[CCWG-ACCT] On behalf of Co-Chairs - Public comment summary/analysis

[Phil Corwin]

Fully in agreement that a more effective DIDP must be available to all participants in ICANN. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 11:44 AM
To: Alice Jansen; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On behalf of Co-Chairs - Public comment summary/analysis

Alice,

Thank you for this. The Heritage Foundation’s opposition to full GAC participation in the empowered community was not noted in the Rec 1 analysis. As stated in our comment, we think that GAC should be strictly advisory.

On Rec 7 analysis, I’m concerned that our position may be misunderstood. We support including DIDP in an appeals process, but we are very much against restricting it to the engagement, escalation, and enforcement staircase because that process is dependent on the Empowered Community. DIDP appeals need to be accessible to everyone, not just the SOACs, and appeals should not require SOAC approval at any threshold. This may require moving DIDP appeals to the request for reconsideration process.

On Rec 11, the one sentence summary gives the impression that we support Rec 11. We do not and offered specific proposals on how to change the text to address our concerns, which were not included in the Rec 11 analysis.

Best wishes,

Brett

________________________________
Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 9:04 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] On behalf of Co-Chairs - Public comment summary/analysis

On behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs


Dear all,

Attached to this email you will find a staff produced summary and analysis of the public comments received on our Draft Proposal.
In preparation for our January discussions, we encourage you to read the document as well as comments available for full reference at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/. Note: a download all page is available at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613
Please note that we cannot convert the spreadsheet into a PDF, the tabs and spreadsheet being too large. Thank you for your understanding.
Staff will post the summary on the public forum box on Friday, 8 January - https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en. In the meantime, it is located on your wiki at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613

Thank you

Best regards

Mathieu, Thomas, León
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160106/a058a008/attachment.html>