November 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

IRP implementation oversight team EIO
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 25, 2015

Nov. 25, 2015

Dear all, Forwarding this Expression of Interest to the full list for the record on behalf of Malcolm Hutty. Thank you, Brenda I would like to be considered for the IRP implementation oversight team. For this role, I would identify three particular areas of expertise that are relevant: (1) subject matter knowledge, (2) technical expertise in the construction of such decisional systems, and (3) experience with development of drafting of rulesets and procedures that implement principles that were previously agreed (and that honour the compromises made when agreeing those governing principles). Colleagues will recognise my close participation in the WG2 discussions that led to the principles we seek to implement, and thus my understanding of the CCWG's expectations. I believe that my role of twelve years as the public policy lead for a national trade association (and more than seven with an international trade body) has given me extensive experience in the latter two areas; I submit more details in support of this claim below. Finally, like many here, I have prior experience working across stakeholder groups and across national and cultural boundaries. My primary role is with the business community (ISPs), which are a part of business closely related to the Internet technical community. Although I have never been directly employed by my own government (UK), I have on occasion been asked to speak and negotiate on its behalf in an international intergovernmental setting. I have even, "in a previous life", worked for a public interest advocacy group. If selected, I look forward to contributing to this crucial phase of drafting the actual text that will give effect to this element of the CCWG's report. Kind Regards, Malcolm.

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18
by James M. Bladel Nov. 25, 2015

Nov. 25, 2015

Thank you Suzanne & NTIA. J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Radell, Suzanne" <SRadell(a)ntia.doc.gov<mailto:SRadell@ntia.doc.gov>> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 16:33 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18 Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18 November 25, 2015 NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN's accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC's Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG's efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship. We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA sradell(a)ntia.doc.gov<mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov> 202-482-3167

1 0

AGENDA - Call #70 - 26 Nov @ 14:00 UTC
by Alice Jansen Nov. 25, 2015

Nov. 25, 2015

Dear all, In anticipation of your call #70<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56148222> - Thursday, 26 November from 14:00-16:00 UTC (time converter<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting&…>), please find below a proposed agenda: 1. Welcome, Roll-Call, SoI 2. Confirmation of Mission language 3. Confirmation of decision threshold 4. Stress test 18 5. Response to Board comments 6. Survey and outreach 7. AOB Link to Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Best regards Alice

2 1

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #69 - 24 November
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 25, 2015

