[lac-discuss-en] Fwd: New Public Comment: Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding Consideration of GAC Advice
vanda at uol.com.br
vanda at uol.com.br
Wed Aug 20 15:20:45 UTC 2014
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
Subject: Re: Fwd: New Public Comment: Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding Consideration of GAC Advice
From: vanda at uol.com.br
I fully agree as I routed my weights.
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
On 8/19/14, 18:45, "Javier Pallero" <javierjosepallero at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Ageia Densi from Argentina, we support the need for a statement to
> On this and on the terms spelled out by Fatima and then
> Made by Alexander.
> Sure we can bring something more to the statement, but essentially think
> I should say what I said fellow I mentioned.
>
> Greetings!
>
> Javier J.Pallero
> Http://about.me/javierpallero <http://www.linkedin.com/in/javierpallero>
>
>
> On 19 August 2014, 18:22, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq at gmail.com>
> Wrote:
>
Thanks >> Fatima. Because then one
Most qualified >> considered "dangerous" is my query?
>>
Carlos Vera Quintana >>
0988141143 >>
Follow mecveraq >>
>>
>>> On 08.19.2014, at 15:35, Fatima Cambronero <
Fatimacambronero at gmail.com >>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Carlos,
>>>
>>> When the Board departs from a recommendation by the GAC must
Explain >> always, why do it, regardless of the number or
>> Percentage of votes required to do so. It is the one of the AC
ICANN structure >> whom the Board must give explanations in these
>> Cases.
>>> Vanda As mentioned this has happened very rarely.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Fatima Cambronero
>>>
>>>
>>> On August 19, 2014, 15:58, Carlos Vera Quintana
>> <cveraq at gmail.com>
>> Wrote:
Dear Vanda >> >> consider dangerous because the proposal? That is 2/3
>> Without explanation or explanations simple majority is the option?
>> >>
Regards and thanks >> >> explanation
>> >>
Carlos Vera Quintana >> >>
0988141143 >> >>
Follow mecveraq >> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On 08.19.2014, at 12:50, Vanda Scartezini <vanda at uol.com.br>
>> Wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Estimates
>> >>> The Board normally can not go against a decision of the GAC.
But >>
About >>
>> >>> Few times and when he did
>> >>> Ago explaining to the public must do so expressly; but
>> >>> Internally on the board, you need only
>> >>> A simple to make this decision get wet.
>> >>> â…” The new proposal is equivalent to placing the GAC at the same level
>> >>> Control of the GNSO. Because a policy
>> >>> Approved by the GNSO supermajority required two thirds of the Board
For >>
>> >>> Stand against such a decision. See the statutes
>> >>> Annex A, Section 9 (Bylaws) But GNSO policy has
Consultation >>
>> >>> Public, is built open to all stakeholders. The same is not
Occurs >>
>> >>> With the decisions of the GAC.
>> >>>
>> >>> GAC Although any proposal needs to be internally
Approved >>
>> >>> 100% of the participating governments, have more recently been
That >>
>> >>> Governments have gone into fields that do not really
Responsibility >>
Run out >>
>> >>> Hear the community as a whole.As in many cases
Catch >>
>> >>> Against a new TLD because one or two governments demanded it and
The >>
>> >>> Other politely come into agreement. It is difficult to achieve 100%.
>> >>>
>> >>> One can understand that doing well (explaining the 2-3) the
Board >>
>> >>> Can stay freer to veto proposed controller without
Need >>
>> >>> Extensive and sometimes complex explanations.
