[CCWG-ACCT] The CCWG and external self-interest

Wed Jan 6 19:21:46 UTC 2016

George,

I’m confused. My e-mail was directly related to and sought to clarify the summary of public comments/analysis circulated by Alice, which included the public comment by Heritage. That summary includes public comments by a number of individuals and organizations. Is it your position that none of those comments should be included?

Best,

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] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 1:59 PM
To: ICANN Board; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] The CCWG and external self-interest

Folks,

Brett Schaefer is one of the least personally annoying people on the CCWG.  However, this message of his displays openly what is happening.

Brett is arguing below that it is the Heritage Foundation's position that must be noted as part of the record.  In other words, Brett openly is a representative of the Heritage Foundation, and NOT the ICANN constituency from where he came.  I don't know which one, but it really doesn't matter.

Many of the CCWG members seem to be representing their personal points of view, or justifying it on the basis of congruence with their own external organization rather than on the basis of positions within their internal ICANN constituency that they represent.

To the extent that this is happening, it's just outrageous There is no other word for it.

George

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On behalf of Co-Chairs - Public comment summary/analysis
Date: January 6, 2016 at 11:44:06 AM EST
To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>, "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>>

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/<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<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<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<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613>

Thank you

Best regards

Mathieu, Thomas, León

_______________________________________________
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<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/20160106/7660e604/attachment-0001.html>