August 2015 - lac-discuss-en

New ALS Application received
by staff＠atlarge.icann.org Oct. 2, 2015

Oct. 2, 2015

Dear all, This is to inform you that we received an ALS application from the Association Haitienne des Internautes. It is based in Haiti, and would be a member of LACRALO if accepted. Please find the application form in French attached. The EN translation will be posted upon receipt. Staff are preparing the Due Diligence. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge

4 4

Meeting Invitation/ SINGLE ISSUE CALL: LACRALO ALAC Member election 2015 – Candidates Presentation
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 1, 2015

Sept. 1, 2015

Dear All, Please join us for the SINGLE ISSUE CALL: LACRALO ALAC Member election 2015 – Candidates Presentation scheduled on Wednesday, 02 September 2015 at 23:00 UTC. For other times: http://tinyurl.com/nvpscxq The draft agenda and call details are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/vZdCAw Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/lacralo Portuguese interpretation will NOT be available. Conference ID: EN 1638 ES 1738 Wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/NJQi Please confirm your dial-out and preferred number to: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> _____________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

4 3

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability
by quiros＠isoc.org Aug. 31, 2015

Aug. 31, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability From: quiros(a)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(a)isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> > Date: Monday, August 31, 2015 at 5:48 a.m. To: Len Felipe Sanchez Amba <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> > Cc: Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> >, LACRALO <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Rodrigo de la Parra <rodrigo.delaparra(a)icann.org<mailto:rodrigo.delaparra@icann.org> > Daniel Fink <daniel.fink(a)icann.org<mailto:daniel.fink@icann.org> > Sebastian Bellagamba <bellagamba(a)isoc.org<mailto:bellagamba@isoc.org> > Raquel Gatto <gatto(a)isoc.org<mailto:gatto@isoc.org> >, ISOC Costa Rica chapter <jd(a)isoc-cr.org<mailto:jd@isoc-cr.org> > Nancy <quiros(a)isoc.org<mailto:quiros@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(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@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(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@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(a)ibero-americano.org<mailto:asoto@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(a)gmail.com] Posted on: Sunday, August 30, 2015 7:09 pm To: Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> > CC: LACRALO <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-es@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(a)ibero-americano.org<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> >: Another related paragraph, this comment estcolocado in the wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/LACRALO/LACRALO+Page+on+At-Large+Briefi… 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 --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org Aug. 31, 2015

Aug. 31, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability From: asoto(a)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(a)isoc.org] Posted on: Monday, August 31, 2015 4:19 pm To: Carlos Gutierrez Ral <crg(a)isoc-cr.org> ; Len Felipe Sanchez Amba <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> CC: Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> ; LACRALO <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> ; Rodrigo de la Parra <rodrigo.delaparra(a)icann.org> ; Daniel Fink <daniel.fink(a)icann.org> ; Sebastian Bellagamba <bellagamba(a)isoc.org> ; Raquel Gatto <gatto(a)isoc.org> ; ISOC Costa Rica chapter <jd(a)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(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> > Date: Monday, August 31, 2015 at 5:48 a.m. To: Len Felipe Sanchez Amba <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> > Cc: Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> >, LACRALO <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Rodrigo de la Parra <rodrigo.delaparra(a)icann.org <mailto:rodrigo.delaparra@icann.org> > Daniel Fink <daniel.fink(a)icann.org <mailto:daniel.fink@icann.org> > Sebastian Bellagamba <bellagamba(a)isoc.org> Raquel Gatto <gatto(a)isoc.org <mailto:gatto@isoc.org> >, ISOC Costa Rica chapter <jd(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:jd@isoc-cr.org> > Nancy <quiros(a)isoc.org <mailto:quiros@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(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@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(a)sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@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(a)ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto@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@gmail.com> mailto: apisanty(a)gmail.com] Posted on: Sunday, August 30, 2015 7:09 pm To: Alberto Soto < <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> CC: LACRALO < <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> lac-discuss-es(a)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@ibero-americano.org> asoto(a)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 --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] ???????????? Q = Windows-1252 _Meeting_Invitation / _SINGLE_ISS = q = windows-1252 3A_LACRALO_ALAC_Member_election_2015_ UE_CALL = = = = windows-1252 96_Candida tes_Presentation q =
by jlaureano＠aui.pe Aug. 31, 2015

