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

Sun May 3 18:50:59 UTC 2015

Tijani,

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I respectfully disagree, though, with
your assertion that 'private sector' in the context of ICANN's governing
documents equates to business. It does not.

I think it is important to emphasis that ICANN currently is defined, as
Avri and I and others have pointed out,  in it's Bylaws and in the AOC as a
private sector led multi-stakeholder organization. The ICANN you are "proud
of" is one defined in this way. I would question the need to change that
which by your own admission works. I would fear that those outside the
community, those whose goodwill we need to finalise the transition, would
question the removal of the word 'private'. I believe some would ask
whether this was an attempt to leave open the future possibility of a
'public sector led multi-srtakeholder model.' If I were not personally
involved in this process it certainly would be a question I would ask and
probably would do so in a pejorative way. I see no reason in the current
context of things to change the status quo.

Ed

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <
tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn> wrote:

>  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 *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>
> 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 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
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>    <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/20150503/9b6c0388/attachment.html>