[lac-discuss-en] Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability

[apisanty at gmail.com]

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]

 Subject: Re: Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability 
 From: apisanty at gmail.com

 Alberto, 


 I agree to give importance to this paragraph, as it displays a message 
 above on the subject. 


 But I think this and many others are much less important than 
 those relating to the new structures and proposed operations. 


 These structures must be urgently studied as introduced 
 new elements as "single member" or "sole member" which is a 
 Total reconstruction of ICANN. The basis of this concept in a concept 
 membership was discussed in depth over 10 years ago and discarded; Y 
 I had already been in the first constitution of ICANN. Determine if 
 No new elements successfully reverse the arguments 
 15 years.We need a serious discussion of the impact that 
 ICANN to become a membership organization; what would be the 
 structural shapes and balances thereof; and the additional complexity of 
 that this only happens on special occasions. 


 This complexity and other factors that generate instability go first. 
 What is decided in the paragraphs under discussion will 
 importance, no doubt, but secondary. 


 Alejandro Pisanty 


 30/08/2015 16:55 GMT-05: 00 Alberto Soto <asoto at ibero-americano.org> : 


> Otro párrafo relacionado, este comentario está colocado en la wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/LACRALO/LACRALO+Page+on+At-Large+Briefing+on+2nd+Draft+CCWG-Accountability+Proposal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> “En ese mismo documento, el párrafo siguiente:
>
>
>
> 154.       Varios comentaristas de gobiernos objetaron fuertemente el
> cambio propuesto al Valor Fundamental 11 existente, que establece que la
> ICANN “conservando sus raíces en el sector privado” debe “reconocer que los
> gobiernos y las autoridades públicas son responsables de las políticas
> públicas” y debe tener en cuenta las recomendaciones de tales autoridades.
> Tras una extensa conversación, el CCWG sobre Responsabilidad propone
> abordar estas inquietudes de dos maneras:
>
> Primero, para eliminar la confusión sobre el significado de “sector
> privado” en los Estatutos de la ICANN, proponemos determinar de forma
> explícita que el sector privado incluye a partes interesadas comerciales,
> la sociedad civil, la comunidad técnica y al sector académico. Nota: Una
> minoría sugiere que el significado de “sector privado” debe incluir en la
> descripción del término, en cambio, a los proveedores comerciales, usuarios
> comerciales, usuarios finales individuales, la sociedad civil, el sector
> académico y la comunidad técnica.”
>
>
>
>
>
> Saludos cordiales
>
>
>
> Alberto Soto
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en
> busca de virus.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>






 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty 
 UNAM Faculty of Chemistry 
 Av.University 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico 
 + 52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD 
 SMS FROM MEXICO +525541444475 +525541444475 
 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com 
 LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty 
 UNAM Join the LinkedIn group, 
 http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 
 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty 
 ---- &gt;&gt; Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org 
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 



[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/bc99ffda09.html
--]]