[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
Tijani BEN JEMAA
tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn
Sun May 3 17:06:47 UTC 2015
Jon,
The multi-stakeholder approach has its roots: you sure remember when all
international (intergovernmental) meetings were always held in comfortable
rooms while the other stakeholders and especially the civil society
activists, demonstrated in the street near the meeting buildings, with the
police pushing them and having incidents with them reaching in certain cases
the death of some activists.
The millennium summit found that it will be better to have those noisy
people inside the room rather than making trouble in the street, and the
first experience of accepting all stakeholders in the meetings was the world
summit on information society (WSIS). Nobody thought that it will be
possible to make them work with the governments in an organized and
efficient manner, but it happened. I will not be long on how we created an
organizational structure (Civil Society Bureau) and a content and themes
structure for the preparation of the substantial contributions, and how we
surprised the ITU (organizer) and the governments by the seriousness and the
depth of our participation.
The WSIS was organized in a multi-stakeholder fashion, the stakeholders
were:
· Governments
· Private sector (Business)
· Civil Society
· International Organizations
The second experience was the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) where the
multi-stakeholder model was fully applied, with the same 4 stakeholders
participating on an equal footing, while in the WSIS, we were considered as
observers, and we could only give written contributions or sometimes we were
given 5 minutes at the end of the session.
I consider that the best use of the multi-stakeholder model is in ICANN, and
I’m proud of it. It is not the private sector model. It is multi-stake
holder where Governments, private sector (contracted parties and business
sector), ccTLDs, technical community, end users, etc. have their say. If you
call all those stakeholders “private sector”, I think there is a problem of
terminology. If you consider that only the private sector should have a say,
this is a different thing. But I’m sure this is not your intention.
Since we all agree on the multi-stakeholder model, let’s call it by its
name: “multi-stakeholder”. And if we want it to be more detailed, we can
mention all the stakeholders that compose the ICANN community.
I apologize for this long mail. I hope I made things clearer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: + 216 41 649 605
Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
Fax: + 216 70 853 376
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Jon
Nevett
Envoyé : dimanche 3 mai 2015 16:05
À : Kavouss Arasteh
Cc : accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2
May at 01:00 UTC
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
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/6_5_98dns.pdf> 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
---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150503/e236b9ff/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list