<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Thanks for the quick turnaround. Here's a few comments and proposed edits to this draft. <div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Robin</div><div><br></div><div><div><b><u>Section 2.6.1.1</u></b></div><div>1. This exact sentence is repeated twice in this section (para 2 and para 6). Please delete it from the end of para 2:</div><div>"In preparing for the environment that emerges.... is not an option."</div><div><br></div><div>2. under 4 e. (p. 38):</div><div>We need to qualify this claim as "as per California law" or the public commenters will surely point it out for us, and rebuke us for not realizing, being US-centric in our legal thinking, and overstating UA protections to the international community.</div><div><br></div><div>3. under 5 (p.38):</div><div>This sentence should stand alone as its own bullet point (as per agreement to this in this week's call). The sentence is important enough to stand on its own and it doesn't neatly tie to the preceding sentence in this para:</div><div>"Legal counsel further advises that the SO's and AC's should organize themselves into UAs in both corporate governance models, whether a designator or a membership structure, to ensure their ability to enforce their rights."</div><div><br></div><div>4. para 6 (p. 38):</div><div>Both sentences in this bullet are duplicates of what was said above. Delete this para as it is repetitious and no new info provided.</div><div><br></div><div><b><u>Section 2.6.1.2</u></b></div><div><br></div><div>5. Para 179 (d):</div><div>Please add the rationale onto the end of the sentence that explains why this alternative was proposed. </div><div>It should read: "It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN, which is rooted in the private sector."</div><div>This *is* the rationale for why it was proposed, even if some don't agree with the conclusion, it should be provided as the rationale (as the bullet claims to provide the rationale).</div><div><br></div><div><b><u>Glossary at the End:</u></b></div><div><br></div><div>6. para 779 (p.96) - Description of the GNSO is factually incorrect in several ways. Here's a corrected version:</div><div>"The GNSO is the body responsible for developing policy recommendations regarding GTLD policy matters to ICANN's Board. The GNSO is comprised of 4 stakeholder groups: non-commercial users, commercial users, registries, and registrars."</div><div><br></div><div>7. para 836 (p. 101) - SO's are NOT "advisory" bodies. AC's are "advisory" bodies - hence the "A" in their name. SO's develop policy recommendations, so they should be correctly described as "policy development bodies" in this para.</div><div><br></div><div>8. In general, some of the paragraphs on the organizations, SO's, and AC's in the glossary read like commercial advertisements for them (especially ICANN's). I doubt that this is the appropriate forum for some of the promotional text in these group's "bios", but am more focused on editing substantive points herein.</div><div><br></div><div>That's all! Thank you.</div><div><br></div><div><div>On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div style="font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Dear all, </div><div style="font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). </div><div style="font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Version 10 incorporates the following: </div><ul style="font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li>Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC</li><li>Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler)</li><li>Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations</li><li>Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs </li></ul><div><font color="#ff0000">Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list by<b> <span style="font-size: 16px;">Saturday 2 May 01:00 UTC</span></b></font> <font color="#ff0000" style="font-size: 14px;">(24h from now)</font>. Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. <i style="font-size: 14px;">If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the <u>clean</u> version so that they are <u>clearly marked and visible</u>. </i>There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits. </div><div style="font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px;">Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane. </div><div style="font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Almost there!</div><div style="font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">— Grace </div><div style="font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div></div>
<span><CCWG-Draft-Proposal-V10-clean.docx></span><span><CCWG-Draft-Proposal-V10-clean.pdf></span><span><CCWG-Draft-Proposal-V10-redline.docx></span><span><CCWG-Draft-Proposal-V10-redline.pdf></span>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>