exactly. Well we could – I mean obviously Andres is the chair, but I think it would be useful if we address those comments early on.
Carlton Samuels: Right. I'm sure I could use them as a kind of stage setting.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, thank you.
Spanish Interpreter: And after your statement, Carlton, Sylvia would like to say something too.
Carlton Samuels: That's fine.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) So, Carlton, why don't you just go ahead and begin then in that case, says Andres, since we are recording this call I think we're missing some people.
Carlton Samuels: We have quorum, do we?
Spanish Interpreter: And I'm sorry. Sergio's now. And give me one second, Carlton. They're just trying to confirm who's in the line. Sometimes they can't hear each other. And let me go ahead and confirm with them, Carlton, that you're okay with that because they're waiting for Sergio. Let me ask Andres if he wants you to start or if they want to give him a few minutes.
Carlton Samuels: Okay.
Spanish Interpreter: And if you could give him a few minutes, he says they're waiting for Sergio. And they're trying to get hold of him at this time, so bear with us a minute.
Carlton Samuels: Okay.
Heidi Ulrich: Hi, I'm just watching the Adigo and call management and they're still trying to reach Sergio so that's the hold up.
Carlton Samuels: Yes.
Heidi Ulrich: I've also asked for a roll call.
Spanish Interpreter: And just so you know, I've already told Adigo to try and call Sergio. But there seems to be a problem getting hold of him. So. And Andres is asking if you have the number for – if they have the available number for Carlos Aguirre so see if they could do a dial up for him. So just bear with us here for a moment.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay, so on Spanish we have Cristian, Jose Salgueiro, Antonio Medina, Sylvia, Matthias, and Andres.
Spanish Interpreter: Correct. Let me go ahead and confirm, but those are the ones that I wrote down.
Heidi Ulrich: Thank you.
Spanish Interpreter: And just confirming, Heidi, those are the people in Spanish at the moment.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay, thank you.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) And juts so you know, the reason why we are waiting is because I like to be respectful to the people that want to be part of a discussion. I don't like to leave anybody out, says Andres, especially when they have an interest in the subject. And I don't know if there's anybody else in the region that thinks this, but I would like to – I would like not to have any space left or for anybody to misinterpret, especially the people that may misinterpret certain information that someone thinks there is a lot of transparency, especially if it's people that are involved that went into the committee where we ask for volunteers. Or simply people that want to participate in this conference. I really do want to give it a few minutes for the people that expressed interest in participating.
I've always taken a very indulgent position when it comes to the region because like I said, I don't want to leave any room left where there's a lack of transparency. Maybe I'm usually the – I think I'm the youngest within the whole assembly and so I am still president, and so therefore I don't want any idea that anybody thinks or perceives that there's a lack of transparency.
And for this reason, I know for the last teleconference, we had a consensus on the proposals, but this is why I really start once again the issue about transparency. But if anybody has anything to say about the issue, relative to transparency, please by all means. There has never been my intention go against transparency, but since we are still waiting for everybody to be present, I really want to emphasize and highlight this point.
We have a mailing list and we have monthly meetings, and so whoever has any questions related to whatever information is going around, please feel free to ask within these meetings. This is the time to get your questions answered because if someone says, "Well nobody wanted to answer my question because everybody seemed busy," if you actually attend the meetings, you will know that we will take the time to deal with whatever issues or subjects that are necessary. I don't know if Carlton would like to say something related to that?
Carlton Samuels: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to start by sharing some comments from Vanda. As you know, Vanda is a member in good standing of LACRALO. She also happens to be our board liaison from –
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) But one second before you start, Carlton. Just let me confirm and let me just make sure that everybody is not present. I'm so sorry, Carlton.
Carlton Samuels: That's all right.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) I just want to confirm then that the only person missing is Fatima. And I don't know if they've called Sergio. He was not part of the committee, but he had expressed in being part of this phone call. Okay. Carlton, the teleconference started 18 minutes ago and finally please go ahead and the floor is yours by all means. And thank you for being here with us.
Carlton Samuels: Thank you, Mr. President. I am joining the conversation for two reasons. One, I've been asked to share some concerns that were raised by Vanda in the private mail to me and several others. And to highlight the concerns she has.
The principle concern that Vanda has is about the timeliness of what is being proposed. Vanda is in favor of the proposal to change the bylaws to two-year terms for elected people in LACRALO. She is very much in support of making sure that our bylaws are in compliance with best practice and also harmonize with bylaws for other RALOs and existing organizations of such as ours, and engage in ICANN. And she is also hopeful that any review we do should take place within the context of the ALAC review process that is happening.
