[CCWG-ACCT] Proposed text to add to public comment document

[Drazek, Keith]

I recall we had a lengthy discussion on the term "private sector" during our chartering process for the CCWG. It is not meant to exclude users or governments from participation. In this context, it is used to clarify that the management of assigned names and numbers is "not a governmental function."

Regards,
Keith


On Apr 30, 2015, at 12:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:

I have a real problem with this.

There is no doubt that the private sector has been a major and influential component since its inception, but it is similarly true that governments and users (albeit in varying models) have been an integral component of ICANN. Our roles may be different, but our roots go as deep, and the import of the public interest in ICANN cannot and should not be swept under the carpet.

Alan

At 28/04/2015 08:05 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
As requested in our call today, below is proposed text for various parts of the draft public comment document.

Section 6.6.1.2
p. 54 add to end of (f):
"It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector."
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150430/e39525da/attachment.html>