My Dear Bro: On this opportunity I can`t share with you. I insist in my position LACRALO is: independent and soverign. As you said in your (wrong,for me ) interpretation, LACRALO can give rules itself and changes the same, so it shows it completely independent, dont have to respond to anybody. This sentence is clear: "This Memorandum of understanding ("MOU")defines an agreement between the Signing Organizations and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Its intent is to establish, and define activities to be carried out by, the Latin America & Caribbean Regional At-Large Large Organization, and supported by ICANN." ICANN is another organization as showed the paragraph before. For that reason we have a MoU, because there are two organizations related by this kind of contract or agreement. ICANN is based on the California Law, thats true, but this only affect the relationship with LACRALO, if LACRALO adopt some directive against this legal body (CAlifornia law). if not, MoU between two different organization remains alive in force. LACRALO is constituted by Organizations, and the government body is it GA, wich is one delegate by each organization. This is the explanation of the "Signing Organizations" sentence. Now LACRALO is supported by ICANN, according MoU, but this could change in the future, and LACRALO could follow being an organization independent, and the most important: this was the idea . The idea from the begining was to have an independent organization in LAC region composed by End Users, that was the motivation of LACRALO. We are not part of ICANN, wich could be the sense of that? ICANN and the multistackeholder model no need uniformity. And to build a diverse & democratic ecosystem ICANN need differents oppinion from different groups of opinion. LACRALO is one of them, composed by End Users organizations by LAC region. ICANN need a LACRALO independent and soverign. My personal opinion on that. A warm, big and strong hug to you. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org From: carlton.samuels@gmail.com Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:41:48 -0500 Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] RES: OP To: carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com CC: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org 2012/8/10 carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com> :rule that you mention doesnt apply in this case, because we have a specific rule. Ón the othe side LACRALO is not part of ICÁNN we only have a MOU signed, but we are independent of ICÁNN rules. Regards ================================ My brother Carlos:See the highlighted portion of your text, as translated. In this case, I believe the interpretation is incorrect. Your interpretation that LACRALO is 'independent' of ICANN rules is widely held in Latin America. Without a doubt, I believe it is responsible for declarations such as 'LACRALO is sovereign'. Now, lawyers can and do disagree in interpretation of statute or documents. Case law confirms this situation. Add to this and in this context, the differences in legal histories and interpretative mechanisms of so-called 'common law' countries as in the Caribbean versus 'civil law' countries as predominant in Latin America. Here is a perfect example and another such case. ICANN's premise is well defined in law. It exists as a 'public benefit' corporation under the laws of the state of California. When it registered as a legal entity, it filed its bye-laws with the State. Those bye-laws filed and accepted by the State of California binds and empowers its operations and actions. This means ICANN's actions are only legal and enforceable to the extent they comply with its bye-laws. LACRALO's premise is defined by the MOU signed with ICANN. That MOU is subject to the ICANN bye-laws; ICANN cannot make binding agreements that are injurious to its bye-laws. This is the text that describes the "Purpose and Scope" of LACRALO in the MOU signed with ICANN: "This Memorandum of understanding ("MOU")defines an agreement between the Signing Organizations and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Its intent is to establish, and define activities to be carried out by, the Latin America & Caribbean Regional At-Large Large Organization, and supported by ICANN." Note the term *"Signing Organisations"*. Here's the definition of said 'Signing Organisations': "Organizations in the Latin America & Caribbean region certified by the ALAC as “At-Large Structures” that are signatories to this MOU.". It is the *signing organisations*, meaning the ALSes, that enjoy the legal relationship with ICANN. In other words, LACRALO is purely a label for ease of reference that means 'all of us ALSes, acting together'. The certification requirement for ALSes poses another hurdle. The power to accept and certify ALSes is ceded to the ALAC by way of the ICANN bye-laws. In other words, *LACRALO* does not and cannot exist absent an ICANN bye-law mandated action of the ALAC. The MOU states clearly the joint commitments, *singly and severally*, of the parties to it. The MOU, as signed, binds ICANN to six (6) commitments to the *LACRALO*. In turn, the ALSes labeled LACRALO, meaning all of us who signed the MOU, binds us, *singly and severally*, to five (5) distinct actions along with ICANN in pursuit of our joint commitments . The truth is there is a gulf of a difference between the general Latin American and Caribbean understanding of the meaning of the word 'sovereign' in context. As far back as 2006, we have invited and had interventions from ICANN legal staff to explain this. I am on the record repeatedly, attempting to align the facts with the general understanding. My last time was at Costa Rica. I was responding to the contents of a document filed with the Secretariat and comments in the General Assembly. And for my troubles, I was condemned as a liar in several places. The recordings and transcripts are all available for those who would wish details. The records will show Cintra Sooknanan, a lawyer, has also pointed out the misuse of the term. So too, Lance Hinds and Roosevelt King.