>> >>>
>> >>> Personally, I see this as a dangerous alternative. To me it is
>> >>> Preferable to remain as is, with the need for explanations,
But >>
>> >>> Internally with a simple majority.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Hugs
>> >>> Vanda Scartezini
>> >>> Polo Consultores Associados
>> >>> Av.Paulista 1159, 1004 cj
>> >>> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
>> >>> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
>> >>> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> >> On 8/18/14, 22:45 "Fatima Cambronero"
>> <fatimacambronero at gmail.com>
>> Wrote:
>> >> >>
Dear >> >> >> / os,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
This topic >> >> >> just opened to comments ALAC.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please, if you will interest and comment from LACRALO
>> >> >> Ask who are representatives of ALAC LACRALO
Vote of >>
>> >> >> Certain way, take the opportunity to do so when the period of
Comment >> >> >>
>> >> >> Is open and has not been submitted to a vote at ALAC.What
Otherwise >>
>> >> >> Becomes very difficult to fulfill the mandate of the region.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
This topic >> >> >> very briefly (you can read the attachments)
Implies >>
>> >> >> A modification of the ICANN Bylaws relating to
Suggested >>
By >>
The >> >> >>
ATRT1 >> >> >>.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
Currently >> >> >> that the ICANN Board is other than a
Recommendation >>
>> >> >> Made by the GAC should make this decision with a majority
Simple >>
>> >> >> (50% + 1), as well as explaining why you are doing it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The proposed amendment implies that approved them,
Now >>
Board >> >> >> would have to make the decision to move away from a
Recommendation >>
GAC >> >> >> with a qualified majority (two thirds of the votes of its members).
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In my personal reading, this decision involves giving more weight to
The >>
Recommendations >> >> >> GAC will make to the ICANN Board, because
For >>
>> >> >> Power to deviate from such recommendations must attend the vote
A >>
>> >> >> More members of the Board.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What do you think LACRALO? Should we approve the amendment (2/3
Votes >>
>> >> >> Members of the Board to deviate from recommendations GAC) or
Should >>
>> >> >> Remain to date (50% +1 of the votes of its
>> Members)?
What >> >> >>
>> >> >> Could have political implications this decision and what
Affectations >>
>> >> >> Could cause Internet users, specifically
Our >>
>> >> >> Region?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
Thanks a lot >> >> >>.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Best regards,
>> >> >>
Fatima Cambronero >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >> >> From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>
>> >> >> Date: 08/18/2014 21:48 GMT-03: 00
>> >> >> Subject: [ALAC-Announce] New Public Comment: Proposed Bylaws
Changes >>
>> >> >> Regarding Consideration of GAC Advice
>> >> >> To: "alac-announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org" <
Alac->> >> >> announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dear All,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please kindly note That the At-Large workspace for the following
Public >>
Comment >> >> >> request has-been created: Proposed Bylaws Changes
Regarding >>
Consideration of >> >> >> GAC Advice < https://community.icann.org/x/KgHxAg>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >>
Heidi Ullrich >> >> >> Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber,
Nathalie >>
>> >> >> Peregrine and Terri Agnew
>> >> >> ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
>> >> >> E-mail: staff at atlarge.icann.org
>> >> >> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge
>> >> >> Twitter:ICANN_AtLarge < https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
_______________________________________________ >> >> >>
>> >> >> ALAC-Announce mailing list
ALAC->> >> >> Announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> >> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce
>> >> >>
>> >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -
Fatima >> >> >> Cambronero *
Attorney->> >> >> Argentina
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
>> >> >> Twitter: Ifacambronero
>> >> >> Skype: fatima.cambronero
_______________________________________________ >> >> >>
>> >> >> Lac-discuss-en mailing list
>> >> >> Lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> >> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>> >> >>
Http://www.lacralo.org >> >> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Lac-discuss-en mailing list
>> >>> Lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>> >>>
>> >>> Http://www.lacralo.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Fatima Cambronero
>>> Attorney-Argentina
>>>
>>> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
>>> Twitter:facambronero
>>> Skype: fatima.cambronero
>>>
_______________________________________________ >>
Lac-discuss->>'s mailing list
Lac-discuss->> es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>>
Http://www.lacralo.org >>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lac-discuss-en mailing list
> Lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>
> Http://www.lacralo.org
_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
http://www.lacralo.org
[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/10db5f82ee.html
--]]
More information about the lac-discuss-en
mailing list