She believes that while the review – this kind of review that should take place would make it – it would not be possible with the kind of review she's suggesting that any changes to the bylaws about term for elections should not take place before 2011. So she makes it very clear, she's not against changes to the bylaws to change the terms for elected officials of LACRALO, but she feels that the outcomes from the changes should not be implemented before 2011. She feels that any changes we make to the bylaws, as we consider these changes, we should do them in context of the bylaws of other RALOs and supporting organizations at ICANN, as well as in context of the ALAC review process that is happening now. That's it.
By the way, I believe that these are reasonable suggestions, and I certainly support them. So what it means is that the results of the election under the new bylaws would not happen until the next assembly of 2011. That is the basis for Vanda's comments.
Now to add my comments, as I understand it, we – there was a consensus that was arrived at at the last general assembly that it would be desirable to change the bylaws so that our elected members can be changed for two-year periods with term limits. With term limits. The suggestion at the time was that if we change the term for elected officers to two years, then we should allow at least one reelection on those two years, making for a total time in office of four years. That was a suggestion. I think most of us agreed that that would make sense because it would harmonize with the periods we know hold our representative to the ALAC under those terms.
There would have been on the – in this framework it means that would have had to go to some kind of transitional arrangement. As it is at the minute, our elected officials, it is LACRALOs secretary and the president. There is no – they are not term limited. You can be reelected as many times as you seek election and can get the votes. And so the proposal then to change the bylaws for two-year terms and to have term limits would make a change to the existing order, which would mean that it might have some requirement for some transitional arrangements. That was something that I believe we all – there was a consensus at least as I recall in this.
There is also a proposal to change the bylaw so that LACRALO would elect a board; a management board as now obtains in the EURALO space. That is a proposal that is for the members to discuss and agree.
As I understand it, this meeting is called to organize the text for changing the various parts of the rules of procedure. The several clauses of the bylaws to allow for these concerns to be implemented. So what we are about here is to agree on a text, just a text, for the bylaw changes we are proposing. And then there would be a period where those, the text for the changes would be discussed and members would finally come to consensus and agree.
Vanda has made the suggestion, and I think it is reasonable, that any change to the text of the bylaws and time enough for all members to have a look at it, would not make it possible for the changes to be adopted for the election that is coming this year. I think that is only sensible. So that is one consideration that I think members ought to come to terms with. If we intend to get this right and do it with transparency, then the question of the timing for the implementation of any changes that we might adopt is also critical to the conceptual idea of transparency.
That I think is what we are about now. And I'll pass back that baton to the chair.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) Thank you, Carlton. And let me talk about something. Let me specify something. And I understand that what Vanda has proposed is reasonable. And I do understand that what we are asking for is an important change. But within the terms that you are using, it seems a bit almost legal, since ALAC has a process and since the others have another process that we have to harmonize in regards to those processes, and respect that time limit.
And we were very careful but we also decided, and this is – this was done through the consensus, and not so much the modification of the text but the expression of the actual language we made sure that the intended documents we specifically said that we simply wanted to limit the reelection. And we also said that we thought that the one-year term especially for the president and for the secretary do not work well. So we thought that at least this time limit would give us the possibility of reelection. And if anybody has any questions or concerns, or any doubt on our intentions, it is very important to put that forward because currently as any RALOs, we have the possibility to be reelected and at the same time we've expressed, and this does appear on the record of last week's call, that's why if anybody has any questions in regards to transparency, it's good that they attend a teleconference.
What we've proposed, and it's been so clear and we've also expressed this, the need to not even have use of this, but simply there's a clause that states that there's a reelection, for example, not necessarily make that happen in that way. But we do and have agreed that it is important to continue with this modification process because in 2009, we had great participation, we had a very important outcome, we have many statements on many policies and we're having a lot of discussions. So from that point of view, we think it's important and this is why that it would be good to have that two-year term modification be before the election.
And then now since LACRALO is an autonomous organization that has their own authorities and they have operations that take place besides ICANN, and we have consulted and spoken to the attorneys, and in last teleconference, and even in previous teleconference where we work with the staff in detail, there are no operation reasons why there's no reason why any of this should be done, because when there's a consensus, if the drafting is done by a committee, the committee usually has the obligation to draft such text before anything happens. And this has to do with transparency as well.
And I do want to say, and I will say, the idea of creating that special board wasn't necessarily that organized. We did present that idea. It wasn't too clear how we were going to do that. We did know that this could mirror EURALO. And the other thing that I wanted to say in this teleconference and still have the possibility because we tried to do this in 2006 is for the Internet users that are members of LACRALO; they have a right to vote. I know that some of these issues have not been clear when we didn't necessarily have general information from the whole region.
But in regards to what we want to do and what the intention is, I do have to say that I am a bit upset about Vanda's position. Not Carlton's but Vanda's because if everybody attended to these teleconferences, these are concerns that would not take place. And this is something that does make me feel uncomfortable.