From my reading of her writings and interventions, I believe Fatima Cambronera well understands the differences.

LACRALO is not and may not be 'sovereign'. Everything we might wish to do in context of names and numbers policy advocacy, advice and development is informed and limited by the signed MOU, which is itself subject to the powers and scope granted by the ICANN bye-laws and the LACRALO Rules of Procedure. LACRALO may, if it so chooses, change its rules. The process to do so is described in its Rules of Procedure. And even if there was a move to change the rules of procedure, you must follow the process as defined in the rules. Lawyers and courts have a Latin term, 'ultra vires', to describe actions contrary to established rules. Here's the compelling one. LACRALO cannot change ICANN bye-laws. And so any rule change that undermines or rubbishes ICANN bye-laws would make LACRALO a rogue and outside the parameters granted by the ICANN MOU. If this ever happens, any signatory to the MOU, meaning any ALS, has standing and a duty of care to petition for grievance in this respect. And ICANN is duty bound to respond and act as the MOU and its bye-law compels it so to do. Best,- Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================

ROK: Could be, but your comment doesn't help. Regards. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org

From: rok@bango.org.bb To: carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com; carlton.samuels@gmail.com CC: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] RES: OP Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:47:08 -0400

Some people want a car to take a truck load. All this talk about LACRALO being independent is foolishness. We must start with the reason why LACRALO was established. It was not a club or political party. It was started with the specific objective of getting inputs from Caribbean and Latin America internet users, not for us to go off on some jolly ride.

It seems that there are some who would want to hijack LACRALO to make it what they want to be. When that day comes and LACRALO is no longer relevant to ICANN, I would hope that the Caribbean countries come together and petition ICANN to make direct inputs to ICANN and leave LA to continue on their merry journey to nowhere.

LACRALO has lost focus and has gone into a steep political wilderness, where voting for officers is the prize... and where people jostle for positions as if their lives depend on it.

Depressing!

ROK

-----Original Message----- From: carlos dionisio aguirre Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:25 AM To: carlton samuels Cc: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] RES: OP

My Dear Bro: On this opportunity I can`t share with you. I insist in my position LACRALO is: independent and soverign. As you said in your (wrong,for me ) interpretation, LACRALO can give rules itself and changes the same, so it shows it completely independent, dont have to respond to anybody. This sentence is clear: "This Memorandum of understanding ("MOU")defines an agreement between the Signing Organizations and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Its intent is to establish, and define activities to be carried out by, the Latin America & Caribbean Regional At-Large Large Organization, and supported by ICANN." ICANN is another organization as showed the paragraph before. For that reason we have a MoU, because there are two organizations related by this kind of contract or agreement. ICANN is based on the California Law, thats true, but this only affect the relationship with LACRALO, if LACRALO adopt some directive against this legal body (CAlifornia law). if not, MoU between two different organization remains alive in force. LACRALO is constituted by Organizations, and the government body is it GA, wich is one delegate by each organization. This is the explanation of the "Signing Organizations" sentence. Now LACRALO is supported by ICANN, according MoU, but this could change in the future, and LACRALO could follow being an organization independent, and the most important: this was the idea . The idea from the begining was to have an independent organization in LAC region composed by End Users, that was the motivation of LACRALO. We are not part of ICANN, wich could be the sense of that? ICANN and the multistackeholder model no need uniformity. And to build a diverse & democratic ecosystem ICANN need differents oppinion from different groups of opinion. LACRALO is one of them, composed by End Users organizations by LAC region. ICANN need a LACRALO independent and soverign. My personal opinion on that.

A warm, big and strong hug to you.

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org

From: carlton.samuels@gmail.com Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:41:48 -0500 Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] RES: OP To: carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com CC: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org

2012/8/10 carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com>

:rule that you mention doesnt apply in this case, because we have a specific rule. Ón the othe side LACRALO is not part of ICÁNN we only have a MOU signed, but we are independent of ICÁNN rules.

Regards

================================

My brother Carlos:See the highlighted portion of your text, as translated. In this case, I believe the interpretation is incorrect.

Your interpretation that LACRALO is 'independent' of ICANN rules is widely held in Latin America. Without a doubt, I believe it is responsible for declarations such as 'LACRALO is sovereign'.

Now, lawyers can and do disagree in interpretation of statute or documents. Case law confirms this situation. Add to this and in this context, the differences in legal histories and interpretative mechanisms of so-called 'common law' countries as in the Caribbean versus 'civil law' countries as predominant in Latin America. Here is a perfect example and another such case.

ICANN's premise is well defined in law. It exists as a 'public benefit' corporation under the laws of the state of California. When it registered as a legal entity, it filed its bye-laws with the State. Those bye-laws filed and accepted by the State of California binds and empowers its operations and actions.