Aug. 31, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: ???????????? Q = Windows-1252 _Meeting_Invitation / _SINGLE_ISS = q = windows-1252 3A_LACRALO_ALAC_Member_election_2015_ UE_CALL = = = = windows-1252 96_Candida tes_Presentation q = From: jlaureano(a)aui.pe Dear Members of Staff, Agradecerllamada for this call. Atte. Signature - Sergio T - VIAEXPRESA -----Original Message----- From: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [Mailto: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] In the name of Alberto Thicket Posted on: Monday, August 31, 2015 2:02 pm To: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] ????????????Q = Windows-1252 _Meeting_Invitation / _SINGLE_ISS = Q = windows-1252 UE_CALL = 3A_LACRALO_ALAC_Member_election_2015_ = = = q 96_Candida windows-1252 tes_Presentation = Dear, as reported last Friday, my apologies, but no podrestar present. Humberto Carrasco moderaresta meeting. Thank you Alberto Soto -----Original Message----- From: <mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [ <mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> mailto: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On behalf of <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Posted on Monday, August 31, 2015 24:36 For: <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [lac-discuss-en] ????????????Q = Windows-1252 _Meeting_Invitation / _SINGLE_ISS = Q = windows-1252 UE_CALL = 3A_LACRALO_ALAC_Member_election_2015_ = = = q 96_Candida windows-1252 tes_Presentation = [[Translated text (en -> en) -]] Subject: ???????????? Q = Windows-1252 _Meeting_Invitation / _SINGLE_ISS = = windows-1252 q 3A_LACRALO_ALAC_Member_election_2015_ UE_CALL = = = = 96_Candida windows-1252 tes_Presentation q = From: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Dear All, Please oin us for NICO CALL NUMBER: LACRALO ALAC Member candidates 2015 elections scheduled for Presentation Wednesdays, September 2, 2015 at 23:00 UTC. For other times: <http://tinyurl.com/nvpscxq> http://tinyurl.com/nvpscxq The draft program and call details are available at: < https://community.icann.org/x/vZdCAw> https://community.icann.org/x/vZdCAw Adobe Connect: <http://icann.adobeconnect.com/lacralo> I http://icann.adobeconnect.com/lacralo Portugus not estardisponible interpretation. Conference ID: IN 1638 It's 1738 Wiki work space: < https://community.icann.org/x/NJQi> https://community.icann.org/x/NJQi Please confirm your preferred line output and the number of: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org < <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> mailto: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Cheers, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN policy staff in support of ALAC E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org < <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> mailto: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/icann> www.facebook.com/icann < < https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge%3eatlarge%3chttps:/www.facebook.com/i cann> https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icann AtLarge> Twitter: @ < < https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge%3eICANNAtLarge%3chttps:/twitter.com/ICANNA TLAR> https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLar ge> _____________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org < <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> mailto: lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> < https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/27db31f687.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] ???????????? Q = Windows-1252 _Meeting_Invitation / _SINGLE_ISS = q = windows-1252 3A_LACRALO_ALAC_Member_election_2015_ UE_CALL = = = = windows-1252 96_Candida tes_Presentation q =
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org Aug. 31, 2015

Aug. 31, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: ???????????? Q = Windows-1252 _Meeting_Invitation / _SINGLE_ISS = q = windows-1252 3A_LACRALO_ALAC_Member_election_2015_ UE_CALL = = = = windows-1252 96_Candida tes_Presentation q = From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Dear, as reported last Friday, my apologies, but no podrestar present. Humberto Carrasco moderaresta meeting. Thank you Alberto Soto -----Original Message----- From: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [Mailto: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On behalf of staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Posted on: Monday, 31 August 2015 24:36 To: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [lac-discuss-en] ???????????? Q = Windows-1252 _Meeting_Invitation / _SINGLE_ISS = Q = windows-1252 UE_CALL = 3A_LACRALO_ALAC_Member_election_2015_ = = = q 96_Candida windows-1252 tes_Presentation = [[Translated text (en -> en) -]] Subject: ???????????? Q = Windows-1252 _Meeting_Invitation / _SINGLE_ISS = = windows-1252 q 3A_LACRALO_ALAC_Member_election_2015_ UE_CALL = = = = 96_Candida windows-1252 tes_Presentation q = From: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Dear All, Please oin us for NICO CALL NUMBER: LACRALO ALAC Member candidates 2015 elections scheduled for Presentation Wednesdays, September 2, 2015 at 23:00 UTC. For other times: http://tinyurl.com/nvpscxq The draft program and call details are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/vZdCAw Adobe Connect: I http://icann.adobeconnect.com/lacralo Portugus not estardisponible interpretation. Conference ID: IN 1638 It's 1738 Wiki work space: https://community.icann.org/x/NJQi Please confirm your preferred line output and the number of: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Cheers, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN policy staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann < https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icann AtLarge> Twitter: @ < https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLar ge> _____________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/6738434609.html --]]

1 0

??????? Q = utf-8 3A_Tercera_Consulta_Abierta Off-Topic = _ = = utf-8 q = C3 = B3n_del_MAG y_reuni _-_ registraci = C3 = B3n_IGF =
by fatimacambronero＠gmail.com Aug. 31, 2015