Now this is not set in stone, it's not like we said, okay, these are the only options and if this does not happen, we're not going to do anything else. But I did believe that because there have been a unanimous consensus in the last teleconference, it's difficult to deal with such concerns. And I don't know where this comes out. We talk about rationality and let's say jurisdictional respect of the bylaws. That yes, it could happen in 2011, but ultimately this is something that we did believe that could happen now. I don't know, Carlos, if you wanted to say something?
Carlos Aguirre: (Interpreted) Thank you, everyone. Before anything, Andres, just a short question. And I want to know who's present again, just to confirm. There's Carlton and Dev in English with Heidi. And there's Matthias as well in the English channel. And in Spanish, we have Sylvia, we have Antonio Medina, Jose (inaudible). Fatima apologized. There's Cristian Casas and myself.
Well first of all, Andres said thank you. And thank you for your hard dedication to LACRALO. I think that Vanda's position has really, really concerned me and it has really caused something in me that I had not felt before because this position that Vanda has taken I don't know where she's coming from. I don't know what the substance is. And it really compels me to say that in regards to the history of the users of Latin America and the Caribbean, has always been without Vanda. Vanda never present with the Latin America Internet users – Latin America and the Caribbean since this was created until now. And now she's the one that raises the transparency flag.
And I don't like the fact that somebody mentions transparency when they themselves have supported the formation of a de facto committee within ALAC that has no bearing in the operation principles of ALAC. And that nevertheless, it now controls the intentions of ALAC. So when somebody talks about transparency and yet they have other things that they have to answer for, I believe it's complicated and contradictory.
Also if somebody has any proposals to make, this is why we have the conferences that take place in our region. I think Vanda has only present in two of our teleconferences if I’m not mistaken. Also, I have serious doubts even though Vanda's ALS was approved because this is Vanda's ALS by the way. We still do not have any representative from that ALS in the region and no one has come during a presentation to speak for that ALS.
I know that Sylvia has sometimes spoken on behalf of them, but Sylvia is not a part of that ALS that belongs to Vanda. So this really has a very serious effect on me, that somebody talks about transparency that somebody has this comportment when they have never even assessed it to the teleconferences and that the person is also not aware that the ALAC or better said, LACRALO's principles of operation do give a guarantee and a protection in the cases where maybe things are not done correctly. So such as here, for example, it asks for a majority for this proposal to be approved. And that I think is more than enough.
And finally, because I don't want to bore you, otherwise I would have a lot more things to say about transparency and other issues where other people have participated and been involved in where transparency has not been present, it's also the fact that this modification that has been proposed is to improve and kill – get rid of an indefinite duration of the posts, but also because this will improve participation, not only of the individual users. And this is something that was originally – that was proposed five years ago, so what are we afraid of?
If my organization has not even been formed, if I don't even the election pattern that has been organized by delaying a resolution that everybody in the region has already proved, it just – and again, it seems to me that she's not that aware of LACRALO's operating principles because the region and the Caribbean and the Latin American users are LACRALO. And they are an independent organization. They don't have to fit any ICANN, any ALAC, any other RALOs because they have their own memoranda of understanding that was signed by Sergio, that I signed, that Carlton signed, that I think Dev signed as well. So then this woman is not aware that our region is in fact independent and can decide through the consensus of their members. And that is the members that are always present, the ones that are always participating, not the ones that are absent.
So once again, this behavior of people that are contradictory that they speak about transparency when this one is not shown, especially when these issues brought forth are not relevant, is just – I don't get it. I mean I have no other inconvenience for any other proposals, and I think it would be excellent and democratic if there are any other proposals that are brought forth. But when this proposal is brought forth extemporaneously when the region had already made a decision, I think that is at the least with intentions that are not quite clear. And thank you, Mr. President.
Sylvia Herlein Leite: (Interpreted) What I wanted to say, and this is Sylvia, from what I understand, in the last teleconference there was a workgroup that was going to review and then suggest the changes in the rules of procedure. Now this related to our rules, that they were different from the other RALOs, that there were no specific rules on the norms of authority.
Operator: Joined.
Sylvia Herlein Leite: (Interpreted) And that the changes, for example, in regards to the duration of the term, especially because if an officer got used to their term and then they had to undergo another election, I think that we all had agreed about this, we had already spoken about this and like Carlton said, that was one of the main subjects in the General Assembly in Mexico. We were about to vote on this, we decided not to. I know that there was some time – concerns at the time but we all had agreed that the two-year term was important. And that is something that has already been said ad nauseum.
Now the workgroup that was formed in last teleconference was to start working on this issue, so from what I understood, we were going to meet through Skype, not necessarily in a teleconference like this, and we have already spoken our conversation. And so the point of this is that just today at 9:00 UTC, we received this invitation for this teleconference. There were no previous exchanges. We got this invitation for the teleconference to modify the text to the issues that have – were proposed. And with proposals that had not been discussed by that workgroup. So what I ask is what is the point of that workgroup that was formed? And the worst thing is that those modifications came in English and we are tired of having to fight to get the translations for many of our documents.
