<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Some comments on the draft report. - Robin<div class=""><br class="">p. 5: Somehow in the draft, we are seeing a new definition for WS1 that seems to imply CCWG is operating on an external timeline, however, that has never been the case. We better go back to the definition that we’ve had for WS1 for the first two draft reports and all discussions up until now. I don’t know how we are seeing a new definition for WS1 for the first time at this late stage in any event. This has been the agreed definition of WS1 items in our previous reports and discussions that we should revert to:<br class=""><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">"Work Stream 1 is the CCWG-Accountability’s work on changes to ICANN’s accountability arrangements which must be in place, or committed to, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition.”</b> <br class=""><br class="">P. 5: the text about ICANN’s corporate interest should be deleted.</div><div class=""><br class="">P. 8: It should read “CCWG-Accountability external legal counsel <b class=""><i class="">with assistance from</i></b> the ICANN legal legal team will draft final language for these revisions to the Articles….”</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">p.10 on transparency, we should cite the specific California Code Section and the transparency rights found therein which we are trying to obtain (Section 6333).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">p.23: The text says individual SOAC’s “recommend” the removal of their board appointee, however they do more than “recommend” such a decision, they actually take that decision, so as drafted with the word “recommend” it is ambiguous and seems to imply SOACs don’t have the final decision.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">p. 33: I support the following bracketed text: “ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties<b class=""><i class=""> in service of </i></b>its mission.”</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">p. 44: I do not support the inclusion of the following items in WS2: - consider what effect, if any this Bylaws will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC.”</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">p. 54-55: We need to clarify that the two transparency listed are not the only ones we look at in WS2. We had said all along we want to instill a culture of transparency at ICANN in WS2, so only looking at the DIDP, whistle-blower policy, and govt interactions would be woefully limiting. We should say these transparency issues for WS2 “include” those items, but are not limited to them. Also we seem have let the improvements to the ombudsman’s office slip from WS2. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I do not like how minority views are tacked-on at the very end of the document after all appendices, glossaries, stress tests, etc. This seems to be burying dissent in a mountain of papers that will not be read. Minority views should be an appendix on their own with the other appendixes.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""></div></div></body></html>