Aug. 31, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject:??????? Q = utf-8 3A_Tercera_Consulta_Abierta Off-Topic = _ = = utf-8 q = C3 = B3n_del_MAG y_reuni _-_ registraci = C3 = B3n_IGF = From: fatimacambronero(a)gmail.com Dear / os, I am writing to inform them about the Third consultation and Open MAG meeting to be held in Paris from 2 to 4 September to finish defining the agenda and activities of the next global IGF, which will take place in João Pessoa, Brazil, from 10 to 13 November next. For those interested in participating remotely in this link you will find all the information on the agenda, remote participation, The webcast and transcripts that are occurring: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/jevents/icalrepeat.detail/2015/09/… Please consider the time difference with Paris. Also, for those interested in participating in the IGF, already registration is open, you can make using the following link: https://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-registration It is recommended that the registration can be done with time, as the it requires the approval of the Secretary of the IGF to participate. Feel free to share this information with their respective communities. Best regards, Fatima Cambronero - * Fatima Cambronero * Lawyer Argentina / Mexico Phone: Argentina: +54 9351 5282 668 - Mexico: +52 (55) 3018 2066 Twitter:facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/aad2e5c3be.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org Aug. 31, 2015

Aug. 31, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Len very clear, thank you very much! Estcolocado already in the wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/LACRALO/LACRALO+Page+on+At-Large+Briefin g + + on + 2nd + CCWG-Draft Proposal Accountability + Best regards Alberto Soto From: Len Felipe Sanchez Amba [mailto: leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx] Posted on: Sunday, August 30, 2015 10:40 PM To: Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> CC: Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> ; LACRALO <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability 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(a)ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto@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@gmail.com> mailto: apisanty(a)gmail.com] Posted on: Sunday, August 30, 2015 7:09 pm To: Alberto Soto < <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> CC: LACRALO < <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> lac-discuss-es(a)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@ibero-americano.org> asoto(a)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/a3fe54055b.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability
by crg＠isoc-cr.org Aug. 31, 2015

