[lac-discuss-en] RES: OP

Wed Aug 15 01:22:17 UTC 2012

Particularly is not my idea. But I can agree with you in that some people are on this way. 

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
former ALAC member by LACRALO
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org 

From: rok at bango.org.bb
To: carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] RES: OP
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 21:07:17 -0400

I know my comment does not help because you guys are determined to derail 
LACRALO.

ROK

From: carlos dionisio aguirre 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:53 PM
To: rok at bango.org.bb ; carlton 
samuels 
Cc: lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org 

Subject: RE: [lac-discuss-en] RES: OP

ROK: Could be, but your comment doesn't help. 
Regards.

Carlos Dionisio 
Aguirre
NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
former ALAC member by LACRALO
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 
423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org 

> From: rok at bango.org.bb
> To: 
carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com; carlton.samuels at gmail.com
> CC: 
lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] 
RES: OP
> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:47:08 -0400
> 
> Some 
people want a car to take a truck load. All this talk about LACRALO 
> 
being independent is foolishness. We must start with the reason why LACRALO 

> was established. It was not a club or political party. It was started 
with 
> the specific objective of getting inputs from Caribbean and Latin 
America 
> internet users, not for us to go off on some jolly 
ride.
> 
> It seems that there are some who would want to hijack 
LACRALO to make it 
> what they want to be. When that day comes and 
LACRALO is no longer relevant 
> to ICANN, I would hope that the Caribbean 
countries come together and 
> petition ICANN to make direct inputs to 
ICANN and leave LA to continue on 
> their merry journey to 
nowhere.
> 
> LACRALO has lost focus and has gone into a steep 
political wilderness, where 
> voting for officers is the prize... and 
where people jostle for positions as 
> if their lives depend on 
it.
> 
> Depressing!
> 
> ROK
> 
> 
-----Original Message----- 
> From: carlos dionisio aguirre
> Sent: 
Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:25 AM
> To: carlton samuels
> Cc: 
lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] 
RES: OP
> 
> 
> My Dear Bro: On this opportunity I can`t share 
with you. I insist in my 
> position LACRALO is: independent and soverign. 
As you said in your 
> (wrong,for me ) interpretation, LACRALO can give 
rules itself and changes 
> the same, so it shows it completely 
independent, dont have to respond to 
> anybody. This sentence is clear: 
"This Memorandum of understanding 
> ("MOU")defines an agreement between 
the Signing Organizations and the 
> Internet Corporation for Assigned 
Names and Numbers. Its intent is to 
> establish, and define activities to 
be carried out by, the Latin America & 
> Caribbean Regional At-Large 
Large Organization, and supported by ICANN."
> ICANN is another 
organization as showed the paragraph before. For that 
> reason we have a 
MoU, because there are two organizations related by this 
> kind of 
contract or agreement.
> ICANN is based on the California Law, thats true, 
but this only affect the 
> relationship with LACRALO, if LACRALO adopt 
some directive against this 
> legal body (CAlifornia law). if not, MoU 
between two different organization 
> remains alive in force.
> 
LACRALO is constituted by Organizations, and the government body is it GA, 

> wich is one delegate by each organization. This is the explanation of 
the 
> "Signing Organizations" sentence.
> Now LACRALO is supported 
by ICANN, according MoU, but this could change in 
> the future, and 
LACRALO could follow being an organization independent, and 
> the most 
important: this was the idea .
> The idea from the begining was to have an 
independent organization in LAC 
> region composed by End Users, that was 
the motivation of LACRALO. We are not 
> part of ICANN, wich could be the 
sense of that?
> ICANN and the multistackeholder model no need uniformity. 
And to build a 
> diverse & democratic ecosystem ICANN need differents 
oppinion from different 
> groups of opinion. LACRALO is one of them, 
composed by End Users 
> organizations by LAC region. ICANN need a LACRALO 
independent and soverign.
> My personal opinion on that.
> 
> 
A warm, big and strong hug to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
> NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
> former ALAC 
member by LACRALO
> Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los 
Negocios
> Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
> 
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
> http://ar.ageiadensi.org
> 
> 

> From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:41:48 
-0500
> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] RES: OP
> To: 
carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com
> CC: 
lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 
> 
> 2012/8/10 
carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com>
> 
> 

> :rule that you mention doesnt apply in this case, because we have a 

> specific rule. Ón the othe side LACRALO is not part of ICÁNN we only 
have a 
> MOU signed, but we are independent of ICÁNN rules.
> 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> 
================================
> 
> My brother Carlos:See the 
highlighted portion of your text, as translated. 
> In this case, I 
believe the interpretation is incorrect.
> 
> 
> Your 
interpretation that LACRALO is 'independent' of ICANN rules is widely 
> 
held in Latin America. Without a doubt, I believe it is responsible for 
> 
declarations such as 'LACRALO is sovereign'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
Now, lawyers can and do disagree in interpretation of statute or documents. 

