[lac-discuss-en] Fwd: ICANN News Alert - Proposed ICANN Accountability Charter for Enhancing Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) Submitted for Consideration
vanda at uol.com.br
vanda at uol.com.br
Thu Nov 6 16:12:11 UTC 2014
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
Subject: Re: Fwd: ICANN News Alert - Proposed ICANN Accountability Charter for Enhancing Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) Submitted for Consideration
From: vanda at uol.com.br
Alexander, all
I fully agree with Alex posed. We should be allies
position to provide an adherent to
Thinking of LACRALO. It seems to me also very burocrtica all
proposal and think if you draw attention to it and think about costs
reducing efficiency is important but is looking for a commitment
transparency.
I think that transparency is a process that may be broader than
he wants but cuestin is for? Each item to be published debese
I think its relevance to the community or the process becomes really
who publishes ineffective without interest to those who read.
Alejandro I am allowed, I think his proposal "add criteria
considerarn that the impact on the effectiveness, efficiency and costs
Substantive processes of ICANN facing Internet users must
be straightened to the group, and in addition to do it yourself
I will
do to ensure it is more an ode source.
I think Leon if AGREE TO these points could do it too. This is
very important that the transparency and accountability to prestacin
community has at this same community focus and balance between
costs that are meaningful to the community.
For example, excessive costs in transparency may result in a
loss of resources for regional groups, is more relevant ascual
for regional community? Having knowledge of what is the expenditure
blue envelopes (and to make selections hire someone
) Or pay for a session of capacitacin in our region? This balance
very well defined Alejandro's suggestion seems very relevant.
Hugs to all
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
Sorry for Any typos.
On 11/06/14 2:30, "Alejandro Pisanty" <apisanty at gmail.com> wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> Some of you might. Have received the news and call it
> Annex, which asks us to adopt the rules that funcionarun group
> Working conditions defining accountability of ICANN.
>
> We need to standardize the criteria by which our representatives Bern
> Vote
> ALAC.
>
> I find myself compelled to express some substantive aspects oposicina
> The project and propose a modification:
>
> The document is rich in complex rules, typical of a large bureaucracy.
> It does not seem possible to simplify the rules prevailing in the environment but
> Express's request to find a simplificacin.
>
> The substantive point, however, goes further allaunque is based in part on
> This observation: at no time is considered that an increase in the
> Rules of transparency and accountability can cost in
> Operaciny effectiveness of ICANN in their substantive functions.
>
> When running as the proposal is contrary to the interests of
> Users
> Internet and in particular the system users names
> Domain, which records payments with our finance virtually
> Whole system.
>
> What primarily interested users that the DNS is resolved
> Biunvoca way domain names with high levels of performance,
> And
> Extreme security, stability and resiliency. In the background,
> Applicable only to a subset of users, processes matter
> ICANN are simple and predictable, from minor adjustments to the
> Legal instruments to the creation of new domain names.
>
> The Baroque system of accountability that has been created with
> ATRT processes 1 and 2 is itself quite complex and expensive and produces
> Distraction from the substantive work. The new round to start estpor
> Has all pronsticos follow aadiendo layers of complexity.
>
> So let me make a simple proposal: "add criteria
> Considerarn that the impact on the effectiveness, efficiency and costs
> Substantive ICANN processes facing Internet users. "
>
> I hope this will be taken up directly without the convolutions with
> That a similar proposal made during the ATLAS II farce
> Was transformed in demand for "contributions to the effectiveness of
> ICANN "in" greater listening ICANN ALAC for their recommendations
> Have efficacy. "
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>
> Date: Wed, November 5, 2014 at 6:10 PM
> Subject: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert - Proposed Charter for
> Enhancing
> ICANN Accountability Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) Submitted for
> Consideration
> To: "alac-announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org" <
> Alac-announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>
>
>
>
> [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert
>
>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-11-05-en
>------------------------------
>Proposed Charter for Enhancing ICANN Accountability Cross Community
>Working
>Group (CCWG) Submitted for Consideration
>
>5 November 2014
>
>On 3 November 2014, the Drafting Team that was formed by the ICANN
>community to develop a charter for the Enhancing ICANN Accountability
>Cross
>Community Working Group (CCWG) distributed a charter for adoption by
>chartering organizations. The charter includes, among other things, a
>problem statement, goals & objectives, scope, and proposed areas for work.
