[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject:????? Q = utf-8 Algunos_temas_ante_el_proceso_de_Trans = = utf-8 b aWNpw7Nu =? Desde: harold.arcos@gmail.com Ladies and gentlemen region I share this way I prepared a summary of issues associated with the IANA transition and which are ongoing within subgroups of work. This process we are experiencing is recent after the milestone represented the presentation of the proposal to the US government. Some of these groups have only made a single meeting, others They are discussing the guiding principle of the group. That is, it is still good time to sit up and share experience as a region address all these issues together. Some structural issues corporation (but no less important) and others of greater interest to users. I share some links that allow us to review firsthand the initial documents of the issues under discussion. *HUMAN RIGHTS* Human Rights: https://community.icann.org/x/kBWOAw Within this working group some members propose extending the Scope of ICANN in human rights. options as proposed: work a implementation framework, while others are more inclined in work a framework of interpretation. As we will assume this issue is extremely delicate because ICANN is a technical organization by definition It is making efforts not to get involved in a legal discussion must assume the providers and users, but it is an obvious fact that the corporation has a leading role on the structure of the Internet. * * JURISDICTION jurisdiction: https://community.icann.org/x/khWOAw One of the first discussions focused on the word Jurisdiction not It is taken as the geographical area where ICANN operates.In this point It was extended a first discussion and admitted that there would be consensus priori. This topic has been debated long ago since I was Fadi CEO. Within this working group some members are inclined moving the legal headquarters to Switzerland or even ICANN Geneva. others inclined to keep her in California. * ODBUSMAN * Ombudsman: https://community.icann.org/x/lhWOAw This subgroup works the role of Odbusman within the new configuration ICANN structure. * COOPERATIVE PARTICIPATION PROCESS. * CEP (Cooperative Engagement processs and Independent Review processs). CEP: https://community.icann.org/x/nBWOAw This group will seek to work on a proposed process in which you can take assume an alternative to resolve cases before going to a IRP. This group has not met yet. * RESPONSIBILITIES OF ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORT (SO) AND COMMITTEES ADVISORS (AC) * SO / AC Accountability: https://community.icann.org/x/lBWOAw This group deals with issues involving everyone. For example, in the Committee Governmental Advisory (GAC) has a discussion on the definition of their participation and scope after the transition. issues are discussed as they Supporting Organization Generic Names (GNSO) is a structure complex and the process of internal decision making is complex too, then that is a challenge to solve before taking the leading role post transition. Within the public and private sectors are reviewed how Participants act within the SO / AC and whether they would be effective spokespeople the interests we represent. Within the Community Schools Assumed, At-large also has the challenge of defining how At-Large will towards the participation of representatives. * FINAL USUSARIOS * At-large is discussed whether the end user has responsibilities and how They must report them according to a practice of transparency for all, others think they have no obligation to report. Does composiciohn Icann should be balanced? They are also questions that they generate. * Recommendation 7 and 13 * https://community.icann.org/display/als2/ATLAS+II+Recommendation+7 a periodic review model arises multipart interested. This proposal does not seem to occur during the road Work 2 (WS2) From the CCWG Responsibility efforts are under way to define which areas They must be controlled by Icann. https://community.icann.org/display/als2/ATLAS+II+Recommendation+13 During the Board will WS2 who receives this recommendation. Icann should study and seek to ensure general representation there is a balance of representation of all parties Icann integrate. Some questions arise: What are the criteria for considering there is a representation of stakeholders.? In the sub group not yet it is known whether being treated that perspective. * * CHALLENGES AHEAD In this subgroup scenarios of how the Icann be structured they arise? How redesign ICANN is it part of this agenda? It is one of the questions generated to assume the post transition period. some participants Asked whether GNSO could deal with the public interest arise? In theory GNSO helps the Board to make decisions but within GNSO not reached concrete recommendations could then be thought On a GNSO reconfiguration? * LIABILITY OF STAFF * * Staff Accountability: https://community.icann.org/x/mhWOAw < https://community.icann.org/x/mhWOAw> Working group that will review staff responsibilities of Staff. The group has met once and are working on a document that was distributed through google docs. *TRANSPARENCY* Transparency: https://community.icann.org/x/mBWOAw There has been talk of disclosure of documents among other actions They can take as good practices. Receive a hug Harold [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/fb875aeb5a.html --]]