Aug. 31, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability From: crg(a)isoc-cr.org 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(a)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, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: > > Hola Alberto, > > En cuanto al tema sobre introducir una estructura corporativa de un miembro único, te platico que hasta este momento se propone dicha solución de acuerdo a las preocupaciones planteadas por la comunidad en el CCWG. > > Los diferentes miembros y participantes dentro del CCWG han planteado la necesidad de poder tener derechos que sean ejercidos por la comunidad y que, en caso de que la Mesa Directiva no actúe conforme a la misión y valores de ICANN o en violación a los derechos de la comunidad, estos puedan ser hechos valer en los Tribunales. > > Para poder hacer valer los derechos en los Tribunales, es necesario crear un vehículo legal que sea quien, conforme a las leyes de California, ejerza los derechos y en un momento dado los haga valer en las Cortes. > > En la primera propuesta del CCWG se hablaba de un modelo de membresía en el que cada SO/AC podía optar por volverse miembro de ICANN. Luego de escuchar los comentarios y opiniones recibidos en el primer período de comentarios, el CCWG continuó evaluando otras estructuras que fueran menos complejas que la propuesta inicialmente, pero que conservaran el objetivo de dar ese poder a la comunidad de hacer valer sus derechos en los Tribunales como última instancia ante una actuación contraria a los principios, misión y valores de ICANN por parte de la Mesa Directiva. > > Así, se exploraron otras opciones como el modelo de Designadores (en inglés Designators) cuyas características eran similares a los de la membresía pero tenía la desventaja de que de los 6 poderes que pretendía dotarse a la comunidad, 2 no eran factibles de hacerse valer en los Tribunales bajo este esquema. > > También se exploró el modelo de Designadores empoderados cuyo modelo era similar al de Designadores, así como el modelo de Delegados que tampoco satisfacía las necesidades planteadas por la comunidad por diversas razones. > > Luego de evaluar estos diferentes modelos, incluyendo el de Miembro único, se llegó a la conclusión de que este último modelo parecía ser el menos complejo en cuanto implementación, el de menor impacto en cuanto a modificar la manera de funcionamiento de ICANN en el día a día y cuyas características legales satisfacían las necesidades planteadas por la comunidad. > > Obviamente esta propuesta deberá pasar la prueba de este segundo período de comentarios para ver cómo es recibida por la comunidad y los diversos grupos que están al tanto de el trabajo del CCWG como la NTIA. > > En cuanto al párrafo referente a la definición de sector privado y la reacción de algunos gobiernos, hay que recordar que este lenguaje ya se encuentra en los estatutos actuales de la ICANN. En realidad no se está cambiando este lenguaje, el tema es que algunos gobiernos argumentan que para poder tener igualdad de circunstancias, la definición no debería establecer que ICANN sea una organización basada en el sector privado sino en el sistema de múltiples partes interesadas. Si bien puede parecer un tema de simple lenguaje, el análisis profundo nos dice que esto va más allá de una mera cuestión de semántica. > > También es importante recordar que uno de los requisitos establecidos por la NTIA para poder aceptar una propuesta que favorezca la transición, es que la solución que se presente no sea liderada por los gobiernos o por algún tipo de organización multinacional con mayor peso gubernamental en su manejo. > > Espero que estos comentarios ayuden a una mejor compresión de la propuesta. Por supuesto, quedo abierto y atento a poder continuar con la conversación en caso de que requieran alguna otra aclaración o tengan alguna duda sobre la manera en que se ha gestado la propuesta. > > Saludos, > > > > León > >> El 30/08/2015, a las 17:22, Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>> escribió: >> >> Me gustaría escuchar la opinión de León Sanchez, quien seguro tiene un panorama mucho más completo que nosotros, y quien a su vez ha escuchado una variedad de opiniones al respecto. >> Saludos cordiales >> >> Alberto Soto >> <> >> De: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisanty@gmail.com <mailto:apisanty@gmail.com>] >> Enviado el: domingo, 30 de agosto de 2015 7:09 p. m. >> Para: Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>> >> CC: LACRALO <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> >> Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-es] Comentarios sobre Segunda Propuesta CCWG Accountability >> >> Alberto, >> >> coincido en dar importancia a este párrafo, como ya lo muestra un mensaje anterior sobre el tema. >> >> Sin embargo creo que éste y muchos otros son de mucho menor importancia que los que se refieren a las nuevas estructuras y operaciones propuestas. >> >> Estas estructuras deben ser estudiadas urgentemente pues introducen elementos novedosos como "miembro único" o "sole member" que es una reconstitución total de ICANN. La base de este concepto en un concepto de membresía fue discutida a profundidad hace más de 10 años y descartada; y ya lo había sido en la primera constitución de ICANN. Se debe determinar si hay elementos nuevos que reviertan satisfactoriamente los argumentos de los últimos 15 años. Necesitamos una discusión seria sobre el impacto de que ICANN se convierta en una organización de membresía; cuáles serían las formas estructurales y los balances de ésta; y la complejidad adicional de que ello sólo ocurra en ocasiones especiales. >> >> Esta complejidad y otros factores generadores de inestabilidad van primero. Lo que se decida en los párrafos que estamos discutiendo será de importancia, sin duda, pero secundaria. >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> 2015-08-30 16:55 GMT-05:00 Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>>: >>> Otro párrafo relacionado, este comentario está colocado en la wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/LACRALO/LACRALO+Page+on+At-Large+Briefi… <https://community.icann.org/display/LACRALO/LACRALO+Page+on+At-Large+Briefi…> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> <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> >>> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lac-discuss-es mailing list >>> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >>> >>> http://www.lacralo.org <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> >> >> >> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> >> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> >> -- <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> Facultad de Química UNAM >> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> >> >> <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(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es> >> >> http://www.lacralo.org <http://www.lacralo.org/> > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > http://www.lacralo.org [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/e4df1fc02e.html --]]

1 0

Nomination of the LACRALO representative to the ALAC
by Lance Hinds Aug. 31, 2015

Aug. 31, 2015

Dear All, Let me first sincerely thank Jose Arce for nominating me and my friend Antonio Media Gomez for supporting this nomination. After some deep reflection and soul searching however I wish to advise Staff and the membership that I will not seek election as LACRALO's representative to the ALAC. I believe firmly that if a process for nomination and election has been established it should be followed. The fact it can be upturned because persons did not participate in a timely manner is something I continue to find deeply distressing. I am also not prepared to be accused further of a conflict of interest because I engage in a business activity for my livelihood that has nothing to do with my long term interest and commitment to this RALO. I have seen the requirements for being an ALAC representative and know I meet and indeed exceed those requirements. I have demonstrated that I have collaborated to my at-large colleagues regardless of location or language. I still feel, however, that the rollout of this process, was in the end, a subversion of the very democratic process we have committed to uphold in LACRALO and ICANN as a whole. I am now convinced that the Caribbean Constituency face and will continue, an extraordinary challenge in being selected for regional service. Someone else may be willing to fight this fight. I however cannot summon the energy to contest in an election that I have already won. I wish all the candidates in this election the very best as they seek to represent “LA RALO”. My very best regards Lance Hinds Devnet Guyana -- Lance Hinds Chief Technology Officer BrainStreet Group 287 'C' Albert St. Georgetown Guyana This message contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential and is the property of BrainStreet Technologies or BrainStreet Learning. The information contained herein is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it . If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or take any action in reliance to the contents of this information or any part thereof and it may be unlawful to do so. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message from your system. BrainStreet Technologies or BrainStreet Learning are neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor any delay in its receipt.

3 2