Final Proposal of LACRALO Procedure for making Statements of Fact and Statements of Opinion (Fátima Cambronero)

Proposal of LACRALO Procedure for the Preparation, Issuance and Publication of Statements (Fátima Cambronero [CH1] [CH2] )

Working methods

 

1. The Latin American and Caribbean Islands Regional At-Large Organization (LACRALO) will use a variety of working methods to accomplish its goals. These will include:

 

1.1. Face-to-face meetings;

1.2. Teleconferences;

1.3. E-mail;

1.4. Wikis (workspaces);

1.5. Working Groups

1.6. Other methods considered to be appropriate for LACRALO and accessible and transparent to its members and to the At-Large community. (Here, we adopted DEV's proposal because it also includes Roosevelt's suggestion about transparency. No need to reiterate that the ICANN multi-stakeholder concept.)

LACRALO Procedure for making Statements of Fact and Statements of Opinion

 

2. LACRALO may issue statements of opinion or fact, on issues submitted for its consideration by:

2.1.   members of LACRALO

2.2.   representatives of LACRALO to the ALAC

2.3.   members of the At-Large community

  (Here, we adopted Roosevelt's proposal.  It includes Dev’s suggestion.

3. LACRALO's statement development request shall meet the following requirements:  

3.1. The issue submitted for consideration of the entire LACRALO, by any of the individuals detailed in Section 2 above, must be written in a clear and concise manner. (Here, we Dev’s suggestion)

 

3.2. In that document, the person requesting the development of a LACRALO statement must be a drafter, with the assistance of other interested LACRALO members.  

. (We took Dev’s suggestion partially. Otherwise, it could be very difficult for someone to propose a statement. We cannot accept Roosevelt’s suggestion because if the topic subject of the proposal is outside the jurisdiction of LACRALO the community can rejected within this process)

3.2.1. The role of the drafter will include leading the process of receiving comments through LACRALO's workspaces, and reviewing and presenting the statement final text, which shall be submitted for consideration of all LACRALO´s members for its approval as LACRALO´s official position.

3.2.2. The comments by LACRALO´s members on the topic under discussion must focus on the subject matter at issue, and, whenever possible, must present the reviewed phrases or paragraphs to replace the phrases or paragraphs questioned or those they do not agree with.

3.3. Once LACRALO's statement development request has been presented through any of the workspaces mentioned in Section 1, LACRALO's Secretary shall communicate the deadline for submitting comments on the statement under discussion. When determining the deadline, all deadlines established in other ICANN's communities for the development of statements on the same issue must be taken into account so that LACRALO's position can be included in those processes. (We accept Roosevelt’s suggestion partially)

3.4. Once LACRALO's statement development request has been presented, the following situations can arise:

 

3.4.1. That LACRALO's members show no interest in continuing to discuss the issue at hand. In that case, the issue will be filed. (The issue will be filed, the process finishes)

 

3.4.2. That LACRALO's memb ers show interest and that comments are received so that a draft can be prepared, but with no consensus on the proposed final text. In that case, the draft text will be filed.   (The rule says that there is no consensus, the draft will be filed. In other words, the process finishes )

3.4.3. That LACRALO's members show interest, that comments are received so that a draft can be prepared, and that consensus is reached on the proposed final text. In that case, the process will continue as established in Section 3.5.

 

3.5. It will be determined that a consensus has been reached on the statement under discussion in LACRALO if, after the statement final text has been presented by the drafter in charge, upon the deadline established for that end, no member of LACRALO has strongly objected the final text by presenting arguments against it. (We believe there is not a big difference between what is proposed by Roosevelt and what we have here. Then, we keep the wording)

 

3.6. Once the deadline established by LACRALO's Secretariat for submitting comments and preparing the final text has passed and consensus has been reached on the issue under discussion, LACRALO's Secretariat will post the statement final text in LACRALO's workspaces and submit it to the communities requesting opinions. (We accept Roosevelt’s suggestion partially)

 

3.7.   LACRALO's Secretariat shall keep copy of all statements issued by LACRALO, which will include the names of drafters and commenters for each issue discussed. (We accept Roosevelt’s suggestion)