This means ICANN's actions are only legal and enforceable to the extent they comply with its bye-laws.

LACRALO's premise is defined by the MOU signed with ICANN. That MOU is subject to the ICANN bye-laws; ICANN cannot make binding agreements that are injurious to its bye-laws.

This is the text that describes the "Purpose and Scope" of LACRALO in the MOU signed with ICANN:

"This Memorandum of understanding ("MOU")defines an agreement between the Signing Organizations and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Its intent is to establish, and define activities to be carried out by, the Latin America & Caribbean Regional At-Large Large Organization, and supported by ICANN."

Note the term *"Signing Organisations"*.

Here's the definition of said 'Signing Organisations': "Organizations in the Latin America & Caribbean region certified by the ALAC as “At-Large Structures” that are signatories to this MOU.".

It is the *signing organisations*, meaning the ALSes, that enjoy the legal relationship with ICANN. In other words, LACRALO is purely a label for ease of reference that means 'all of us ALSes, acting together'.

The certification requirement for ALSes poses another hurdle. The power to accept and certify ALSes is ceded to the ALAC by way of the ICANN bye-laws. In other words, *LACRALO* does not and cannot exist absent an ICANN bye-law mandated action of the ALAC.

The MOU states clearly the joint commitments, *singly and severally*, of the parties to it.

The MOU, as signed, binds ICANN to six (6) commitments to the *LACRALO*. In turn, the ALSes labeled LACRALO, meaning all of us who signed the MOU, binds us, *singly and severally*, to five (5) distinct actions along with ICANN in pursuit of our joint commitments .

The truth is there is a gulf of a difference between the general Latin American and Caribbean understanding of the meaning of the word 'sovereign' in context.

As far back as 2006, we have invited and had interventions from ICANN legal staff to explain this. I am on the record repeatedly, attempting to align the facts with the general understanding. My last time was at Costa Rica. I was responding to the contents of a document filed with the Secretariat and comments in the General Assembly. And for my troubles, I was condemned as a liar in several places. The recordings and transcripts are all available for those who would wish details.

The records will show Cintra Sooknanan, a lawyer, has also pointed out the misuse of the term. So too, Lance Hinds and Roosevelt King.

...

From my reading of her writings and interventions, I believe Fatima Cambronera well understands the differences.

LACRALO is not and may not be 'sovereign'. Everything we might wish to do in context of names and numbers policy advocacy, advice and development is informed and limited by the signed MOU, which is itself subject to the powers and scope granted by the ICANN bye-laws and the LACRALO Rules of Procedure.

LACRALO may, if it so chooses, change its rules. The process to do so is described in its Rules of Procedure. And even if there was a move to change the rules of procedure, you must follow the process as defined in the rules. Lawyers and courts have a Latin term, 'ultra vires', to describe actions contrary to established rules.

Here's the compelling one. LACRALO cannot change ICANN bye-laws. And so any rule change that undermines or rubbishes ICANN bye-laws would make LACRALO a rogue and outside the parameters granted by the ICANN MOU.

If this ever happens, any signatory to the MOU, meaning any ALS, has standing and a duty of care to petition for grievance in this respect. And ICANN is duty bound to respond and act as the MOU and its bye-law compels it so to do.

Best,- Carlton ==============================

Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================

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

----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5200 - Release Date: 08/14/12

Bro Carlos: Reasonable men can always agree to disagree and remain agreeable. We disagree on this issue. Regardless, you still enjoy my respect and affection. Best, - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:25 AM, carlos dionisio aguirre < carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com> wrote:

My Dear Bro: On this opportunity I can`t share with you. I insist in my position* LACRALO is: independent and soverign*. As you said in your (wrong,for me ) interpretation, LACRALO can give rules itself and changes the same, so it shows it completely independent, dont have to respond to anybody. This sentence is clear: *"This Memorandum of understanding ("MOU")defines an agreement between the Signing Organizations and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Its intent is to establish, and define activities to be carried out by, the Latin America & Caribbean Regional At-Large Large Organization, and supported by ICANN."* *ICANN is another organization* as showed the paragraph before. For that reason we have a *MoU, because there are two organizations* related by this kind of contract or agreement. ICANN is based on the California Law, thats true, but this only affect the relationship with LACRALO, if LACRALO adopt some directive against this legal body (CAlifornia law). if not, MoU between two different organization remains alive in force. *LACRALO is constituted by Organizations*, and the *government body is it GA*, wich is *one delegate by each organization*. This is the explanation of the *"Signing Organizations" *sentence*. * Now LACRALO is supported by ICANN, according MoU, but this could change in the future, and *LACRALO* could follow being an *organization independent*, and *the most important: this was the idea .* *The idea from the begining was to have an independent organization in LAC region composed by End User*s, that was the motivation of LACRALO. We are not part of ICANN, wich could be the sense of that? *ICANN and the multistackeholder model no need uniformity*. And to build a diverse & democratic ecosystem ICANN need differents oppinion from different groups of opinion. LACRALO is one of them, composed by End Users organizations by LAC region. *ICANN need a LACRALO independent and soverign*. My personal opinion on that.