And the fact that we get these new laws modified in English, I think that's an issue. So at this time, what I think we have to do – and it's not only the issue about the president and the secretary, but what I propose at this time is to examine all the rules, since they were signed in 2007, and I know that ALAC and LACRALO grew a lot. There has been a lot of changes and a lot of growth in these three years. So my idea at this time is that we review all this, first and foremost, and what we had proposed about the board in our region, to also analyze that as well.
What I just think is confusing is that we decide to form a committee and the committee didn't even have a chance to act.
Andres Piazza: Sylvia, let me just clarify. There's one issue. I think I agree with everything that you're saying. But there is maybe something. I think that everything was clear after the teleconference. And I don't know for – I don't know, maybe management issues. When we talk about the committee, because I do want to say to Cristian and Sergio, for example does this mean that they're not allowed to participate because they were not part of the committee? I mean what I'm saying is we've met over the phone.
The point is this. The tentative agenda are not the proposals. So I understand the concerns. And if you think that there's a text that has already been imposed without any previous discussion. But my issue is that there were no email exchanges. But I will say to you I would have wanted – I will say this to you. Two days ago, I think that on Tuesday I would have wanted to work on the text the same way when I proposed the equation of the president. Yes and I do remember that you said this. The point is, I would have wanted to have the suggested text and then discuss the rest, but since the staff gave us the possibility to have this teleconference with interpretation, so then I think that at this time we need to deal with these issues.
But keep in mind that this agenda is just a tentative agenda. We have the right to change it however we want. And so for the moment, there aren't any new text. There are no new criterias, nor ideas. And if that's what you understood, then I understand your concern. But I will agree that if you interpret it that way. No, I mean I understand what you're saying, but barely this morning we got the notice for this. No, but I think that it was a good thing that the staff would investigate this issue. It's – well, 1:47 so it's quite difficult to translate, but what the staff did, they spoke to one of the general attorneys in ICANN and they did find out not only have to hold the voting next week with the new proposed tax.
And putting it in a bylaws format because this is the general consensus that stemmed from the teleconference. And then when it comes to the operation, the staff already analyzed the operation and the time limit, so we will be able to handle this after Nairobi. And then granting us these three weeks to be able to have those new authorities that have already been elected. But actually, the staff did ask the ICANN council not only for their opinion, but asked if we would be able to do this. And the answer was that we could do this because they were asked their opinion on many subjects if we were allowed to, for example, not only hold the vote, but if we could change these issues, if we'd already had a general consensus.
I know that when it comes to the presidential elections that there needs to be a quorum, but when it comes to changes such as these, you only need four and you can even send the process and the voting process by mail.
Carlton Samuels: Can I (inaudible)?
Spanish Interpreter: Yes, give me – let me just go ahead and tell them. Okay? One second.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) The issue is we were not able to draft the text, meaning draft the actual language of our intention. We were not able to draft and change it to the point where it could show as a bylaw. But today's the meeting for that. So yes, and I mean the agenda's in English, but I don't think that it should be something that limits what the committee intended to do. I think that for this committee it's not impossible to still continue and carry out the tasks that they had decided to do. But the original position and proposal – that was never modified.
Spanish Interpreter: And just – and Carleton, I already told them that you wanted to speak, give me one second.
Andres Piazza: But that idea just came from the staff or did it come from the committee that told the staff to ask legal council? Well there are many of us that really want to speak, so really try to – okay. So let me just answer this final question. I am the one that asked the staff because before holding this meeting, we needed to have an opinion. And I hope that this one day appears on the bylaws. When there is a unanimous consensus, there is really no need to go backwards.
I know that for the general assemblies, I know that that is necessary. If we all hadn't met in Cartagena and Buenos Aries, it would not even be necessary to do this. But for this, my position is let's just send a vote out and just make it happen. But it's a legal process that I know that sometimes seems a bit ridiculous, but that is the way it works. But it's not that we changed the text or we changed the language, or the extension. We just wanted an opinion and an interpretation related to what had been asked. I know Carlton you wanted to say something, yes. But I wanted to say something and Antonio wanted to say something. Antonio, go ahead.
Spanish Interpreter: And Carlton, give me a moment, please. A lot of them had asked to speak as well. I'm so sorry about this.
Carlton Samuels: That's all right. Not to worry.
Spanish Interpreter: One second.
Antonio Medina: (Interpreted) And so can I --? So the point here we really at this point just need to have volunteers to have the work carry out within that committee. We still do not know exactly what it is that we need to do, what it is that we need to carry out. It's important to listen to all the different proposals and as a work committee analyze them, review them, and then prepare a report for LACRALO the way it should be done.