4. Any statement of fact or opinion issued must be set out in sections if relevant, and each section must be clearly headed “Statement of Opinion” and/or “Statement of Fact” where these are relevant within the statement or a clear “Statement of Opinion” or “Statement of Fact”, where the statement is either opinion or fact respectively. (We accept Roosevelt’s suggestion)

 

Working methods

 

1. The Latin American and Caribbean Islands Regional At-Large Organization (LACRALO) will use a variety of working methods to accomplish its goals. These will include:

 

1.1. Face-to-face meetings;

1.2. Teleconferences;

1.3. E-mail;

1.4. Wikis (workspaces);

1.5. Working Groups

1.6. Other methods considered to be appropriate for LACRALO and accessible to its members [CH3] [CH4] .

 

 

 

LACRALO Procedure for the Preparation, Issuance and Publication of Statements

 

2. LACRALO will issue statements on issues submitted for its consideration [CH5] [CH6] :

 

2.1.   By members of LACRALO

2.2.   By representatives of LACRALO to the ALAC

2.3.   By members of the At-Large community [CH7]

 

3. LACRALO's statement development request shall meet the following requirements:

 

3.1. The issue submitted for consideration of the entire LACRALO, by any of the individuals detailed in Section 2 above, must be written in a clear and concise manner [CH8] .

 

3.2. In that document, the person requesting the development of a LACRALO statement shall thereby state whether he/she proposes him/herself as drafter or, if unable to fulfill that role, he/she delegates it to LACRALO's Chair and/or Secretary, or to any other interested LACRALO's member [CH9] .

 

3.2.1. The role of the drafter will include leading the process of receiving comments through LACRALO's workspaces, and reviewing and presenting the statement final text, which shall be submitted for consideration of all LACRALO´s members for its approval as LACRALO´s official position.

 

3.2.2. The comments by LACRALO´s members on the topic under discussion must focus on the subject matter at issue, and, whenever possible, must present the reviewed phrases or paragraphs to replace the phrases or paragraphs questioned or those they do not agree with [CH10] .

3.3. Once LACRALO's statement development request has been presented through any of the workspaces mentioned in Section 1, LACRALO's Chair and/or Secretary shall communicate the deadline for submitting comments on the statement under discussion. When determining the deadline, all deadlines established in other ICANN's communities for the development of statements on the same issue must be taken into account so that LACRALO's position can be included in those processes [CH11] .

 

3.4. Once LACRALO's statement development request has been presented, the following situations can arise:

 

3.4.1. That LACRALO's members show no interest in continuing to discuss the issue at hand. In that case, the issue will be filed [CH12] .

 

3.4.2. That LACRALO's members show interest and that comments are received so that a draft can be prepared, but with no consensus on the proposed final text. In that case, the draft text will be filed [CH13] .

 

3.4.3. That LACRALO's members show interest, that comments are received so that a draft can be prepared, and that consensus is reached on the proposed final text. In that case, the process will continue as established in Section 3. 5 [CH14] .

 

3.5. It will be determined that a consensus has been reached on the statement under discussion in LACRALO if, after the statement final text has been presented by the drafter in charge, upon the deadline established for that end, no member of LACRALO has strongly objected the final text by presenting arguments against it [CH15] .

 

3.6.   Once the deadline established by LACRALO's Chair and Secretary for submitting comments and preparing the final text has passed and consensus has been reached on the issue under discussion, LACRALO's Chair and Secretary will post the statement final text in LACRALO's workspaces and submit it to the communities requesting opinions [CH16] .

 

3.7. LACRALO's Chair and Secretary shall keep a register of all statements issued by LACRALO, which will include the names of drafters and commenters for each issue discussed [CH17] [CH18] .

 

 

 

 


[CH1] Dev Anand Teelucksingh

General comment - I fully agree with the comment by Carlton Samuels as posted on the   Re: LACRALO Monthly Teleconference 2014-11-17   page.  

Including Carlton's comment for reference as a submission to this issue:  

"My concern is really more fundamental; I question the need for a vote on these matters.....

