[lac-discuss-en] Net Neutrality

Sun Mar 1 21:25:00 UTC 2015

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

 Subject: Re: Net Neutrality 
 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com

 Carlos, 

 On March 1, 2015, 15:04, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq at gmail.com>
 i wrote: 

 Did you know that US headquarters internamercada Derehos commission of Human and 
 Spread the Inter-American Human Rights is the only country that has not signed this 
 convention. 

 A cul convention do you mean? 

 Know about the International Criminal Court and immunity 
 US soldiers can not be judged by ningn act? 

 There is a Law of War, which is a section of International Law 
 Public, and specifically the International Humanitarian Law. There Are 
 rules for war, which is regarded by the law as a means of 
 solution of conflicts (each tendrsus then moral considerations, 
 cies, humanitarian, etc.I am not arguing here). 
 As I ignore these rules, I will not comment on the matter. And I'm going to 
 aquen stop this issue because it exceeds the scope of LACRALO. If ESTs 
 I agree we keep talking this issue privately. 

 Best regards, 
 Fatima Cambronero 

 In short. The reality is more than a theory imposed and impostada 

 Regards 

 Carlos Vera Quintana 
 0988141143 
 Sguemecveraq 

 On 01.03.2015, at 13:22, Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero at gmail.com>
 i wrote: 

 Carlos, 

 The original sentence was &quot;abiding states human rights&quot; and states 
 that they are not. 

 I will share examples of those States but scriterios for 
 recognize them. And compliance and respect of those criteria is not 
 &quot;Subjective&quot;. 

 A state that respects human rights is one that has recognized 
 (Signed, ratified and deposited) international rights treaties 
 human (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Covenant 
 International on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and 
 Optional Protocols, the International convention on the Elimination 
 of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the convention on 
 elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and 
 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Nioy their 
 Optional Protocols, the convention against Torture and Other Forms 
 Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading and its Optional Protocol, the 
 International convention on the protection of the rights of all 
 migrants and their families, the main workers. Ace 
 as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which technically is not 
 an international treaty while States in practice the respect of 
 similar to a treaty) manner. 

 In addition the state has recognized or internalized in legislacin 
 domstica, reconocindolos through her consecration in the Constitution 
 National or Political Constitution of the State, and has developed a whole 
 set of laws aimed to respect these human rights (to return 
 operating statements made in their constitutions). 

 This was also sum is then when their national courts 
 solve a case where there is a conflict with a human right 
 particularly applies this set of regulations regarding rights 
 human. 

 In synthesis, if before the vulneracin in a particular case of a right 
 human (privacy, personal data protection, freedom of expression, 
 freedom of association, etc.), legislative and judicial assembly of a 
 pas estdirigido to punish vulneracino afectacina that right 
 Human and try to return things to the previous state it was 
 before that vulneracin to protect the human right violated, 
 ests against a state that respects human rights.Than 
 otherwise, no. 

 Surely some of you encontrarn other criteria and podrn 
 add to this list. 

 Definitely recognize quin is a state that respects rights 
 humans is not subjective. 

 Best regards, 

 Fatima Cambronero 

 On March 1, 2015, 10:06, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq at gmail.com>
 i wrote: 

> Hay ejemplos de Estados respetuosos y no respetuosos?
>
> Esto es muy subjetivo
>
> Carlos Vera Quintana
> 0988141143
> Sígueme @cveraq
>
> > El 28/2/2015, a las 7:54, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia at gmail.com> escribió:
> >
> > Muy interesante tema, especialmente  para la región. No se si este es o
> no
> > el ámbito.  Me gustaría al menos estar al tanto de las reflexiones si
> > cambian de ámbito.
> >
> > Saludos
> >
> >
> > El 27 de febrero de 2015, 0:25, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <
> > leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> escribió:
> >
> >> Hola Alberto,
> >>
> >> Sin duda a primera vista parece positivo. Yo quiero ser más cauteloso y
> >> esperar a que salga el texto completo de la resolución para poder
> >> analizarlo con detalle y ver que posibles implicaciones puede tener en
> >> diversos aspectos.
> >>
> >> Por ejemplo me preocupa que al clasificarse como un bien público, el
> >> Estado pueda reclamar y ejercer rectoría sobre el mismo. Si es un Estado
> >> democrático y con principios, tal vez no sea grave. Si es un régimen
> >> autoritario y que no respeta los derechos humanos, cambia la visión.
> >>
> >> Una de las preguntas que yo me formularía es ¿Con esta nueva
> clasificación
> >> que se hizo las comunicaciones serán más propensas a espionaje por
> parte de
> >> agencias como la NSA? No lo se. Justo ahí la cautela de no festejar
> antes
> >> de tiempo hasta no tener los detalles del caso.
> >>
> >> En el caso de México, por citar un escenario paralelo, el Estado en un
> >> momento dado podría tomar control de la infraestructura de
> >> telecomunicaciones (por ser pública) y controlar, bajo la justificación
> de
> >> seguridad nacional, las comunicaciones sin que hubiera recurso que
> >> protegiera a los ciudadanos en contra de abusos. Nuevamente reflexiono.
> En
> >> un Estado respetuoso de los derechos humanos, el Estado bien puede
> >> controlar la infraestructura y el flujo de las comunicaciones sin que la
> >> ciudadanía tuviera (mucho) de que preocuparse. Pero en un Estado donde
> el
> >> respeto a los derechos humanos es laxo, por ponerlo de alguna manera, la
> >> preocupación debería ser mayúscula.
> >>
> >> Creo que el tema dará para mucho análisis, reflexión y discusión en los
> >> meses por venir.
> >>
> >> Gracias por acercarnos la nota!
> >>
> >>
> >> Saludos,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> León
> >>
> >>>> El 26/02/2015, a las 19:52, Alberto Soto <asoto at ibero-americano.org>
> >>> escribió:
> >>>
> >>> Es una medida que ojalá prospere y sea ejemplo para los gobiernos de
> >> nuestra
> >>> Región:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://goo.gl/Rjmc7H
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Saludos cordiales
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Alberto Soto
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en
> >> busca de virus.
> >>> http://www.avast.com
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Aida Noblia
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

 * Fatima Cambronero * 
 Attorney-Argentina 

 Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 
 Twitter:facambronero 
 Skype: fatima.cambronero 

 - 
 * Fatima Cambronero * 
 Attorney-Argentina 

 Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 
 Twitter:facambronero 
 Skype: fatima.cambronero 
 _______________________________________________ 

[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/9b24bfc00a.html
--]]