The issue at this time, as a work committee, we do not have the capability to see if there is going to be a vote or if we need to call on an assembly to have all the LACRALO members present. So Andres, I think that we do need to begin from the beginning and at least start informing what the point of this meeting is and what it is that we want to develop. There are many issues that are becoming rather important and there is really no guide map that is really telling us what our point of action is going to be. But we need to have concise arguments on all the things that we need to do. When I heard about this proposal, for example, in regards to the administrative structure of the RALO, I did not know that there was one. I'd like to be a bit more knowledgeable about this and then review that and then go from there.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) Thank you, Antonio. Okay, so I will allow Carlton to speak first, and then Sergio. Carlton, go ahead.
Carlton Samuels: Thank you, Chair. I am – I think it is important for us to agree the process by which we are going to get to implementation of the changes that are proposed. To my mind, what is – we are agreed – there is a consensus, I am sure there is a consensus that says that we should change the term for election of officers. And there is a consensus for us to insert a term limit on those officers. I think there is consensus to that.
All that remains, as far as I'm concerned, is for us to determine what text we shall propose to implement this and put it to the committee of the whole. That is to say all LACRALO. I think the way that was suggested that a small committee be developed – be raised to develop the text is the way to go. Once that committee develops the text and put it to the committee of the whole, which is to say all LACRALO members on the list on the Wiki, then that is a beginning of it.
I believe that in the same way that we developed the text to change the terms, we have a proposal from members that the text – that there should be a board for LACRALO. I believe that what we might wish to do at this stage is to see whether or not there is consensus on that issue. I do not think that that matter was aired enough or long enough for other members to put in their two cents. So I would suggest that the member who proposed the board idea put it to the list to see if there is widespread support for that.
As to the business of the quorum – issue of the quorum, it is very clear in the existing rules of procedure the reason why we agreed not to have a quorum. First of all, it was always agreed that we could have a general assembly that was virtual. And when you have a general assembly that was virtual, the idea of a quorum is a non (inaudible). So the issue was what do we do if we had to go to the vote? And it was agreed then that we go to the vote and we give a time limit on a vote, just like we put up a vote, the vote is open for a certain period, and that period can be determined by consensus. That was what was agreed.
Now if as I am reading this, the legal opinion from ICANN is that we need to harmonize the issue of quorum and so on. This is where I think Vanda's suggestion of looking at what other entities do for the quorum idea makes sense. So I would suggest that we ask for help from the staff on this matter of quorum. What is the operating in other SOs and other organs that are associated ICANN around quorum. Whether it is a face-to-face or virtual. And we use that as the basis to make a determination about where we proceed with quorum.
To my mind, it was very clear what was the intent. It seems to me I will take the legal opinion that we should harmonize and therefore I would suggest to my colleagues that the way to go forward on the issue of quorum is to see what others do and then see how we can do it. That's what I am proposing.
Finally, I think we should simply go ahead and determine a committee to start the drafting for presentation to all of us, so we might look at it and we can get some work done. Thank you, Chair.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) Thank you, Carlton. Go ahead, Sergio.
Sergio: (Interpreted) How are you? Good afternoon, everyone. Really I found out two days later about that committee and I really wanted to be part of it. First of all, because I think that there are things that are being proposed today that were mentioned in Mexico and for different reasons that are not necessarily the reasons that Sylvia mentioned, that we understood that it was better not to make a decision on those at the time. I think that that time has come.
And this whole thing really concerns me though. And it seriously concerns me because we spoke about a consensus and I have not seen a unanimous consensus nor in the discussion list and I was not in the last meeting, but how many people were present for there to be a statement that there was a unanimous consensus over rules and procedure? I mean how many people were there? There were eight people. So.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) Sergio, you're coming to a conclusion. This is the thing. Any teleconference takes place with whatever quorum we have. We had quorum on that teleconference and so in that teleconference, we decided that we had a series of principles and that we wanted to modify the --No, but let me finish. No, but I'm not asking you for an explanation. And I'm speaking at this time.
At this moment I'm not asking for an explanation. What I'm telling you is that with eight votes, we formed a committee and unanimously we said that this committee was going to bring forth this proposal. And so we are meeting to work and so the unanimous consensus was that we were going to meet in order to work and draft these modifications and then present them on the list and then to get to a vote. And that was the proposal. In that case, it would be that general assembly that could decide on the operative measures. But obviously we cannot act without that actual unanimity that you're speaking about.
Sergio: (Interpreted) Yes, but if you allow me to speak, I think that there are issues here that have to do with logic. And there are things that have to do with common sense. We are proposing the rules of procedure although RALO within our region, which is what is what is the actual life of our institution. And we want to change this in what? Two weeks? In less than two weeks? We ae proposing to change something. I mean there's a trip to Nairobi and after Nairobi – I mean Andres, Carlos, Sylvia, Antonio, I don't who else is present here?
