== EN ==

Do you support Mr. Alejandro Pisanty’s motion? Formal Motion from Alejandro Pisanty: 

 a. LACRALO’s Chair and Secretariat shall do an Agenda with policy issues for discussion. 

b. The first 30 minutes of each monthly call shall be focused on debate of current ICANN public consultations. 

* Yes 

* No

* Abstain 

== ES ==

¿Usted apoya la moción de Alejandro Pisanty?

a. que la Presidencia y la Secretaría hagan una agenda de temas de políticas para su discusión

b. que los primeros 30' de cada sesión mensual se dediquen a temas sustantivos de debate de políticas en curso en consultas públicas de ICANN




  • No labels


  1. I normally do not intervene in RALO issues, but I will make an exception here.

    I STRONGLY support what I think is the intent of this motion, But I think that the actual wording may have results that are not as good as they could be.

    There are several reasons:

    • To say there should be 30 minutes of debate ignores that in most cases, the people on the call may have little idea what the subject is. It will need to be presented and the questions identified. Otherwise it will be a waste of time. Certainly we should aim at having everyone "up to speed" ahead of time, and that is one of the reasons we are reviewing ALS expectations in the ALAC Task Force, but we need to be realistic. To have debate without informed debaters can be a waste of time. We have seen examples where there has been strong debate on a subject, but there was a misunderstanding of the topic and as a result, there was no usable outcome. I would suggest that any such discussion include a review or briefing on the issue(s).
    • It is unclear what the intended outcome is. Perhaps it is just to force people to focus on the issues even with no defined outcome.
    • Depending on the detailed agenda, there may other things that on some occasions should come first, and certainly not before the standard items of roll call and approving the agenda.
    • On some occasions, there may be little to discuss, or other issues may be of greater importance. RALO leaders should have some flexibility (but NOT to ignore policy issues altogether).
    1. I totally agree with your points Alan.



  2. Dear Alan, fully agree. I wanted to make any changes and they said they would accept it then. My idea:

    1. There must be a timetable to information in time to the list.

    2. Do not set the time. Unfortunately in LACRALO who they protest because there were 25 minutes and others because they were 35 minutes.

    3. Most of the issues must be consistent with those of relevance that are simultaneously treated in ALAC / ICANN. And some are calling some other modification.

    This proposal will be reopened I think today or tomorrow ..... This is because some asked for more time .....

    1. I would like to add my comments on this issue.

      Some time ago, when Dev was ALAC member by LACRALO and with the previous Chair and Secretariat of LACRALO (Jose and Sylvia), Dev and I used to divide the policy issues and we used to present to the RALO the topics and the open policy discussions at ALAC level.  After that, the RALO used to decide on which policy wants to make statements. It's worked for a while when we had a lot of statements from LACRALO.

      Progressively the policy issues were eliminated on the agenda of the monthly calls of LACRALO. I asked they were included again to the agenda several times (you can checked the records).

      In my opinion, the most important objective to include the policy issues on the agenda of our teleconferences is to make informed statements of LACRALO or to make contributions from the RALO to the statements of the ALAC. In short, make the voices of the Internet end users representatives from our region are heard.

      It has not been happening at RALO level during the last time.

      I strongly support the substance of this motion. Then, we can discuss the details.


      My two cents.



      Estimados Alan y Alberto,


      Me gustaría agregar mis comentarios sobre este tema.

      Hace algún tiempo, cuando Dev era miembro de ALAC por LACRALO, y con el previo Presidente y Secretaría de LACRALO (José y Sylvia), Dev y yo nos solíamos dividir los asuntos de políticas y solíamos presentar al RALO los asuntos y debates abiertos sobre políticas en ALAC. Luego de eso, el RALO decidía sobre qué políticas hacer declaraciones. Esto funcionó por un tiempo cuando tuvimos varias declaraciones de LACRALO.

      Progresivamente, las cuestiones de políticas se han ido eliminando de la agenda de las llamadas mensuales de LACRALO. Yo pedí que se las vuelva a incluir muchas veces (se pueden comprobar los registros).