By now everyone knows my apprehension of regional working groups. I see the need for ad hoc groups to work LACRALO-specific matters.   But so long as the ALAC is the body that represent policy perspectives to the ICANN Board and indeed, the ICANN community and absent a persuasive contrary declaration, I continue to believe that effective LACRALO contribution to policy development demands not a separate process that results in a 'LACRALO declaration' but wider and deeper participation on the global level.

Participation in appropriate At-Large WGs as full discussants allow for a wider audience engagement, greater opportunity to influence the thinking of those others that will decide at the ALAC level and even better, an opportunity to develop unquestioned expertise.   In so far as a separate LACRALO declaration is concerned, it usually is too little. And, too late."

 

Ultimately, LACRALO members need to engage and participate more in the discussions/comments on the   At-Large Policy Development Page   and the relevant WGs instead of attempting to create isolated, parallel processes which this attempts to do.  

The (yet unanswered) questions asked by Roosevelt  
"what is the problem LACRALO is trying to solve? What are the difficulties that are being encountered with the questions asked of LACRALO? Is the present process of comments or voting flawed in some way?" are very,very good ones. This goes back as to understanding the rationale behind proposals  

 

[CH2] Roosevelt O. King

In the absence of any responses to my queries:

  1. what is the problem LACRALO is trying to solve?
  2. What are the difficulties that are being encountered with the questions asked of LACRALO?
  3. Is the present process of comments or voting flawed in some way?

I will assume that these questions cannot be reasonably answered without reference to the MoU, Operating Principles, Rules of Procedure and rules of ICANN where the answers to these questions must lie. Hence, I proceed with the understanding that none of them are flawed and that LACRALO is not trying to solve any problems but the proposal is making some contingency provision for making statements.

[CH3] Dev Anand Teelucksingh

"1.6   Other methods considered to be appropriate for LACRALO and accessible to its members."

All working methods must be transparent. So 1.6 should say   "1.6   Other methods considered to be appropriate for LACRALO and accessible and transparent to its members and to the At-Large community."  

[CH4] Roosevelt O. King

  1. The Latin American and Caribbean Islands Regional At-Large Organization (LACRALO) will use a variety of working methods to accomplish its goals and objectives within the multistakeholder system employed by ICANN. These include:

1.1.     Face-to-face meetings;

1.2.     Teleconferences;

1.3.     E-mail;

1.4.     Wikis (workspaces);

1.5.     Working Groups

1.6.     Call for Comments

1.7.     Voting

1.8.     Any other method(s) that is/are transparent, accessible to members and considered to be appropriate for a multi-stakeholder process as may develop from time to time.

 

[CH5] Roosevelt O. King

Any question asked by the parties described in section 2 would inevitably gain a response by methods of voting or making comments. This process has been going on for some time. The strength of this is that varying opinions will come from comments which may be more helpful than a statement which may not include all the comments, since a statement allows the drafter to select what the statement will say from the diverse comments.

What we would have done here is compromise the value and quality of the response by drafting a statement. Consensus is a negotiated position. Has LACRALO determined that questions require consensus rather than opinions? Hence, this is also time consuming and an unnecessary effort by the Secretariat. It is only necessary for the secretariat to compile the comments and send them to the party which put the question. This seems more helpful than someone selecting the contents of the response. All comments are valid since the responses are diverse by nature because all situations are not the same and particular comments may be more relevant to the poser of the question than the majority comment.

The other problem is that by making a statement which may tend to unnecessarily bind LACRALO in a particular way is contrary to the multi-stakeholder model, since responses will be diverse. LACRALO should not be bound by statements as if they were policy or even rules depending on the nature of the question. It would mean that if LACRALO makes a statement it would be expected to stand by its own statement. In order to prevent this, statements should be accompanied by a disclaimer to the effect that LACRALO statements do not bind the members of LACRALO individually or collectively. This disclaimer should also be stated in the text of the proposal above with the provision that the disclaimer be inserted at the end of all statements.

In light of the fact that it is not stated why LACRALO has a need to make statements, I would like to ask three questions, what is the problem LACRALO is trying to solve? What are the difficulties that are being encountered with the questions asked of LACRALO? Is the present process of comments or voting flawed in some way?

