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

Mon May 4 17:33:53 UTC 2015

From: "RICHARDS Megan (CNECT)" <Megan.Richards at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Megan.Richards at ec.europa.eu>>
Date: 4 May 2015 16:18:51 CEST
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
Cc: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>, "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Sorry but there is no intention (at least not from us) to change ICANN bylaws or the AoC (none of which by the way refer to "private sector led multistakeholder" approach). The point is to ensure that multistakeholder is exactly that : multistakeholder. The fact that ICANN is a private sector non-profit corporation does not change the nature of multistakeholder input (neither do any of the cited references which refer in differing circumstances to the activities or nature of ICANN as a "multistakeholder, private-led, bottom up organisation")

Sent from my iPhone

On 04 May 2015, at 15:55, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
Agree with Paul and Ed.

Removing the "private sector" qualifier is inconsistent with the existing bylaws (Core Values, #11), and sections #1, #4, and #8 of the Affirmation of Commitments.  It represents a significant and unacceptable modification of the status quo.

Thanks-

J.

From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
Date: Monday, May 4, 2015 at 8:20
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

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

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>

From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA at minetur.es]
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 8:08 AM
To: Julia Katja Wolman; Avri Doria; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Hi All

Spain would also like to stress our support for the use of the term "multistakeholder" without additional qualifiers.

Best

Rafa

De:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] En nombre de Julia Katja Wolman
Enviado el: lunes, 04 de mayo de 2015 13:34
Para: Avri Doria; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear all

I would like to echo my GAC colleagues  regarding the definition of the term "multistakeholder" to be used in the report. We (DK) agree that using the term "multistakeholder " without the qualifiers is preferable as the term in itself embraces all stakeholders.

Best,

Julia

Julia Katja Wolman

DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY

Dahlerups Pakhus
Langelinie Allé 17
DK-2100 København Ø
Telephone: +45 3529 1000
Direct: +45 35291308
E-mail: jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>

MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH

PPlease consider the environment before printing this email.

Fra:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af Kavouss Arasteh
Sendt: 2. maj 2015 18:16
Til: Avri Doria
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear Avri,
YES and Yes . I fully agree with what you said we just need to mention everywhere referenced " in a multistakeholder button up approach without any refernce to private or public..We are emerging more and more and should refrain to motivate any division or polarisation.
Regards
Kavouss

2015-05-02 17:28 GMT+02:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
Hi,

I too agree that the report should take a multistakeholder view that treats all ICANN stakeholders equally.

I do not think that it is necessary that that all stakeholders decide to do things in the same manner, but that the various options should be open to all stakeholders on an overall equal footing. I do not believe that all stakeholders have the same roles and responsibilities in each phase of every operation.  But in the overall process there needs to be a balanced and equal footing.  This is a goal in my view in all Internet Governance (IG) mechanisms.  ICANN is an organization that is closer to doing this in a open and  equal footing manner than most organizations in IG.  I think that it is is important in this Accountabilty work to be clear about that continuing goal.

I do not, however, wish to accidentally fall into the pattern where there is parity between 2 stakeholder grouping: private and public. Rather we need the full multistakeholder mix.  I think we should mention neither public nor private and just mention the diversity of stakeholder groups involved in ICANN.  The word multistakeholder should be sufficient.

avri

On 02-May-15 10:06, Olga Cavalli wrote:
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 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<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

________________________________
[Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/>

_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150504/9385e337/attachment.html>