[lac-discuss-en] Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability
quiros at isoc.org
quiros at isoc.org
Mon Aug 31 19:58:54 UTC 2015
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
Subject: Re: Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability
From: quiros at isoc.org
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<mailto: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 single member, I talk like that until now this solution according to the concerns raised by the community in the CCWG proposed.
The different members and participants in the CCWG have raised the need to have rights to be exercised by the community and that, if the board fails acte according to the mission and values \u200b\u200bof ICANN or violacina the rights of the community, they can be made assert in court.
To enforce rights in the courts, it is necessary to create a legal vehicle that is who, under the laws of California, exercising rights and at any given moment to assert in Parliament.
In the first proposal CCWG spoke of Membresa model in which 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 retain the objective of giving that power to the community to assert their rights in the courts and ultimately to a actuacin contrary to the principles, mission and values \u200b\u200bby the ICANN Board.
As other options as the model designators (in English Designators) were explored whose characteristics were similar to those of the Membresa but tena the disadvantage that the six powers seeking to be provided to the community, 2 were not feasible to be enforced in the courts under this scheme.
Also explorel model designators are empowered whose model was 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 the least complex as implementacin, the lower impact in terms of reach change the way of functioning of ICANN in daaday whose legal characteristics satisfacan the needs expressed by the community.
Obviously this proposal deberpasar test this second comment period 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 the reaction of some governments, we must remember that this language is already in the current bylaws of ICANN.In fact this language is not estcambiando, the issue is that some governments argue that in order to have 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 matter of 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 established by the NTIA to accept a proposal that favors the transition, is that this solution that is not led by governments or by some kind of organization No multinational 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 in case you require any other aclaracino have any doubt about the way 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 sure has a panorama much more complete than us, 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<mailto:asoto at ibero-americano.org> >
CC: LACRALO <lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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 in a previous post on the subject.
But I think ste and many others are of much less importance than those relating to the new structures and proposed operations.
These structures must be urgently studied as they introduce new elements as "single member" or "sole member" which is a total reconstitucin ICANN. The basis of this concept in a Membresa concept was discussed in depth over 10 years ago and discarded; and already he had been in the first constitution of ICANN. Determine if 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 an organization of Membresa; cules will be structural shapes and sta balances; and the additional complexity that this happens I only on special occasions.
This complexity and other factors that generate instability go first. What is decided in the paragraphs under discussion serde 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> >:
Another related paragraph, this comment estcolocado in the wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/LACRALO/LACRALO+Page+on+At-Large+Briefing+on+2nd+Draft+CCWG-Accountability+Proposal
In that same document, the following paragraph:
154. Several commentators governments strongly objected to the proposed 11 change existing Core Value, which states that ICANN retain its roots in the private sector should recognize that governments and public authorities are responsible for the pol pblicas policies and take into account the recommendations of such authorities. After a lengthy conversation, the CCWG on Liability intends to address these concerns in two ways:
First, to eliminate confusion about the meaning of the private sector in the ICANN Bylaws, we propose a way to determine explicit that the private sector includes commercial stakeholders, civil society, technical community and the academic sector. Note: A minority suggests that the meaning of the private sector should be included in the description of the term, however, commercial suppliers, business users, individual end-users, civil society, the sector acad Economic and the technical community.
Best regards
Alberto Soto
________________________________
< https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
Avast antivirus software has 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/9c76ed4acc.html
--]]
More information about the lac-discuss-en
mailing list