[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Comments on Second Proposal CCWG Accountability From: asoto@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@sanchez.mx] Posted on: Sunday, August 30, 2015 10:40 PM To: Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org> CC: Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com> ; LACRALO <lac-discuss-es@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@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@gmail.com] Posted on: Sunday, August 30, 2015 7:09 pm To: Alberto Soto < <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> asoto@ibero-americano.org> CC: LACRALO < <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> 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 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@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 --]]