<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Texte brut Car";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:Consolas;}
span.TextebrutCar
{mso-style-name:"Texte brut Car";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Texte brut";
font-family:Consolas;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=FR link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#365F91'>Good morning Byron,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#365F91'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#365F91'>My understanding is that the chair(s) of
the drafting team will make a call for approval to all chartering organizations.
I already circulated the latest version to the ALAC list asking for comments. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#365F91'>Also, you are referring to the version
circulated by Marika, but there were several versions circulated by Marika. Now
that you are asking for the chartering organizations approval, it is better to
attach the version you want them to approve to avoid any confusion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#365F91'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#365F91'>So, I’m ready to call for the
approval of ALAC if you prefer this way of working. But I need you to send the
version approved by the ccNSO.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#17365D'>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='color:#17365D'>Tijani BEN JEMAA<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#17365D'>Executive Director<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#17365D'>Mediterranean
Federation of Internet Associations </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:
12.0pt;color:#17365D'>(<b>FMAI</b>)</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:
13.0pt;color:#17365D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#17365D'>Phone: + 216 41 649 605<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#17365D'>Mobile: + 216 98 330 114<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#17365D'>Fax: + 216 70 853 376<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#17365D'>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span
style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#365F91'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>-----Message d'origine-----<br>
De : cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Byron Holland<br>
Envoyé : jeudi 21 août 2014 22:26<br>
À : Marika Konings; Julie Hammer; Avri Doria<br>
Cc : cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org<br>
Objet : Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter</p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Dear All - I just want to follow-up on the status of the
charter. Though I agree to reinserting the words "Accountability for the
administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability),
however, is properly within the scope of this working group" into the
draft, I had already circulated the version without these to my council.
However, I am pleased to report that at our meeting this morning the ccNSO
Council approved the charter and that these words were discussed and reinserted
at that time. So the version that Marika circulated on Monday is that which
was approved by the ccNSO Council. Could I ask the other SO/AC representatives
send this version to their chairs with the news that it has been approved by
the ccNSO Council. I will undertake to send it to Heather Dryden, as chair of
the GAC. I would appreciate being kept informed of the status of the approval
process in these other groups. I also undertake to send it to representativ<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> es of the Internet protocols and addressing communities
so that they might understand where we stand.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Finally, let we add my thanks and congratulations to the
drafting team for your hard work in producing such a quality document in such a
short period of time. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Byron<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Sent: August-18-14 11:27 AM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>To: Byron Holland; Julie Hammer; Avri Doria<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Dear All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Based on the comments on the mailing list as well as
initial feedback from<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the GNSO Council list, there is support for adding back
in the sentence<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>that was deleted in section II last paragraph of the
scope section as<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>pointed out by Chuck, namely: ""Accountability
for the administration of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational
accountability),<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>however, is properly within the scope of this working
group." For your<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>convenience, please find attached a revised version of
the charter that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>includes this sentence for distribution to your groups.
Should any<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>additional comments come in from your respective groups,
you may want to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>relay these to the DT so it can be determined whether
further changes are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>needed / desirable, noting that the further along the
consideration of the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>charter by the different groups goes, the more time it
may take to pull<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>back the charter and incorporate possible changes to make
sure all groups<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>adopt the same version. As in this case it concerns a
sentence that was<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>probably inadvertantly deleted, hopefully it will not
cause any major<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>issues.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Marika<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>On 14/08/14 18:15, "Byron Holland"
<byron.holland@cira.ca> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>I was about to hit 'send' to circulate the draft
charter to my council.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>But seeing these comments, and being in agreement
with them, I have taken<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>the liberty of replacing our paragraph under
'Relationship to ICANN<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>Accountability Review Process' with the words used by
the ICG. I have<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>attached both a 'track changes' version and a 'clean'
version.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>But now I must really send this out to my council.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>Byron<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On
Behalf Of Julie Hammer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>Sent: August-14-14 10:31 AM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>To: Avri Doria<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>Hi Avri,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>Thanks for the feedback and sorry to hear you've been
getting a hard time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>Re Milton's comments about our wording, I agree that
the ICG Charter is<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>essentially saying the same thing that we are, but
probably more<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>eloquently. If there is strong feeling about our
language, I would not<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>object to using the same (probably better language)
as the ICG in our CWG<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>charter.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>Cheers, Julie<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>On 14 Aug 2014, at 11:54 pm, Avri Doria
<avri@acm.org> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>On 13-Aug-14 10:46, Allan MacGillivray wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> Milton Mueller has even characterized it as
being 'impressive'<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/>.
