[lac-discuss-en] Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability
asoto at ibero-americano.org
asoto at ibero-americano.org
Mon Aug 31 19:30:21 UTC 2015
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
Subject: Re: Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability
From: asoto at ibero-americano.org
Thanks Nancy, if you want to climb, it's a very good contribution of Leon.
For our part, whether they are our wiki for consultation.
Thank you very much and best regards
Alberto Soto
From: Nancy Quiros [mailto: quiros at isoc.org]
Posted on: Monday, August 31, 2015 4:19 pm
To: Carlos Gutierrez Ral <crg at isoc-cr.org> ; Len Felipe Sanchez Amba
<leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
CC: Alberto Soto <asoto at ibero-americano.org> ; LACRALO
<lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org> ; Rodrigo de la Parra
<rodrigo.delaparra at icann.org> ; Daniel Fink <daniel.fink at icann.org> ;
Sebastian Bellagamba <bellagamba at isoc.org> ; Raquel Gatto <gatto at isoc.org> ;
ISOC Costa Rica chapter <jd at isoc-cr.org>
Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Comments on Second Proposal CCWG
Accountability
Hello everyone,
If you like they can share in our shared region files.
All chapters have access LAC
Cheers,
Nancy
From: Carlos Gutierrez Ral <crg at isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org> >
Date: Monday, August 31, 2015 at 5:48 a.m.
To: Len Felipe Sanchez Amba <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> >
Cc: Alberto Soto <asoto at ibero-americano.org
<mailto:asoto at ibero-americano.org> >, LACRALO
<lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
<mailto:lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Rodrigo de la Parra
<rodrigo.delaparra at icann.org <mailto:rodrigo.delaparra at icann.org> > Daniel
Fink <daniel.fink at icann.org <mailto:daniel.fink at icann.org> > Sebastian
Bellagamba <bellagamba at isoc.org> Raquel Gatto <gatto at isoc.org
<mailto:gatto at isoc.org> >, ISOC Costa Rica chapter <jd at isoc-cr.org
<mailto:jd at isoc-cr.org> > Nancy <quiros at isoc.org <mailto:quiros at isoc.org> >
Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Comments on Second Proposal CCWG
Accountability
Dear Len,
this would be very valuable reference text is yours something ascomo
a blog for the LAC community
This excellent.
Ral Carlos Gutierrez
_____________________
email: crg at isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>
Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7173 (cell)
+506 4000 2000 (home)
+506 2290 3678 (fax)
_____________________
Section 1571-1000
San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:40 pm, Len Felipe Sanchez Amba
<leonfelipe at sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> > Wrote:
Hello Alberto,
On the issue of introducing a corporate structure of a member
Nico, I talk like that until now this proposed solution of
According to concerns raised by the community in the CCWG.
The different members and participants in the CCWG have raised the
need to have rights to be exercised by the community and,
if the board fails acte according to the mission and values
Violacina ICANN or the rights of the community, they can be made
enforced in the courts.
To enforce rights in the courts, it is necessary to create a
legal vehicle that is who, under California law, exercise the
rights and at one point the enforce in the courts.
In the first proposal CCWG spoke of a model of the Membresa
each SO / AC pruning opt for becoming a member of ICANN.After hearing
the comments and opinions received during the first comment period,
the CCWG continuevaluando other structures that were less complex than
initially proposed, but retained the aim of that power
the community to assert their rights in court as last
examined by an actuacin contrary to the principles, mission and values
ICANN by the Board.
As other options as the model designators explored (in
Designators english) whose characteristics they were similar to those of the
tena Membresa but the disadvantage that the 6 powers seeking to
be provided to the community, 2 were not feasible to assert in
Courts under this scheme.
Designators model is also empowered whose model was explorel
similar to designators, ascomo model Delegates also
satisfaca the needs expressed by the community for various reasons.
After evaluating these different models, including single membership,
the conclusion that this latter model seemed to be get less
implementacin complex as the lower impact in terms of change
the manner of operation of ICANN in daaday whose characteristics
legal satisfacan the needs expressed by the community.
Obviously this proposal deberpasar test this second period of
comments to see how it is received by the community and the various groups
who are aware of the work of CCWG as the NTIA.
Regarding paragraph shall concerning the definition of private sector and
reaction of some governments, we must remember that this language already
in the current bylaws of ICANN.Actually it is not
changing the language, the issue is that some governments argue that
to be equal, the definition should not
establish that ICANN is an organization based in the private sector but
in the system of multiple stakeholders. While it may seem a topic
simple language, deep analysis tells us that this is more allde
a mere matter of semantics.
It is also important to remember that one of the requirements of the
NTIA to accept a proposal that favors the transition, is that the
This solution which is not led by governments or by some kind
multinational organization with greater weight in government management.
I hope these comments help better compression of the proposal.
Of course, I remain open and attentive to continue the conversation
should you require any other aclaracino have any doubt
how it has evolved during the proposal.
Cheers,
Len
On 08/30/2015, at 17:22, Alberto Soto <asoto at ibero-americano.org
<mailto:asoto at ibero-americano.org> > Wrote:
I'd like to hear the opinion of Len Sanchez, who has insurance
much more complete picture of us and who in turn heard a
variety of opinions.
Best regards
Alberto Soto
From: Alejandro Pisanty [ <mailto:apisanty at gmail.com>
mailto: apisanty at gmail.com]
Posted on: Sunday, August 30, 2015 7:09 pm
To: Alberto Soto < <mailto:asoto at ibero-americano.org>
asoto at ibero-americano.org>
CC: LACRALO < <mailto:lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
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 already shown a message
above on the subject.
But I think ste 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
reconstitucin total of ICANN. The basis of this concept in a concept
Membresa was discussed in depth over 10 years ago and discarded; and that's it
I had been in the first constitution of ICANN.Determine if there
new elements successfully reverse the arguments
past 15 years. We need a serious discussion about the impact that
ICANN will become an organization of Membresa; cules will be the
structural shapes and sta balances; 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 serde
importance, no doubt, but secondary.
Alejandro Pisanty
30/08/2015 16:55 GMT-05: 00 Alberto Soto < <mailto:asoto at ibero-americano.org>
asoto at ibero-americano.org>:
Another related paragraph, this comment estcolocado in the wiki:
< https://community.icann.org/display/LACRALO/LACRALO+Page+on+At-Large+Briefi
ng on + + + 2nd + Draft Proposal CCWG-Accountability +>
https://community.icann.org/display/LACRALO/LACRALO+Page+on+At-Large+Briefin
g + + on + 2nd + CCWG-Draft Proposal Accountability +
In that same document, the following paragraph:
154. Several commentators governments strongly objected change
proposed 11 existing Core Value, which states that the ICANN
retaining its roots in the private sector should recognize that
Governments and public authorities are responsible for the policies
public and must take into account the recommendations of such authorities.
After a lengthy conversation, the CCWG proposed Liability address
these concerns in two ways:
First, to eliminate confusion about the meaning of private sector
in the ICANN Bylaws, we propose a way to determine explicit that
the private sector includes commercial stakeholders, society
civil, technical community and the academic sector.Note: A minority suggests
meaning that the private sector should be included in the description of
trmino, by contrast, commercial suppliers, business users,
individual end-users, civil society, the academic sector and
technical community.
Best regards
Alberto Soto
_____
< https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
analyzed this e-mail for viruses.
www.avast.com
< https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
< https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________
[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/1e862418a2.html
--]]
More information about the lac-discuss-en
mailing list