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

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Dear Co-Chairs,

I am quite sure that not all governments want to eliminate the phrase "private sector" from the discussion and would like to see this allegation supported by evidenvce, never mind as to their reasons thereto.

Government control is not being debated here, participation is, and the report, not a by-law change.

I dislike even government participation, but it is a fact of life that they are Significantly Interested Parties. 


We do not signal nothing of the kind, we signal that we have understood the concept of multistakeholder approach.

Either we do multistakeholder or we don't.

el
-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6


> On May 4, 2015, at 14:20, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
> Of course, all the governments want to eliminate the phrase “private sector” from discussion, even though it has been part of the ICANN Bylaws and AOC for dozens of years.  I would too if I were in their shoes.  As a non-government person who reads the NTIA conditions as critically emphasizing only one thing – the absence of future government control – I would see the elimination of a phrase that has been in the system for a long time as signifying a change in practice.  Clearly the governments do too – that’s why they want it eliminated.  If we make this change we signal to the world that the governments will have a bigger role than they do now, and we jeopardize the transition altogether.  Ed Morris is right – this is a change we should not make …
>  
> Paul

[...]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150504/2bec7cd7/attachment.html>