[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Sun May 3 15:36:34 UTC 2015

Robin
Tks
But this is an important issue either we delete the term and  just make it General and leave it to each individual to interprets it in the way she or he deems appropriate or put  the term in square bracket with an explanatory note as suggested
Regards
Kavouss
    

Sent from my iPhone

> On 3 May 2015, at 17:28, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 
> But this *isn't* a consensus document, as we explicitly say in the beginning.  There isn't agreement in this group on how to weight the various SO's and AC's relative to each other, so those who are suggesting one of the alternatives are providing the rationale for the proposal.  I'm concerned about crossing out the rationale for the proposal based on whether everyone in the group *agrees* with the proposal.  Is it really appropriate for those who disagree with a proposal to insist that its rationale not be included?  Aren't we supposed to be informing the community about why proposals were made and not claiming we are all agree with every proposal in the document?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
>> On May 3, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Jon
>> Yes
>> Let us discuss it .
>> I also humbly and respectfully disagree with you and your argument.
>> Should we disagree to reconcile then I propose  to  put " private led" in a square bracket with a note saying that 
>> " no consensus was reached on the retention or deletion of this tern.
>> Let us be practical.
>> At this very late hours we hardly could resolve it if you do not agree for deletion
>> Several others agreed with tgat deletion,
>> We certainly do not agree with the retention of that term 
>> Explicit Square bracket is the the only solution 
>> Best regard
>> Kavouss
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On 3 May 2015, at 17:04, Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.co> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Kavouss:
>>> 
>>> I did read your message.  I respectfully disagree with it.  This is not an issue with which to be impartial or neutral.  It is a fundamental tenet of the multi-stakeholder model that should not be ignored in the document.  If being explicit about it would polarize the folks on the list or those reviewing these accountability recommendations, so be it.  Let's have the debate and settle the issue.  We should not sweep the proverbial dust under the rug on an issue that is a core value to the model.  Being explicit should not create animosity, but rather clarity of expectations.  The NTIA was explicit in 2014 when it announced the transition.  I don't see why we shouldn't be as well.  
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Jon
>>> 
>>>> On May 3, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Jon,
>>>> Icann Bylaws is not a holly book
>>>> It was written many yaears ago ,We arae amending bylaws according  the draft .
>>>> Perhaps you did not raed my message.
>>>> What we should say should be neutral and impartial. It is quite clear that private sector or private entities contributing to the activities in a considerable manner  than perhaps other entities . This does not necessirily requires that we explicily prefer one group to other group or explictly focuss the attention to one group vis a vis other group.
>>>> Like YOU I am also in favour of private contributions which has been till now erormous but I do not want to polarize the society or stakeholder.
>>>> With or without that term the Internet will be developped then why we create an atmosphere of division and polarization ,
>>>> If the organisation has been let by private nothing will prevent that to continue without saying that explictly.
>>>> Let us be practical pragmatic, neutral, impèartial, inclussive and democratic.
>>>> Let us be together . Let us be united . The issue is not critical that we would obliged to specifically mention that.
>>>> I request you to kindly carefully read my analysis and in view of the fact that nothing prevent the private entities to contribute or led the organization but not spell it out and creating division polarization divergence and animosity
>>>> I spent 42 years dealing with similar matter. If we can reconcile why not you are right . every body is right but once again let us not to be divided.
>>>> Kavouss 
>>>>  t  
>>>> 
>>>> 2015-05-03 16:14 GMT+02:00 Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.co>:
>>>>> With respect, I don't support the deletion of the words "private" or "private-led" in the context of the concept of multi-stakeholderism and the report.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is clear from ICANN Bylaws (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en) that the organization is to be led privately, while at the same time receiving important advice from the governments.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Section 2  Core Values
>>>>> 11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Similarly, the NTIA announcement on the transition specifically mentions that it should be privately led:  "The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government 'is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.'”  
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jon
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 2, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear Co chair,
>>>>>> The message that I sent you and supported by others needs to be implemented.
>>>>>> I strongly oppose top any discriminatory terms, expressions motivations attepmting to polarize the community in " Private led " por " public led" or any other divding terms to be used as an adjective for Multistakeholder. It is to be noted that a group of people even disagree with multistakeholer approach .Then let us try to convince them that the multistakeholder approach is widely agreed by many but and but without the use of and adjective such as " private led" .
>>>>>> If this important issue is not taken on board there will be considerable opposition to the entire report.
>>>>>> This is the issue of " to be " or " not to be" a biary approach yes with the report provided that the term " private led" in 4 or 5 places in the report is deleted .
>>>>>> You are kindly urged to acknowledge receipt of this message and ensure of the proper ,neutral, impartial treatment of all categories of multistake holder and
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Kavouss  
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Date: 2015-05-02 16:06 GMT+02:00
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
>>>>>> To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> thanks for the draft.
>>>>>> I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits.
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Olga
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> IMPORTANT AND URGENT
>>>>>>> Dear co-chairs,
>>>>>>> Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments
>>>>>>> I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now.
>>>>>>> I therefore do not wish to delay the work.
>>>>>>> However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail.
>>>>>>> That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led  multistakeholder”  organization or process.
>>>>>>> This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) .
>>>>>>> I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term.
>>>>>>> All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL  be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have   a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders.
>>>>>>> In view of the above, I urge you to  kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating  various categories of the stakeholders.
>>>>>>> There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder  are referred to in the doc.
>>>>>>> Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that.  Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference.
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Kavouss
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>> I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached.
>>>>>>>> The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere  throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc.
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>:
>>>>>>>>> Thanks Grace.  
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dear CCWG, 
>>>>>>>>> Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best, 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Sam
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi all, 
>>>>>>>>> Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today.  If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all.
>>>>>>>>> Have a good weekend, 
>>>>>>>>> Grace
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM
>>>>>>>>> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dear all, 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits,
>>>>>>>>> Grace
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dear all, 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Version 10 incorporates the following: 
>>>>>>>>> Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC
>>>>>>>>> Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler)
>>>>>>>>> Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations
>>>>>>>>> Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs 
>>>>>>>>> Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list bySaturday 2 May 01:00 UTC (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. 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. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Almost there!
>>>>>>>>> — Grace 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 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/20150503/6b4e2473/attachment.html>