Nov. 25, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #69 - 24 November will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/zLxYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM - Co--Chairs to discuss and get back to group (under ST18) Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Finalizing Third Draft Proposal We are not looking for line edits. WP1 update Two calls dedicated to discussing feedback on report. Most of input was received on email. We talked about: - 7 powers community IRP and IANA Functions reviews; - Issues around transparency and document inspection; - Decision threshold table to be added to section on powers; - Gaps on decision-making - proposal to treat Articles of Incorporation as Fundamental Bylaws; - Scope of incorporation of activities. Language was proposed by lawyers; - Extension of timetable for petitions - Decision threshold. Decision needed here Decision threshold Original numbers in threshold were set up when there were 7 SO/ACs participating but now there are 5. Problem is that threshold might be too high. See page 2 for suggestion on how to deal with this. Dublin compromise is that we have put several layers of compromise before decision phase. We have created recipe for powers being too high to use. Attempted effect does not work. We should move to slightly lower threshold. Feedback: - How do we define particpating? Move to a compromise decision: 3 in favor and 4th one does not object. --> Participating is supporting or objecting. This proposal would allow single SO/AC to block power. - Concerned that half of the communitiy does not want to participate. What if down to three and four opted out? --> Situation where 1 of 5 SO/ACs not able to come to decision within timeframe, lowering threshold to 3. Risk that we have made it too hard to use. - With 3 SO/ACs already in support is strong. - We are talking about participating about 5 listed in diagram - now participating is casting vote/decision. Need to use different terminology. WP2 Update New language on mission. We intend to clarify but not change ICANN's mission. Feedback: - Items in picket fence that was developped prior to consensus policy. There are things in contracts that are not specified but deal with content. --> We are not talking about invalidating language currently available in RAA or registry remit. ICANN has ability to develop consensus policies and enforce those as long as within remit of issues. There are provisions with respect to gTLDs that are within applicant guidebook. - There should be language edit that we are not touching existing arrangements. --> Not changing any rights under existing contracts. Directing drafting attorneys to embrace picket fence that is currently incorporated into agreements. - Idea that we can write language that any future picks will be accepted is precisely what mission is trying to prevent. - Ending in right direction - Grandfathering will be added to this language ST18 A group was convened to assess options and provide a summary to the group. See slide-deck. Feedback: - This puts Board in a difficult position. It holds up policy process. It has to have full consensus. Proposal make things worse. None of these are viable for US Congress. --> What is consensus position or not is not embedded into particular figures. - Ambiguous language in both proposals (towards rough consensus) is ambiguous. EU GAC members' proposal would be a compromise. Alternative would be to allow 2/3 only in case whether there is no objection from GAC. --> 2/3 only in case whether there is no objection from GAC raised significant concerns. - Use significant instead of formal --> Formal is existing language from operating principle 47. - In favor of replacing with significant. It is important that we maintain GAC influence on Board advice and not make changes to existing practice. Support giving more clarity to existing practice. Compromise proposal would be closer to what we can support. - We are forgetting what ST18 is about. ST18 us about problem that GAC can change operating rules and not require full consensus. Keith's amendment seems to be status quo. We are not going to achieve agreement. CONCLUSION - On compromise language: 18 agree 7 disagree ACTION ITEM - Co--Chairs to discuss and get back to group Timeline We need to get recommendations approved by mid-January. According to current timeline we are slightly past that. Feedback: - Board will likely submit comment mid December that will raise issues. How will we incorporate issues into report. - Public comment period should close on Jan 8. CONCLUSION: We will maintain our current timeline and aiming for public comment to close on December 21 AOB We will keep Thursday call on agenda: - Finalization Third Draft Proposal - ST 18 report - If comments show further assessment of issues needed, we will discuss, as needed. No circulation of fourth draft to list with exception of ST 18 and mission. Comment from lawyers will be circulated to the list. Documents * DOC: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56147148/2015-11-18-Decisi… x?version=1&modificationDate=1448346103000&api=v2> 2015-11-18-Decision-Making-Thresholds.docx | PDF: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56147148/2015-11-18-Decisi… ?version=1&modificationDate=1448346150000&api=v2> 2015-11-18-Decision-Making-Thresholds.pdf * PPT: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56147148/Mission%2023%20No… on=1&modificationDate=1448347251000&api=v2> Mission 23 Nov.pptx | PDF: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56147148/Mission%2023%20No… n=1&modificationDate=1448347280000&api=v2> Mission 23 Nov.pdf * PPT: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56147148/ST18%20subgroup%2… version=1&modificationDate=1448348615000&api=v2> ST18 subgroup report Nov 23.pptx | PDF: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56147148/ST18%20subgroup%2… ersion=1&modificationDate=1448348642000&api=v2> ST18 subgroup report Nov 23.pdf * PDF: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56147148/CCWG%20Timeline%2… odificationDate=1448351512000&api=v2> CCWG Timeline.pdf

1 0

IRP implementation oversight team EIO
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 25, 2015

Nov. 25, 2015

Dear all, Forwarding this Expression of Interest to the full list for the record on behalf of Becky Burr. Thank you, Brenda Please consider this my formal Expression of Interest (EOI) to participate in the small group drafting the operational details to implement the CCWG Accountability proposals with respect to the Independent Review. My resume is attached. In sum, I am a corporate attorney with over 25 years experience in technology and Internet law. I was an adjunct professor of law at George Washington University Law Center from January 2003 to May 2015. I am currently Deputy General Counsel at Neustar. I have been involved in DNS governance matters since before ICANN's formation and, in 1998, formally recognized, on behalf of the US Department of Commerce (NTIA), ICANN as the private sector entity to which responsibility for coordinating the DNS' system of unique identifiers would be transferred. As the head of NTIA's Office of International Affairs (OIA), I negotiated the original MOU between ICANN and the DOC, the original IANA functions contract, and the original registry and registrar agreements between ICANN and Verisign, which included the original formulation of Consensus Policy, otherwise known as the "Picket Fence." Following my tenure with the US government I returned to private practice at Wilmer Cutler Pickering (later WilmerHale). As a volunteer serving ICANN's Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) processes, I drafted the original Independent Review charter in 2002 - and identified at the time serious deficiencies in the IRP. I am extremely familiar with the operations of the IRP, both the positive and the negative, having served as counsel to ICM, Inc., and participating in ICM's successful invocation of the IRP as a witness. As a member of the CCWG, I have served as the rapporteur for Work Stream 2, including development of the proposed revisions to ICANN's Mission Statement, Commitments & Core Values and the revised IRP. Becky Burr J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / <http://www.neustar.biz> neustar.biz

