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

Mon May 4 22:14:38 UTC 2015

James and all,

Nobody asked to change the bylaws and remove the mention of Private Sector.
At least, I didn’t. What is needed is not add in the report a new mention to
Private sector.

I’m not government, and I don’t think that all those who didn’t want this
mention added to the report are governments. Insinuating that those asking
for the removal of the mention of private sector are from governments may
lead to another insinuation that those in favor of keeping it are from
private sector
.

I know neither the first insinuation nor the second are correct, and I think
that it is not productive. Let’s count on the good faith of all the CCWG
members 

I’m civil society and end user, and I strongly believe that the
multi-stakeholder model will definitely fail if it doesn’t include all the
stakeholders: Private sector (contracted parties and business sector),
at-large community, GAC, and all the other components of the ICANN
community. The magic word is “multi-stakeholder”.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

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
James M. Bladel
Envoyé : lundi 4 mai 2015 14:53
À : Paul Rosenzweig; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May
at 01:00 UTC

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>
Date: Monday, May 4, 2015 at 8:20 
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org"
<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

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

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
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] 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
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
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] På vegne af
Kavouss Arasteh
Sendt: 2. maj 2015 18:16
Til: Avri Doria
Cc: 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>: 

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>: 

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  

  _____  

 <http://www.avast.com/> Image supprimée par l'expéditeur. Avast logo

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
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/20150504/4a30c49a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150504/4a30c49a/WRD000.jpg>