Really though, it really does not matter to me if we have to wait three more weeks, one more week in order to finish that. I understand that it's necessary to do this, but I also understand that this was conceived in the presidential general assembly, not virtual, so in December let's really get together. Let's continue discussing the rest of the year what we're going to do this. Let's compare the ways of procedure of the other organizations. We are also rather creative to innovate better participation. Let's continue these discussions, but calmly, slowly. It's necessary – it's not necessary to hastily do this – to do this so quickly. Why are we going to do this so quickly when it can be done better if it is done well?
So the first thing that I think about is that there is maybe hidden intention of why you want to do this quickly. I mean I've seen what happens in, for example, many meetings and congresses, when things are done quickly. And I don't want to be involved in something like this. We have many organizations, we have to ask them how to proceed and we have to ask them if they agree with the modification of LACRALO (inaudible). It's not an easy process.
I mean somebody I got the impression woke up one day and said, "Well let's go ahead and change these bylaws." Well, let's go ahead and speak to the bylaws. Let's prepare things that not a lot of people were aware of, but one day you said, well we're going to change the bylaws, in two days we're going to change the rules of operation. And that was done. From one day to the next. And so – okay.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) But I explained to you how it happened. There's a transcription of the way this was done. And something else was done. What we said was we are going to propose to LACRALO a modification. We didn't say we're going to change it. And we said this committee will come forth with these modifications and that was the agreement. The agreement was a proposal, not the change. And I said it to you three times. Maybe you didn't understand this. I mean, base yourself on the facts, because you're talking about crazy conclusions and you're implying.
I do not agree with and I will say that I'm usually the one who's the calmest and who always takes a step back until you move away from logic. And like I said, let's go ahead and come up with a text, let's propose this, and that was the agreement. I mean what did you think was going to happen? That today we were going to make these changes and that you barely found out? Well first of all, realize that you were not present in the last teleconference. Realize that you did not volunteer to be part of that committee and so today –
Spanish Interpreter: I'm sorry; did you want to say something?
Carlton Samuels: Could I intervene again?
Spanish Interpreter: Yes. Let me go ahead and tell them. And Carlton, just so you know, okay. Whenever you want to intervene, I will do everything possible to let them know. As you know, when they're in the middle of their caller key, it's very difficult to interrupt.
Carlton Samuels: I understand.
Spanish Interpreter: So just be aware of that.
Carlton Samuels: I (inaudible).
Spanish Interpreter: Thank you. So give me one second, because they're still having this discussion.
Carlton Samuels: Yes.
Sergio: (Interpreted) But the point of what I'm telling you is that you want to do this hastily in a hurry. Well what is the intention behind that? What is the interest? Why is it that you want to do this?
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) Okay, so this is the issue once again. We got to the conclusion and because there were many issues that were dealt with at the time, we came to the agreement that there's a lack of productivity with the short term. So we said let's go ahead and limit at the indefinite election. And I don't know why we didn't just deal with that in a better manner at the time. So we said let's limit the indefinite term, but let's go ahead and extend this to a two-year term. And since we have an election coming up after Nairobi, since we have an election that is about to take place, let's go ahead and draft a proposal. And this is why many of us came here in order to draft that proposal.
Carlton Samuels: My friends.
Spanish Interpreter: One second, Carlton. I'm sorry. I'm trying to interrupt them, but I'm not having a very easy time. Give me one second. And Carlton, I just told them and interrupted. So give me one second, okay?
Carlton Samuels: Sure.
Heidi Ulrich: Carlton, can you stay still for a while?
Carlton Samuels: I have to leave. It's (inaudible).
Spanish Interpreter: Let me go ahead and tell them that. Maybe that will help.
Heidi Ulrich: Thank you. I'm conscious of the time, Carlton. I know. Thank you though for staying.
Carlton Samuels: We need to get them back on this thing here.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes.
Spanish Interpreter: And one second, Carlton, please. So once again, Andres is re-explaining the intention and what came about in the last teleconference.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) And just so you know that there's a lot of information that has been available if you were not aware of this information. And finally, Carlton, by all means, go ahead.
Carlton Samuels: Thank you. My friends, let us not go any further in this feuding. Here is the crux of the matter. You cannot change the LACRALO rules of procedure unless and until you have 66% of those of credited out. 66%, a super majority. It doesn't matter if you go fast or go slow. You still have to get 66%. So all of this argument about going fast or slow is moot. You have to convince 66% of the eligible votes in – the votes in LACRALO that a change to the rules of procedure is required.
So please understand that that is the thing that you need to focus on. We need some basic lists for the change to the group. I am suggesting that it is perfectly reasonable for us to have a committee. Members of the committee it might not have been. When you have a teleconference under our rules, under our operating principle, eight of the nine members on the teleconference constitute a quorum. That quorum is (inaudible), that meeting is enabled to take decisions for actions on behalf of LACRALO.