1 0

IRP implementation oversight team EIO
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 24, 2015

Nov. 24, 2015

Dear all, Forwarding this Expression of Interest to the full list for the record on behalf of Robin Gross. Thank you, Brenda I would like to participate on the IRP implementation oversight team. I have been an active participant in the CCWG Working Party 2, which devised the new IRP, so have a decent understanding of what is called for in its subsequent implementation. I am also an attorney, licensed in the state of California for 16 years with significant experience in dispute resolution procedures. Thank you. Best, Robin Gross

1 0

advice/recommendation vs. decision making
by Avri Doria Nov. 24, 2015

Nov. 24, 2015

Hi, Neither advice nor a recommendation is a decision. Both can be rejected by some margin in the Board's decision making. The two words indicate the same level of decision making. While nuance may be found in the definitions of advise and recommend, their relation to another being the decision maker is identical. Currently neither AC nor SOs have decision making capability. In so far as community powers are decision making capabilities, both SO and AC are being offered change from the advice/recommendation role to a decision making role on key ICANN issues. SO are also being given an extension in scope as they are being given a decision making role outside their areas of direct responsibility. I think that cutting this knot, may be easier done if we avoid self-aggrandizing the roles of our SO/AC while denigrating the role of other AC/SO. The attempt we are involved in, is gaining a decision making role for the community which non of us individually as SO/AC currently has. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

3 2

Jan-Aart Scholte comments - Third Draft Proposal with annexes - First full version for CCWG comments
by Alice Jansen Nov. 24, 2015

Nov. 24, 2015

FYI - please find attached comments Jan Aart Scholte shared with Co-Chairs on Monday, 23 November. Kind regards Alice

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
by David Post Nov. 24, 2015