>The CCWG is expected to organize its activities in two Work Streams,
>consistent with the Revised Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process
><https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en>:
>
>*Work Stream 1*: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that
>must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA
>Stewardship Transition; and
>*Work Stream 2*: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a
>timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend
>beyond
>the IANA Stewardship Transition.
>
>Next Steps
>
>Each ICANN Supporting Organization (SO) and Advisory Committee (AC) is
>expected to consider the proposed charter during its upcoming November
>meeting(s). Following the adoption of the charter, chartering
>organizations
>are expected to identify their representative members to serve on the CCWG
>(each chartering organization will appoint a minimum of 2 and a maximum of
>5 members to the CCWG). In addition, a call for volunteers to join the
>CCWG
>will be launched, so that anyone interested in this effort may join and
>participate. The CCWG is expected to commence its deliberations in late
>November or early December.
>
>All members <https://community.icann.org/x/TwHxAg> of the group formerly
>known as the "Cross Community Group" will be added to the CCWG as
>participants, unless some are appointed by chartering organizations to
>serve as members or decide not to join this effort.
>Drafting Team Background
>
>Considering the short timeframe ahead and the relation of part of the
>Accountability work to the IANA Stewardship Transition process, the
>Drafting Team worked on an expedited basis to develop the charter. The
>publication date was identified to align with the November meetings of
>ICANN's SOs and ACs, to allow for the question of CCWG charter adoption to
>be discussed. For details of each of the Drafting Team's meetings,
>including interim draft versions of the charter, please see here
><https://community.icann.org/x/kCjxAg>.
>
>The Drafting Team was formed following the ICANN51 meeting and includes
>members appointed by the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Address
>Supporting Organization (ASO), Country Code Supporting Organization
>(ccNSO), Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and Generic Names
>Supporting
>Organization (GNSO).1 <#1498271ed7b0f35e_foot1> In addition, one
>representative from outside the ICANN SO/AC structure joined the Drafting
>Team to ensure that the charter defined an inclusive process for the
>broader community. For a full list of Drafting Team members, please see
>here
><https://community.icann.org/x/jCjxAg>.
>Additional Information
>
>The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has
>requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan
>to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the
>IANA
>Functions and related root zone management. In making its announcement,
>the
>NTIA specified that the transition proposal must have broad community
>support and meet the following principles:
>
> - Support and enhance the multistakeholder model
> - Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS
> - Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners
>of
> the IANA services
> - Maintain the openness of the Internet.
>
>NTIA also specified that it would not accept a proposal that replaces the
>NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization
>solution.
>
>During discussions around the transition process, the community raised the
>broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability. The
>Enhancing ICANN Accountability process was finalized and posted on 10
>October 2014, and can be found here
><https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en>.
>The scope of the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process is defined as
>ensuring that ICANN remains accountable in the absence of its historical
>contractual relationship with the U.S. Government and the perceived
>backstop with regard to ICANN's organization-wide accountability provided
>by that role, such as the renewal process of the IANA functions contract.
>It calls for an examination, from an organizational perspective, of how
>ICANN's broader accountability mechanisms should be strengthened to
>address
>the absence of its historical contractual relationship with the U.S.
>Government, including looking at strengthening existing accountability
>mechanisms (e.g., the ICANN Bylaws and the Affirmation of Commitments
><https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-
>30sep09-en.htm>
>).
>Links to additional information:
>
>Proposed Charter
><https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49359098/Enhancing%20ICA
>NN%20Accountability%20FINAL%20-%20Clean%20-%20Charter%20-%20updated%203%20
>November%202014.docx?api=v2>
>[DOC, 67 KB]
>
>Drafting Team Wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/XQHxAg>
>
>Revised Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process
><https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en>
>
>For further information, please contact accountability-staff at icann.org.
>------------------------------
>
>1 <#1498271ed7b0f35e_note1> RSSAC and SSAC were invited to participate in
>the Drafting Team, but were unable to join the effort.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>
>
>--
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>Facultad de Química UNAM
>Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
>Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
>LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
>Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
>http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
>---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>_______________________________________________
>lac-discuss-es 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/67086a6b97.html
--]]
More information about the lac-discuss-en
mailing list