Whether I am there or not, as long as there is nine members present on a teleconference, on a monthly teleconference, that is a quorum and that meeting is official. And decisions about how we move forward can be made by that meeting. The decision with the quorum, decision was made to form a committee. If this decision was not put to the list, if we did not read the minutes of the meeting, you cannot blame that on the participants.
Spanish Interpreter: Okay. And Carlton, I'm sorry. He just allowed Antonio to speak.
Antonio Medina: (Interpreted) Once again at this moment we're talking about whether if there's quorum or not, but finally we decided to meet because we were going to do a job as a committee. So at this point, the point is to really gather information, evaluate that information, and then prepare that report in order to share with everyone. So consequently whenever we bring forth our recommendation, everybody is well informed. But we talk about votes, and consensus, and all that, I just think that at this time we are not focusing on what really we came here to do. This, from what I understood, was a work meeting, and so far there is nothing that we've done.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) Okay, so let's go ahead and begin, and put on the committee hats. All right. So we need to create a text. So we need to decide what type of a text. I mean but this is the issue. We had proposed a committee to study some of the facts but not to approve anything. Okay, but you're still saying things that are completely stupid. What are you saying? I mean – okay.
Spanish Interpreter: And give me one second, guys. They're both speaking at the same time. That I can't even interpret. I do apologize for that.
Carlton Samuels: No problem. We understand how it is.
Spanish Interpreter: I'm so glad.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) But what I do want to say is, since Jose is present, and I’m sorry, we have not taken advantage of that, we all have time at this time to discuss clause-by-clause what we want to do or what we not want to do. I think that as this time let's basically send out a mail to the list, the people that have interest in working with these clauses.
So if anyone would like to send within the shortest time period possible, a proposal of the new text and this is a proposal of the new text, on how do you want this modification to look for the two-year period for the president and for the secretary within the rules of procedure and related to the reelection. And within the transitory clause I will be more than willing to draft that and I will send that out to the list.
If any of you want to work with EURALO in regards to their board works, to gather inspiration from that, I think that we can have that ready by Monday or for Tuesday. But so I don't know which of you would be interested in this. I think it's double work, so if any of you are interested in doing that. So, once again does somebody want to come up with that proposed text?
Unidentified Participant: (Interpreted) Excuse me, once again; I insist there isn't a clear procedure on what it is that we're set to do. I mean you're proposing the drafting of a text. We are a committee and between all of us we should actually draft that text. Or the texts that are being proposed. I want to know what the different proposals are. I'd like to evaluate them before we even go there.
Spanish Interpreter: And does anybody want to say something in English so far? No?
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) But once again, we talk about the modification of the transitory clause as well as the election period and the duration of such. And the approval of the bylaws and then the creation of that board. So it's really quite easy to draft that.
Unidentified Participant: (Interpreted) Yes, but there are many other things that we need to discuss, Andres. That's not the only thing. I mean you're basically proposing that we change things every year. I mean it's good to actually sit and analyze with just these things in detail.
No, what I'm telling you is that from one day to the other, you're bringing forth the proposals and you talk about a consensus, and yes, I know that the consensus came from the teleconference. But this has nothing to do with the foundational consensus.
If you have 33 ALSs, you have to discuss this with all 33 ALSs. Once the 33 ALSs give you an opinion whether they agree with this or not, then it is a consensus. But you're talking about consensus that came from eight people. But I mean what I'm telling you is that I want to take enough time to do this. This is what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we should not do this; I'm saying that I want to take enough time to do this.
Okay, but you're going to tell me the same thing that you said previously. And this is outside the facts.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) So let's go back to this. We have said that those were the four points that we needed to draft. There isn't that much more to do. Draft those issues. It would take a couple of days. And that is the methodology. You're proposing to discuss this in detail and slowly. So I don't know if any of you have any other methodologies to work from, then please by all means. Carlos, did you want to say something?
Carlos Aguirre: (Interpreted) Yes, Andres. I think that we've wasted the time discussing things that are not that important. And this is why at some point I have said that it was important to form a committee in order to work on these issues. Democracy is important, but it also complicates things when decisions need to be made. Especially when new information needs to be incorporated.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) Okay, so Carlos, when it comes to methodology, I think that what we are proposing, I think that I do agree with your methodology. I think that it's very clear. I mean this is not a matter of a detailed study and that we need to take forever in order to make these changes happen.
Carlos Aguirre: (Interpreted) Well that's unacceptable. That is unacceptable.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) But in that – unacceptable is that you're speaking without even having been allowed to speak. Anything else, Carlos?
Carlos Aguirre: (Interpreted) No, Andres. I do have to go. Unfortunately I cannot continue with this teleconference. Well first of all because it's not worth it with people that behave in such manner. Good-bye.
