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

Sun Aug 30 22:23:47 UTC 2015

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

 Subject: Re: Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability 
 From: asoto at ibero-americano.org

 I would like to hear from Leon Sanchez, who sure has a much fuller picture than we, and who in turn heard a variety of opinions. 

 Best regards 

 Alberto Soto 

 From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto: apisanty at gmail.com] 
 Posted on: Sunday, August 30, 2015 7:09 pm 
 To: Alberto Soto <asoto at ibero-americano.org>
 CC: LACRALO <lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
 Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability 

 Alberto, 

 I agree to give importance to this paragraph, as shown in a previous post on the subject. 

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

 These structures must be urgently studied as they introduce new elements as &quot;single member&quot; or &quot;sole member&quot; which is a total reconstruction of ICANN. The basis of this concept into a concept of membership was discussed in depth over 10 years ago and discarded; and it had already been in the first constitution of ICANN. It should determine whether there are new elements that successfully reversed the arguments of the past 15 years. We need a serious discussion on the impact of ICANN to become a membership organization; what structural forms and balances of this would be; and the additional complexity 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 be important, certainly, but secondary. 

 Alejandro Pisanty 

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

 Another paragraph related, this comment is placed in the wiki:  https://community.icann.org/display/LACRALO/LACRALO+Page+on+At-Large+Briefing+on+2nd+Draft+CCWG-Accountability+Proposal 

 &quot;In the same document, the following paragraph: 

 154. Several commentators governments strongly objected to the proposed 11 change existing Core Value, which states that the ICANN &quot;retaining its roots in the private sector&quot; should &quot;recognize that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy&quot; and take into account the recommendations of such authorities. After extensive discussion, the CCWG on Liability intends to address these concerns in two ways:

 First, to eliminate confusion about the meaning of &quot;private sector&quot; in the ICANN Bylaws, we propose explicitly determine that the private sector includes commercial stakeholders, civil society, technical community and the academic sector. Note: A minority suggests that the meaning of &quot;private sector&quot; should be included in the description of the term, however, commercial suppliers, business users, individual end-users, civil society, academia and the technical community. &quot; 

 Best regards 

 Alberto Soto 

  _____ 

 &lt;  https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 

 &lt;  https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 
 www.avast.com 

 &lt;  https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 

 &lt;  https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 
 _______________________________________________ 

[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/189041ae12.html
--]]