[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Fwd: New Public Comment: Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding Consideration of GAC Advice From: vanda@uol.com.br I fully agree as I routed my weights. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 On 8/19/14, 18:45, "Javier Pallero" <javierjosepallero@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

Ageia Densi from Argentina, we support the need for a statement to On this and on the terms spelled out by Fatima and then Made by Alexander. Sure we can bring something more to the statement, but essentially think I should say what I said fellow I mentioned.

Greetings!

Javier J.Pallero Http://about.me/javierpallero <http://www.linkedin.com/in/javierpallero>

On 19 August 2014, 18:22, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq@gmail.com> Wrote:

Thanks >> Fatima. Because then one Most qualified >> considered "dangerous" is my query?

...

Carlos Vera Quintana >> 0988141143 >> Follow mecveraq >>

...

...

On 08.19.2014, at 15:35, Fatima Cambronero <

Fatimacambronero@gmail.com >>> wrote:

...

...

Carlos,

When the Board departs from a recommendation by the GAC must

Explain >> always, why do it, regardless of the number or Percentage of votes required to do so. It is the one of the AC ICANN structure >> whom the Board must give explanations in these Cases.

...

Vanda As mentioned this has happened very rarely.

Best regards, Fatima Cambronero

On August 19, 2014, 15:58, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq@gmail.com> Wrote: Dear Vanda >> >> consider dangerous because the proposal? That is 2/3 Without explanation or explanations simple majority is the option? >> Regards and thanks >> >> explanation >> Carlos Vera Quintana >> >> 0988141143 >> >> Follow mecveraq >> >> >> >>> On 08.19.2014, at 12:50, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@uol.com.br> Wrote: >>> >>> Estimates >>> The Board normally can not go against a decision of the GAC. But >> About >> >>> Few times and when he did >>> Ago explaining to the public must do so expressly; but >>> Internally on the board, you need only >>> A simple to make this decision get wet. >>> ⅔ The new proposal is equivalent to placing the GAC at the same level >>> Control of the GNSO. Because a policy >>> Approved by the GNSO supermajority required two thirds of the Board For >> >>> Stand against such a decision. See the statutes >>> Annex A, Section 9 (Bylaws) But GNSO policy has Consultation >> >>> Public, is built open to all stakeholders. The same is not Occurs >> >>> With the decisions of the GAC. >>> >>> GAC Although any proposal needs to be internally Approved >> >>> 100% of the participating governments, have more recently been That >> >>> Governments have gone into fields that do not really Responsibility >> Run out >> >>> Hear the community as a whole.As in many cases Catch >> >>> Against a new TLD because one or two governments demanded it and The >> >>> Other politely come into agreement. It is difficult to achieve 100%. >>> >>> One can understand that doing well (explaining the 2-3) the Board >> >>> Can stay freer to veto proposed controller without Need >> >>> Extensive and sometimes complex explanations. >>> >>> Personally, I see this as a dangerous alternative. To me it is >>> Preferable to remain as is, with the need for explanations, But >> >>> Internally with a simple majority. >>> >>> >>> Hugs >>> Vanda Scartezini >>> Polo Consultores Associados >>> Av.Paulista 1159, 1004 cj >>> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil >>> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 >>> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> On 8/18/14, 22:45 "Fatima Cambronero" <fatimacambronero@gmail.com> Wrote: >> >> Dear >> >> >> / os, >> >> >> >> >> >> This topic >> >> >> just opened to comments ALAC. >> >> >> >> >> >> Please, if you will interest and comment from LACRALO >> >> Ask who are representatives of ALAC LACRALO Vote of >> >> >> Certain way, take the opportunity to do so when the period of Comment >> >> >> >> >> Is open and has not been submitted to a vote at ALAC.What Otherwise >> >> >> Becomes very difficult to fulfill the mandate of the region. >> >> >> >> This topic >> >> >> very briefly (you can read the attachments) Implies >> >> >> A modification of the ICANN Bylaws relating to Suggested >> By >> The >> >> >> ATRT1 >> >> >>. >> >> >> >> Currently >> >> >> that the ICANN Board is other than a Recommendation >> >> >> Made by the GAC should make this decision with a majority Simple >> >> >> (50% + 1), as well as explaining why you are doing it. >> >> >> >> The proposed amendment implies that approved them, Now >> Board >> >> >> would have to make the decision to move away from a Recommendation >> GAC >> >> >> with a qualified majority (two thirds of the votes of its members). >> >> >> >> >> >> In my personal reading, this decision involves giving more weight to The >> Recommendations >> >> >> GAC will make to the ICANN Board, because For >> >> >> Power to deviate from such recommendations must attend the vote A >> >> >> More members of the Board. >> >> >> >> >> >> What do you think LACRALO? Should we approve the amendment (2/3 Votes >> >> >> Members of the Board to deviate from recommendations GAC) or Should >> >> >> Remain to date (50% +1 of the votes of its Members)? What >> >> >> >> >> Could have political implications this decision and what Affectations >> >> >> Could cause Internet users, specifically Our >> >> >> Region? >> >> >> >> Thanks a lot >> >> >>. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Fatima Cambronero >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> >> >> Date: 08/18/2014 21:48 GMT-03: 00 >> >> Subject: [ALAC-Announce] New Public Comment: Proposed Bylaws Changes >> >> >> Regarding Consideration of GAC Advice >> >> To: "alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org" < Alac->> >> >> announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> Please kindly note That the At-Large workspace for the following Public >> Comment >> >> >> request has-been created: Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding >> Consideration of >> >> >> GAC Advice < https://community.icann.org/x/KgHxAg> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Heidi Ullrich >> >> >> Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie >> >> >> Peregrine and Terri Agnew >> >> ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC >> >> E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org >> >> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge >> >> Twitter:ICANN_AtLarge < https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC->> >> >> Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce >> >> >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - Fatima >> >> >> Cambronero * Attorney->> >> >> Argentina >> >> >> >> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 >> >> Twitter: Ifacambronero >> >> Skype: fatima.cambronero _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> Lac-discuss-en mailing list >> >> Lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >> >> Http://www.lacralo.org >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lac-discuss-en mailing list >>> Lac-discuss-es@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

_______________________________________________ >> Lac-discuss->>'s mailing list Lac-discuss->> es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es

Http://www.lacralo.org >>

...

_______________________________________________ Lac-discuss-en mailing list Lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es

Http://www.lacralo.org

_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-es@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/10db5f82ee.html --]]