Spanish Interpreter: So Carlos is leaving and Jose Ovid is now leaving as well because this discussion is not going anywhere as well.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) So we had formed a committee in order to draft a text to send out to the list. We were not able to, unfortunately really do the work as the intention had been and now we have no more time. And now many of the members have left because of the tone that really happened within this teleconference. And I am very, very sorry for that.
So at this point, I think that we will need to send through the list and try to reach an agreement through the mail, because obviously teleconferences sometimes do not work when it comes to reaching a consensus. But I thank the staff, and I am very thankful to Carlton, Dev, and Heidi, for having given us the time to meet here. We will see each other in Nairobi and in regards to the text that will be brought forth on the list; we'll have to reach an agreement through the list. We'll have each ALS give their opinion and vote, and that will be the end of that.
And I am very, very sorry that this occurred the way that it did in today's teleconference, but obviously this is not the way to handle a discussion. We opened the doors to people that really didn't want to discuss the text, and did not even bring forth any proposals on the methods of procedure.
So I'm going to draft a proposal, I will share it with the members of the list and that will be the methodology to bring forth. We just spent an hour and 22 minutes on this teleconference and nothing was done. And Cristian Casas would like to say something. Go ahead, Cristian.
Cristian Casas: (Interpreted) First of all I think that it is a shame that we were not able to come to an agreement. And second of all, I do thank you for allowing us to participate and to be part of the subject at this point. Once again, I think that it's just important to do the work and to be brought forth to the ALSs. And this is what I said at the beginning. The situation in our country in regards to methodology as ALSs, we're having a very difficult time. And we're talking at a local level. And this is why we've had to been isolated from a lot of the work, and we do apologize for that. But we do need more time to analyze all these issues. So we would appreciate that the committee does send us whatever proposals they have so we can analyze it.
Andres Piazza: (Interpreted) Well today's meeting was to come up with a proposal and send it out to the list.
Cristian Casas: (Interpreted) I understand, but I cannot, as a representative from my ALS, I cannot make a decision for them. I have to take whatever proposal that they have or that you have and give my ALS time to analyze it and to approve it if they do. But thank you for allowing me to participate.
Spanish Interpreter: Okay, Heidi, Carlton, does anybody want to say something? Or Dev?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: No, this Dev. No, I think we should just take it to the list for now when ready.
Heidi Ulrich: And this is Heidi. And perhaps some face-to-face meetings of some of the people in Nairobi might be useful as well.
Andres Piazza: Very well. Thank you. And good-bye. And goodnight to everyone.
Heidi Ulrich: Goodnight. Thank you.
Andres Piazza: Take care. Bye-bye.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Take care, bye.
Heidi Ulrich: Hey, Dev?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Yes?
Heidi Ulrich: I'm just thinking we can – there are going to be informal meeting pod available in Nairobi. They may even have telephone lines, so we might be able to arrange a meeting face to face with you, Carlton, Andreas, Vanda, Andreas, and then call some people as well.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Dev, Cheryl here. I dropped in when I heard things were going pear shaped. I also put up a few things, some of them less polite, but nevertheless. So they're now in the LACRALO Skype chat. The propensity of people to play people and not the issues or the topic is something I know is a challenge in the Latin American and Caribbean region. But what Heidi's proposing is something that I think we should endorse and encourage. And if there is anything that ALAC can do to help you in that, please let us know. If that means giving you me, Sebastien, or Alan to act as a neutral chair in some way, or facilitate, just let us know. Okay? Because you guys are doing too much good work to let these things derail you. You're starting to get real outcomes and you just can't let these things derail you.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Yes. Well, I don't – yes, definitely I think we'll have to do some discussions in Nairobi. And I think probably that will really I think bring things together a little bit faster I think.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, I think so. If you could maybe speak with Carlton and Andres about that offer and just let us know. And we'll try to make it happen. How's that?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay. But I mean even if you do the --when you say do a conference, I mean with translation or – I assume?
Heidi Ulrich: We could try. That would probably pose some difficulties, but yes, we can try.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: All right. No, but definitely I will see – we will have to sit down and really talk in person. And I think, yes. I just think sometimes that like just the people just don't seem to quite understand what – and I don't know if it's the problem with translation in the mailing list or whatever. But these things have happened. Anyway.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Don't let the turkeys get you down is a saying that is occasionally used in my part of the world, so Dev don't let the turkeys get you down please.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay. So we'll be in touch, Dev, and just explore the issue with Andres and Carlton.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, I will do so.
Heidi Ulrich: Thank you so much. Thanks, Carlton, if you're still on the line.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Probably not.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay, thank you, Dev.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay, bye-bye.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: See you in Nairobi.
Heidi Ulrich: Bye-bye.