> Case law confirms this situation. Add to this and in this context, the 

> differences in legal histories and interpretative mechanisms of 
so-called 
> 'common law' countries as in the Caribbean versus 'civil law' 
countries as 
> predominant in Latin America. Here is a perfect example 
and another such 
> case.
> 
> 
> ICANN's premise is 
well defined in law. It exists as a 'public benefit' 
> corporation under 
the laws of the state of California. When it registered as 
> a legal 
entity, it filed its bye-laws with the State. Those bye-laws filed 
> and 
accepted by the State of California binds and empowers its operations 
> 
and actions.
> 
> 
> This means ICANN's actions are only legal 
and enforceable to the extent they 
> comply with its bye-laws.
> 

> 
> LACRALO's premise is defined by the MOU signed with ICANN. 
That MOU is 
> subject to the ICANN bye-laws; ICANN cannot make binding 
agreements that are 
> injurious to its bye-laws.
> 
> 

> This is the text that describes the "Purpose and Scope" of LACRALO in 
the 
> MOU signed with ICANN:
> 
> "This Memorandum of 
understanding ("MOU")defines an agreement between the 
> Signing 
Organizations and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
> 
Numbers. Its intent is to establish, and define activities to be carried out 

> by, the Latin America & Caribbean Regional At-Large Large 
Organization, and 
> supported by ICANN."
> 
> 
> Note 
the term *"Signing Organisations"*.
> 
> 
> Here's the 
definition of said 'Signing Organisations': "Organizations in the 
> Latin 
America & Caribbean region certified by the ALAC as “At-Large 
> 
Structures” that are signatories to this MOU.".
> 
> 
> It is 
the *signing organisations*, meaning the ALSes, that enjoy the legal 
> 
relationship with ICANN. In other words, LACRALO is purely a label for ease 

> of reference that means 'all of us ALSes, acting together'.
> 

> 
> The certification requirement for ALSes poses another hurdle. 
The power to 
> accept and certify ALSes is ceded to the ALAC by way of 
the ICANN bye-laws. 
> In other words, *LACRALO* does not and cannot exist 
absent an ICANN bye-law 
> mandated action of the ALAC.
> 
> 

> The MOU states clearly the joint commitments, *singly and severally*, 
of the 
> parties to it.
> 
> 
> The MOU, as signed, 
binds ICANN to six (6) commitments to the *LACRALO*.
> In turn, the ALSes 
labeled LACRALO, meaning all of us who signed the MOU, 
> binds us, 
*singly and severally*, to five (5) distinct actions along with 
> ICANN 
in pursuit of our joint commitments .
> 
> 
> The truth is 
there is a gulf of a difference between the general Latin 
> American and 
Caribbean understanding of the meaning of the word 'sovereign' 
> in 
context.
> 
> 
> As far back as 2006, we have invited and had 
interventions from ICANN legal 
> staff to explain this. I am on the 
record repeatedly, attempting to align 
> the facts with the general 
understanding. My last time was at Costa Rica. I 
> was responding to the 
contents of a document filed with the Secretariat and 
> comments in the 
General Assembly. And for my troubles, I was condemned as a 
> liar in 
several places. The recordings and transcripts are all available for 
> 
those who would wish details.
> 
> 
> The records will show 
Cintra Sooknanan, a lawyer, has also pointed out the 
> misuse of the 
term. So too, Lance Hinds and Roosevelt King.
> 
> 
> >From 
my reading of her writings and interventions, I believe Fatima 
> 
>Cambronera well understands the differences.
> 
> 
> 
LACRALO is not and may not be 'sovereign'. Everything we might wish to do in 

> context of names and numbers policy advocacy, advice and development is 

> informed and limited by the signed MOU, which is itself subject to the 

> powers and scope granted by the ICANN bye-laws and the LACRALO Rules of 

> Procedure.
> 
> 
> LACRALO may, if it so chooses, 
change its rules. The process to do so is 
> described in its Rules of 
Procedure. And even if there was a move to change 
> the rules of 
procedure, you must follow the process as defined in the rules. 
> Lawyers 
and courts have a Latin term, 'ultra vires', to describe actions 
> 
contrary to established rules.
> 
> 
> Here's the compelling 
one. LACRALO cannot change ICANN bye-laws. And so any 
> rule change that 
undermines or rubbishes ICANN bye-laws would make LACRALO a 
> rogue and 
outside the parameters granted by the ICANN MOU.
> 
> 
> If 
this ever happens, any signatory to the MOU, meaning any ALS, has 
> 
standing and a duty of care to petition for grievance in this respect. And 

> ICANN is duty bound to respond and act as the MOU and its bye-law 
compels it 
> so to do.
> 
> 
> Best,- Carlton
> 
==============================
> 
> 
> Carlton A 
Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Planning, Governance, 
Assessment & Turnaround
> =============================
> 

> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-en 
mailing list
> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
> 
> 

> 
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked 
by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5200 - 
Release Date: 08/14/12
> 

No virus found in this 
message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus 
Database: 2437/5201 - Release Date: 08/14/12 		 	   		  