Congratulations to everyone who<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> worked on it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>Perhaps, but he is slamming me for it now.
Indicating that we missed a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>chance to link the CWG to the Transparency work.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> I am wondering why this statement on
accountability seems to assume<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> that there is "no linkage" between
ICANN accountability and IANA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> accountability, when, in fact, there is.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> "Any linkages between the work of the CWG
on the IANA transition and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> the broader ICANN Accountability Review Process
with regard to ICANN<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> policy are outside the scope of this group's
work. Accountability for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> the administration of the IANA functions (i.e.,
implementation and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> operational accountability), however, is
properly within the scope of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> this working group."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> The ICG charter handled this relationship in a
much better way:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> " The IANA stewardship transition process
is taking place alongside a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN
accountability.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> While maintaining the accountability of Internet
identifier governance<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> is central to both processes, this group's scope
is focused on the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> arrangements required for the continuance of
IANA functions in an<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> accountable and widely accepted manner after the
expiry of the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two
processes are interrelated<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> and interdependent and should appropriately
coordinate their work."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>I have argued:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> I think they both say a similar thing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> - the greater ICANN accountability is seperate -
accountability<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> related to IANA is in scope<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> On 13-Aug-14 17:32, Dan Krimm wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>>> So, if one accepts as true the notion that
each jurisdiction's<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>>> results will affect the other jurisdiction
significantly, then even<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>>> if the specific working groups have narrow
scope of authority and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>>> jurisdiction, they still ought to be talking
to each other along the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>>> way, perhaps cross-pollinating each other
with ideas and monitoring<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>>> each others' progress.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> I do. I think that making IANA accountability
part of the CWG's work<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> it accepts the challenge of coordinating them.
And maybe even going<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> further than passive coordination.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> Another point, is that IANA accountability is
what counts in this<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> case, and while unlikely that some entity other
than ICANN will end up<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> ultimately responsible for IANA, the
accountability requirements for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> that function stand separate and should apply to
whatever entity ends<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> up responsible, next year or in 10 years. As
such this group could<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> come up with requirements that do not
immediately fall inside whatever<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> it is we end up doing about ICANN accountability
- remember the note<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> we just sent about the ICANN accountability
processes seeming rigged.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> This is a good topic for discussion, and should
be brought up in the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> GNSO council discussions by our council members
(myself included) if<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> we continue to find it problematic.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>and repsonse from Milton<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> The statement of the ICG is even stronger than
Dan suggests. We said:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> "the two processes are interrelated and
interdependent and should<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> appropriately coordinate their work."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> This is not just "talking to each
other" and "cross pollinating, it<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> suggests that they are interdependent and thus
should coordinate. An<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> extreme example of such interdependency and
coordination would be to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> not complete the transition until certain
commitments are made on the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> broader accountability process. I am afraid the
CWG charter sets up<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> the false notion that the two things are
completely detached and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> separate processes, which is exactly what ICANN
wants and exactly what<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> advocates of accountability don't want.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> I don't understand why Avri is not seeing this
and offering apologias<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>> for the oversight in the CWG charter.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>cheers,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>avri<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="http://www.avast.com/">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection <a href="http://www.avast.com/">Antivirus avast!</a> est active.
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>