      En mi opinión, el objetivo más importante de incluir las cuestiones de políticas en la agenda de nuestras teleconferencias es hacer declaraciones informadas desde LACRALO o hacer contribuciones desde el RALO a las declaraciones de ALAC. En definitiva, hacer que las voces de los representantes de los usuarios finales de Internet de nuestra región sean escuchadas.

      Esto no está sucediendo a nivel RALO en el último tiempo.

      Yo apoyo firmemente la sustancia de esta moción. Luego, podemos discutir los detalles.


      Mis dos centavos.


  3. dear all 

    I also strongly support ALEX suggestion . LACRALO needs to be more focused on relevant matters, and not only by the same ones . We had last years very relevant values added to our group, as I can named Leon, just an example, but LACRALo also had several new members with less knowhow, and I can understand Alan's raising this point, that I support.

    We are also having now several initiatives regarding capacity building that are helping and will continue to do new members to entering into ICANN's policies world or anyone that wants to catch up with one or other issues could not focus yet. 

    That said my votes are and will be YES to both motions. 

  4. Es una prueba de funcionalidad de comentarios.

  5. probando funcionalidad

  6.  I am disappointed that it requires a motion for policy issues to be discussed at LACRALO calls. The point of the RALO is to do just that - disseminate information on various policies to the members, discuss, and revert to the ALAC with the regional POV. As many have indicated, in the past it was done all the time. Now, not any more.
    So obviously I am in favor of the outcome. However, generally, I am not one for mandating behavior. If the motion passes,  what is the proposed mechanism for ensuring compliance? Do we remove the Chair and/or Secretariat for not complying? What happens if there is urgent non-policy business (such as the final steps in a Showcase) and the meeting is turned to that purpose instead of a policy discussion?
    Mandates are useful at times, but restrictive.
    I'm also not comfortable with the time limits on the policy discussion on the agenda. Maybe more time is needed, maybe less. If the discussion is wrapped up quickly- maybe people need time to think, research, discuss with their ALS membership - the motion as proposed does not leave flexibility in the agenda - do we stay on the policy issue for 30 minutes even if the discussion took 10?
    I sum, I agree with the idea behind the motion, that policy needs to be a focus in LACRALO, but I think that IF we are to have a motion to mandate policy discussion, this one needs some serious amendment for it to be workable. I also really think that mandating is a bad step. If we need to force people to discuss policy, we need to look at the people we have. If they're not interested in policy, then why are they here?
    1. I agree with all consideration Jackie has done since I have also discomfort with enforcements in general , but I believe we need now some kind of enforcement to restart the policy focus. We can review this at the end of the year when we can do a balance on our results with at least 30 minutes per regular call.  More urgent issues can c be done in a separate  call  and since it is normally attended by the ones that are involved directly on the issues to be discussed, can also be done by Skype, if there is no chance to have regular ICANN supported meetings.

      The main issues is not mostly interest on the policy, IMO, but many times is lack of understanding what is there that will impact or not the final users. The proposed 30 minutes for each regular call will be useful for explain the main points behind each policy document that will be there to get LACRALO feedback. best to all

  7. The issues with the motion expressed by Alan and Alberto, as well as Jacqueline Morris on the list, all make sense. The align well with Vanda's comment. 


    The natural process going forward would be to make friendly amendments and put a modified motion to the vote. Will any of you move for the amendments?

    1. only move or second the amendment , what will be needed.

  8. Apoyo lo que se ha puesto en discusión por parte de Alejandro, creo que no tendría que ponerse un tiempo final sino un tiempo de base, por ejemplo que tengamos "al menos 30 minutos" de debate de politicas. Entiendo que ya la secretaria y presidencia de hecho lo a puesto en práctica en la última teleconferencia, es realmente necesario ponerlo en votación?

    1. As I said, I would prefer not to have to need a motion at all... so I agree with you, Sergio.

  9. If we must have a motion, how about something like:

    Each LACRALO monthly teleconference should (not must) include adequate time on the agenda for discussion of substantive policy issues, especially current ICANN public consultations. If this is not on the agenda, the Secretariat should explain the rationale at least 1 week before the teleconference. (Acceptable reasons are other urgent business, special guests or special topic meetings, for example)


  10. De acuerdo con Jacqueline, creo que quedaría mejor así.

    Abrazos a todos