[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
Pär Brumark
brumark at telia.com
Sun May 3 18:16:41 UTC 2015
Very well put Tijani! I agree 100%.
Pär Brumark
Z3
Tijani BEN JEMAA skrev den 2015-05-03 19:06:
>
> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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/
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/6_5_98dns.pdf> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert
> <rickert at anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>>, Mathieu Weill
> <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>, León Felipe
> Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>,
> Accountability Cross Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>>
> *Date: *Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM
> *To: *Accountability Cross Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>>
> *Date: *Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM
> *To: *Accountability Cross Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>>
> *Date: *Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM
> *To: *Accountability Cross Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto: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
> by*Saturday 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel
> malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!
> <http://www.avast.com/> est active.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150503/6306a1dc/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list