 

[CH6] Dev Anand Teelucksingh

"2.   LACRALO will issue statements on issues submitted for its consideration"  

I suspect for the vast, vast majority of At-Large Policy Issues, there is no need for a LACRALO specific statement. LACRALO members should be working for a common At-Large position on these issues.   Therefore, the wording   "will issue" should be changed to "can issue".

[CH7] Roosevelt O. King

LACRALO Procedure for making Statements of Fact and Statements of Opinion

 

2. LACRALO may issue statements of opinion or fact, on issues submitted for its consideration by:

2.1.     members of LACRALO

2.2.     representatives of LACRALO to the ALAC

2.3.     members of the At-Large community

 

[CH8] Dev Anand Teelucksingh

"3.1. The issue submitted for consideration of the entire LACRALO, by any of the individuals detailed in Section 2 above, must be written in a clear and concise manner."

While this is good, ironically, this detailed proposal didn't follow this recommendation with an introduction explaining the issue being submitted and why it was submitted. This goes to the heart of Roosevelt's questions in understanding the rationale behind these and other LACRALO proposals.

[CH9] Dev Anand Teelucksingh

"3.2. In that document, the person requesting the development of a LACRALO statement shall thereby state whether he/she proposes him/herself as drafter or, if unable to fulfill that role, he/she delegates it to LACRALO's Chair and/or Secretary, or to any other interested LACRALO's member."

This should be re-worded to say first "The person requesting the development of a LACRALO statement on a policy issue under the At-Large Policy Development Page   MUST FIRST show involvement by citing examples of his/her discussions at the At-Large level be it comments on the policy wiki page under the At-Large Policy Development Page   and/or email discussions in a related At-Large WG mailing list."

Secondly, it is very strange for a person requesting the development of a statement to not be the drafter. Otherwise the person requesting the development of a statement can stop being involved in any development of a statement!   So the person wanting a LACRALO statement has to be willing to be a drafter of the statement.  

So 3.2 should say "The person requesting the development of a LACRALO statement on a policy issue under the   At-Large Policy Development Page   MUST FIRST   show involvement by citing examples of his/her discussions at the At-Large level be it comments on the policy wiki page under the   At-Large Policy Development Page   and/or email discussions in a related At-Large WG mailing list. Persons requesting the development of a LACRALO statement must be a drafter, with the assistance of other interested LACRALO members."  

[CH10] Roosevelt O. King

3. A request for a statement from LACRALO shall meet the following requirements:

3.1.     The issue submitted for consideration of the entire LACRALO, by any persons detailed in Section 2 above, must be clear, concise, unambiguous and easily understood.

3.2.     The request must state the purpose for asking and that purpose shall not be for:

3.2.1.   Making a statement that is outside the purview or jurisdiction of LACRALO or for publication in any newspaper, journal or other news or social media as an official position of LACRALO;

3.2.2. Submission to any court, tribunal, commission or any other authority of government or regional or international bodies;

3.2.3. Settling any disputes internally or externally to the parties making the request

3.2.     In that document, the person requesting the development of a LACRALO statement shall thereby state whether he/she proposes him/herself as drafter or, if unable to fulfill that role, he/she delegates it to LACRALO's Chair and/or Secretary, or to any other interested LACRALO's member.

3.2.1. The role of the drafter will include leading the process of receiving comments through LACRALO's workspaces, and reviewing and presenting the statement final text, which shall be submitted for consideration of all LACRALO´s members for its approval as LACRALO´s official position.

3.2.2. The comments by LACRALO´s members on the topic under discussion must focus on the subject matter at issue, and, whenever possible, must present the reviewed phrases or paragraphs to replace the phrases or paragraphs questioned or those they do not agree with.

 

 

[CH11] Roosevelt O. King

3.3.     Once LACRALO's statement development request has been presented through any of the workspaces mentioned in Section 1, LACRALO's Secretariat shall communicate the deadline for submitting comments on the statement under discussion. When determining the deadline, all deadlines established in other ICANN's communities for the development of statements on the same issue must be taken into account so that LACRALO's position can be included in those processes.

[CH12] Dev Anand Teelucksingh

"3.4.1. That LACRALO's members show no interest in continuing to discuss the issue at hand. In that case, the issue will be filed."  

