[lac-discuss-en] LACRALO final statement on At-Large White Paper

José Francisco Arce josefranciscoarce at gmail.com
Wed Jan 2 18:04:06 UTC 2013


Dear Cintra,

Thanks for your contribution and your help.

Kind regards

Jose Arce
El 02/01/2013 11:36, "Cintra Sooknanan" <cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com>
escribió:

> Dear Jose and Members,
>
> I have reviewed the recommendations and made changes. The updated text is
> below for your review and comment.
>
> Regards
>
> Cintra
>
>
> *Making ICANN Relevant, Responsive and Respected" (R3 White Paper)*
>
> * *
>
> The White Paper's introduction mentions that professionals and internet
> users in general consider ICANN has played the role of technical
> coordinator quite well, but does not give specific references of this.
> Generally throughout the document this continues with no references given
> to the sources of the various points that are dealt, which questions the
> basis upon which the recommendations are made.
>
> With regard to challenges to adapt to the changes:
>
> *1) The Global Public Interest;*
>
> We agree that the affirmation of commitments from ICANN has big challenges
> ahead and that public interest is a dynamic concept which is not easy to
> adapt.
>
> We observe that the document is unclear, in mentioning that ICANN has a
> concept of public interest but does not define that concept. It is
> recommended that such definition be inserted for reference purposes.
> Further, the definition of "clear strategy of participation" must also be
> included; this is useful for readers to know why ICANN needs mechanisms for
> creating balanced input of its constituent units as part of the
> Multi-stakeholder model (perhaps an example would be appropriate), as well
> as the ways in which participation mechanisms can take place.
>
> In the strategic area of focus "A healthy ecosystem of Internet
> governance" within the strategic plan, some strategic objectives are ease
> of global participation, increase the diversity of stakeholders and
> increase of diversity of stakeholders' work. Also within the roles of the
> Board is as follows: "The fundamental responsibility of Directors (as
> defined below) is to exercise their business judgment to act in what they
> reasonably believe to be the best interests of ICANN and in the global
> public interest, taking account of the interests of the Internet community
> as a whole rather than any individual or interest group."
>
> *Recommendations:*
>
> We agree with the recommendations given by the members of the group.
>
> The term public interest should be part of the ICANN strategic plan, we
> know that the plan is divided into 4 approaches
> www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic/strategic-plan-2012-2015-18may12-en.pdf,
> and the public interest is the sum of all of them, therefore the
> accountability and impact reports are also important.
>
>
>
> *(2) T* *he Multi-Stakeholder System - A choice for the future;*
>
> We are in agreement that ICANN has not introduced innovations to the
> model. Previous models with greater participation of government agencies
> and other influential actors failed, so without doubt this Model is always
> tested and must adapt to new realities.
>
> We agree with the Group on the need for real efforts by all parties which
> constitute ICANN. The challenge being that the balance is increasingly
> difficult to find when participation levels are higher; and it is the same
> evolution that makes it necessary to revise the rules, since the conditions
> and realities that were considered at the time of its dictates are not the
> same today.
>
> We should be more involved with internal communities of ICANN, such as the
> RALOS.
>
> *Recommendations:*
>
> We agree with the recommendations given by the members of the group, but
> would further recommend that GAC resolutions could be public also.
>
> We believe that the model also requires mobility of people within the
> constituent units, since the community recognises that there is the danger
> of the same people in the same group of positions or rotating between
> themselves, and there is no renewal of  new participants.
>
> Likewise, model needs to emphasize scholarship programs, including the
> fellowship program, which allows new and greater participation from all
> sectors. The development of programs that allow increased participation
> must not be neglected.
>
> *(3) Global Governance*
>
> With respect to internal governance, we agree with the issues raised by
> the group with an emphasis on policies of conflicts of interest that have
> the greatest impact in the community. A reference document detailing the
> weaknesses mentioned in the White Paper should be included.
>
> Recommendations:
>
> We agree with the recommendations given by the members of the group and
> wish to highlight the importance of the reforms relating to the NOMCOM and
> the role of the Ombudsman. These important structures of internal
> governance must have transparent and clear functions and procedures.
>
>
> *(4) Institutional and Practical Cooperation*
>
> The non technical issues that mentioned the White Paper which have an
> impact on the work of ICANN mostly pre-exist ICANN or Internet yet have
> direct impact on the internet community in ways such as social, economic,
> labor and institutional. Therefore ICANN must assess the impact of their
> policies to not adversely affect these non technical aspects in the
> execution of their duties. ICANN should therefore interact with all
> cooperating or coordinating organizations in the various activities, this
> will leverage on the multi-stakeholder model that currently operates.
>
> *Recommendations:*
>
> We agree with the recommendations given by the members of the group. We
> underline the need for ensuring permanent but dynamic relations with all
> stakeholders in the Internet ecosystem (http://icann.xplane.com) and
> development networks. This may take place through conventions, work in
> Assemblies or event organization plans.
>
> ICANN should also take advantage of it own human resources, as the
> majority of ICANN participants are also active in many other Internet
> governance forums or in institutions relating to the Internet.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 9:45 PM, José Francisco Arce <
> josefranciscoarce at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Here is the link to the final statemen in English:
>>
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/LACRALO/LACRALO+final+statement+on++At-Large+White+Paper
>>
>> please make comments on it as soon as possible. Deadline is tomorrow 23:59
>> UTC.
>>
>> King Regards
>>
>> José Arce.-
>> _______________________________________________
>> lac-discuss-en mailing list
>> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>>
>
>


More information about the lac-discuss-en mailing list