A warm, big and strong hug to you.

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org

------------------------------ From: carlton.samuels@gmail.com Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:41:48 -0500 Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] RES: OP To: carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com CC: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org

2012/8/10 carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com>

:rule that you mention doesnt apply in this case, because we have a specific rule. Ón the othe side LACRALO is not part of ICÁNN we only have a MOU signed, but we are independent of ICÁNN rules.

Regards

================================ My brother Carlos: See the highlighted portion of your text, as translated. In this case, I believe the interpretation is incorrect.

Your interpretation that LACRALO is 'independent' of ICANN rules is widely held in Latin America. Without a doubt, I believe it is responsible for declarations such as 'LACRALO is sovereign'.

Now, lawyers can and do disagree in interpretation of statute or documents. Case law confirms this situation. Add to this and in this context, the differences in legal histories and interpretative mechanisms of so-called 'common law' countries as in the Caribbean versus 'civil law' countries as predominant in Latin America. Here is a perfect example and another such case.

ICANN's premise is well defined in law. It exists as a 'public benefit' corporation under the laws of the state of California. When it registered as a legal entity, it filed its bye-laws with the State. Those bye-laws filed and accepted by the State of California binds and empowers its operations and actions.

This means ICANN's actions are only legal and enforceable to the extent they comply with its bye-laws.

LACRALO's premise is defined by the MOU signed with ICANN. That MOU is subject to the ICANN bye-laws; ICANN cannot make binding agreements that are injurious to its bye-laws.

This is the text that describes the "Purpose and Scope" of LACRALO in the MOU signed with ICANN: "This Memorandum of understanding ("MOU")defines an agreement between the Signing Organizations and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Its intent is to establish, and define activities to be carried out by, the Latin America & Caribbean Regional At-Large Large Organization, and supported by ICANN."

Note the term *"Signing Organisations"*.

Here's the definition of said 'Signing Organisations': "Organizations in the Latin America & Caribbean region certified by the ALAC as “At-Large Structures” that are signatories to this MOU.".

It is the *signing organisations*, meaning the ALSes, that enjoy the legal relationship with ICANN. In other words, LACRALO is purely a label for ease of reference that means 'all of us ALSes, acting together'.

The certification requirement for ALSes poses another hurdle. The power to accept and certify ALSes is ceded to the ALAC by way of the ICANN bye-laws. In other words, *LACRALO* does not and cannot exist absent an ICANN bye-law mandated action of the ALAC.

The MOU states clearly the joint commitments, *singly and severally*, of the parties to it.

The MOU, as signed, binds ICANN to six (6) commitments to the *LACRALO*.

In turn, the ALSes labeled LACRALO, meaning all of us who signed the MOU, binds us, *singly and severally*, to five (5) distinct actions along with ICANN in pursuit of our joint commitments .

The truth is there is a gulf of a difference between the general Latin American and Caribbean understanding of the meaning of the word 'sovereign' in context.

As far back as 2006, we have invited and had interventions from ICANN legal staff to explain this. I am on the record repeatedly, attempting to align the facts with the general understanding. My last time was at Costa Rica. I was responding to the contents of a document filed with the Secretariat and comments in the General Assembly. And for my troubles, I was condemned as a liar in several places. The recordings and transcripts are all available for those who would wish details.

The records will show Cintra Sooknanan, a lawyer, has also pointed out the misuse of the term. So too, Lance Hinds and Roosevelt King.

From my reading of her writings and interventions, I believe Fatima Cambronera well understands the differences.

LACRALO is not and may not be 'sovereign'. Everything we might wish to do in context of names and numbers policy advocacy, advice and development is informed and limited by the signed MOU, which is itself subject to the powers and scope granted by the ICANN bye-laws and the LACRALO Rules of Procedure.

LACRALO may, if it so chooses, change its rules. The process to do so is described in its Rules of Procedure. And even if there was a move to change the rules of procedure, you must follow the process as defined in the rules. Lawyers and courts have a Latin term, 'ultra vires', to describe actions contrary to established rules.

Here's the compelling one. LACRALO cannot change ICANN bye-laws. And so any rule change that undermines or rubbishes ICANN bye-laws would make LACRALO a rogue and outside the parameters granted by the ICANN MOU.

If this ever happens, any signatory to the MOU, meaning any ALS, has standing and a duty of care to petition for grievance in this respect. And ICANN is duty bound to respond and act as the MOU and its bye-law compels it so to do.

Best, - Carlton

============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================