What does this mean? The issue will be filed or submitted to who?

[CH13] Dev Anand Teelucksingh

3.4.2. That LACRALO's members show interest and that comments are received so that a draft can be prepared, but with no consensus on the proposed final text. In that case, the draft text will be filed."

This seems illogical, so the draft text will be submitted on behalf of LACRALO if there is no consensus of a LACRALO position?

[CH14] Roosevelt O. King

3.4.     Once LACRALO's statement development request has been presented, the following situations can arise:

3.4.1. That LACRALO's members show no interest in continuing to discuss the issue at hand. In that case, the issue will be filed Secretariat shall inform the party that LACRALO has no response

3.4.2. That LACRALO's members show interest and that comments are received so that a draft can be prepared, but with no consensus on the proposed final text. In that case, the draft text will be filed . Secretariat shall respond to the party that LACRALO is unable to reach consensus on the issue.

3.4.3. That LACRALO's members show interest, that comments are received so that a draft can be prepared, and that consensus is reached on the proposed final text. In that case, the process will continue as established in Section 3.5 the Secretariat shall respond with the approved text.

 

[CH15] Roosevelt O. King

3.5.     It will be determined that a consensus has been reached on the statement under discussion in LACRALO if, after the statement final text has been presented by the drafter in charge, upon the deadline established for that end, no member of LACRALO has objected the final text by presenting arguments against it.

[CH16] Roosevelt O. King

3.6.     Once the deadline established by LACRALO's Chair and Secretary Secretariat for submitting comments and preparing the final text has passed and consensus has been reached on the issue under discussion, LACRALO's Chair and Secretary the Secretariat shall post the statement final text in LACRALO's workspaces and submit it to the communities requesting the statement.

[CH17] Roosevelt O. King

3.7.     LACRALO's Chair and Secretary Secretariat shall keep a register copy of all statements issued by LACRALO, which will include the names of drafters and commenters for each issue discussed.

[CH18] Roosevelt O. King

4. Any statement of fact or opinion issued must be set out in sections if relevant, and each section must be clearly headed “Statement of Opinion” and/or “Statement of Fact” where these are relevant within the statement or a clear “Statement of Opinion” or “Statement of Fact”, where the statement is either opinion or fact respectively.

Proposal of LACRALO procedure for the preparation, issuance and publication of statements – Amended.

 

JUSTIFICATION FOR AMENDMENTS:

  1. Any statement issued by LACRALO must be done with a sense of responsibility and purpose but also within the competence of LACRALO to do so. Hence any statement from LACRALO cannot be outside its objectives which are squarely within the multistakeholder system employed by ICANN and which has become the main characteristic of internet governance and the operations of ICANN.
  2. LACRALO is not implementing an independent system of governance and as such is but a base unit of the ICANN system and cannot be an authority on global or regional internet governance. It may, however, inform others about it operating system as a base unit of ICANN and can generate opinions or state facts but cannot make decisions or have a position that may be at odds with its parent ICANN, which is the authority and holds the contract or license that gives it the competence to fulfill its obligations. Hence, within the scheme of things LACRALO is not an authority but a conduit for users in LA and the Caribbean.
  3. Under the circumstances, publication of LACRALO statements of opinion should be confined to those who asked the questions and for purposes of transparency, these should be shared, recorded and archived in LACRALO workspaces for access by members.
  4. If a question is to be asked, the person asking the question must be the author and not members of LACRALO, unless those members are the persons from which the question originates. There is therefore no need for section 3.3. and its subsections. If the person asking the question is not able to ask it, then there is no question.
  5. The work of receiving the question or request as well as following the procedures and communicating the responses is that of the Secretariat and not the Chairperson. There is therefore no need to mention the Chair.
  6. The final paragraph of Section 3.4. is not necessary since LACRALO’s consensus on any matter should not seek to influence or be influenced by other layers of ICANN, otherwise it will not be a LACRALO statement.
  7. In section 3.5. the results of posing the question or issue to LACRALO should always be sent to the persons posing the question or issue rather than simply filed. If there is no response this should be communicated and if there is one, then that should also be communicated.