Nov. 24, 2015

Well, this is illuminating ... I take it that at least you and Greg (and perhaps others) think that it is within ICANN's power to enforce, via its power over the DNS entries, local pornography laws, or consumer protection laws, or defamation laws, or ... on the grounds that registrants have to promise not to infringe any rights of any third parties in any activity they undertake "on the website to which the domain points." So ICANN can set up a Pornography Dispute Resolution Procedure, a Consumer Protection Dispute Resolution Procedure, a Defamation Dispute Resolution Procedure, to enforce these promises that registrants have supposedly made and to take down violators. My response is: I don't think they have that power at present, I don't think they have had that since the beginning of (ICANN) time, and I sure as heck don't want to them to have it once they are in control of the root and USG oversight is removed. David At 10:51 AM 11/23/2015, Silver, Bradley wrote: >David, > >Thatâs an overly narrow reading of RAA 3.7.7.9 >Â - its not only that the registration of the >Registered Name infringes or its âdirect >useâ, but also that the manner in which is >indirectly is used.Â I canât see how the >âindirectâ use of the domain cannot also be >attributed to infringing uses on the website to >which the domain points. Â If thatâs not at >least an âindirectâ use, I donât know what >is. Â Â While I agree with your conclusion, I >donât agree with the reasoning, and I expect >there are others (like Milton) who would like to >see the clear meaning of the language of 3.7.7.9 >changed through the application of the âno regulationâ sentence.Â > >Bradley > >From: David Post [mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com] >Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 10:37 AM >To: Burr, Becky >Cc: Alan Greenberg; Silver, Bradley; Greg >Shatan; Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Cross Community >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement > >At 10:03 AM 11/23/2015, Burr, Becky wrote: > > >Are we seriously arguing that RAA 3.7.7.9 is outside the picket fence? > >No, I don't think this was out of scope, because >it concerns the "registration" of the name and >the manner in which THE NAME is used. 3.7.7.9 >does not say, in my opnion, that the registrant >has to promise that it is not doing anything at >a website that is infringing; the promise is >that the name is not being used in an infringing manner. > >D > >At 10:03 AM 11/23/2015, Burr, Becky wrote: > > >Are we seriously arguing that RAA 3.7.7.9 is outside the picket fence? > >Section 3.7.7.9 of the RAA has been in place >from the beginning of time. Here is the language from the 2001 RAA: >3.7.7.9 The Registered Name Holder shall >represent that, to the best of the Registered >Name Holder's knowledge and belief, neither the >registration of the Registered Name nor the >manner in which it is directly or indirectly >used infringes the legal rights of any third party. >Here it is in the 1999 RAA: >7. g. The SLD holder shall represent that, to >the best of the SLD holder's knowledge and >belief, neither the registration of the SLD name >nor the manner in which it is directly or >indirectly used infringes the legal rights of a third party. > >As someone who was part of the team drafting and >negotiating the 1999 RAA, I can assure you that >the inclusion of this requirement in the RAA was >intended to be within the scope of ICANNÃ¢s Mission. > > >J. Beckwith Burr >Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer >1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 >Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 >/ <http://www.neustar.biz>neustar.biz > >From: Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > >Date: Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 10:06 PM >To: "Silver, Bradley" ><<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com> >Bradley.Silver(a)timewarner.com>, Greg Shatan ><<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > >, "Mueller, Milton L" <<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>milton(a)gatech.edu> >Cc: Accountability Community ><<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement > >I rarely fill people's mailboxes just to do this, but in this case; > >+1 > >Alan > > >At 22/11/2015 08:31 PM, Silver, Bradley wrote: > > >I want to echo and support GregÃÂ¢s >resposposponse below. MiltonÃÂ¢s position >that an en existinting provision of the RAA is >out of the scope of ICANNÃÂ¢Ã¢Ã¢Â¢s mission >is illuminating. sp; I had been operating on the >(hopeful) presumption that what we were >attempting to do was find a way to describe >ICANNÃÂ¢s missionion in a manner that >refleflects its current activities, and avoid >drafting anything that could adversely impact >its continued ability to do so while clearly >preventing any undue expansion. If those who >support the language in the second sentence are >seeking a way to attack the validity or >enforceability of existing contractual >provisions, then the concerns of the board are >not only well founded, they are grossly understated. > >From: ><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org >[ >mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] >On Behalf Of Greg Shatan >Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 3:01 AM >To: Mueller, Milton L >Cc: Accountability Cross Community >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement > >Milton, > >I strongly disagree that 3.7.7 is out of scope >of ICANN's mission. I also don't think it's >useless, nor is it an uncommon provision in many >terms of service and similar agreements. 3.7.7 >only asks for the registrant's "knowledge and >belief" -- so they are not required to know >whether they are infringing anywhere under any >jurisdiction. They are only required to make >reference to what they already know -- an >entirely reasonable and ordinary requirement. > >Is it your intent that the new provision we are >discussing places 3.7.7 out of scope, and thus >serves as a basis for an IRP or other challenge >seeking to nullify 3.7.7? Since 3.7.7 is only >an "example," what other sections are you trying to place out of scope? > >Thanks. > >Greg > >On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Mueller, Milton >L <<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>milton(a)gatech.edu> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > See section 3.7.7 of the registrar accreditation agreement (RAA): > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en > > > > > 3.7.7.9 The Registered Name Holder shall represent that, to the best of the > > Registered Name Holder's knowledge and belief, neither the registration of > > the Registered Name nor the manner in which > it is directly or indirectly used > > infringes the legal rights of any third party. > >Bruce: this is a good example of how the RAA is >currently out of scope. To begin with, it is a >completely useless element of the RAA. This >statement does not stop anyone from doing >anything, and it does not require ICANN to >determine whether a registrant is infringing >someone's rights. And how is anyone supposed to >know whether the way they use a domain infringes >the legal rights of a third party - anywhere in >the world, under any jurisdiction? They cannot >know this until and unless someone asserts >those rights against them in a legal system >which has jurisdiction and can make a legal >determination. Or do we want ICANN to be making >this determination? Most would agree that we do >not. So what is the purpose, other than to >invite ICANN to impose controls or regulations >on virtually anything that happens on the internet? > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >================================================================= >Reminder: Any email that requests your login >credentials or that asks you to click on a link >could be a phishing attack. If you have any >questions regarding the authenticity of this >email or its sender, please contact the IT >Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ><mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com>ITServices(a)timewarner.com > > >================================================================= > >================================================================= >This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. >and is intended only for the use of the >addressee(s) and may be legally privileged >and/or confidential. If the reader of this message >is not the intended recipient, or the employee >or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended >recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any >dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, >or any method of copying of this information, >and/or the taking of any action in reliance on >the information herein is strictly prohibited >except by the intended recipient or those to whom >he or she intentionally distributes this >message. If you have received this communication in >error, please immediately notify the sender, and >delete the original message and any copies >from your computer or storage system. Thank you. >================================================================= >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >******************************* >David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation >blog (Volokh Conspiracy) ><http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post>http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post >book (Jefferson's >Moose) ><http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n > >music ><http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0>http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic >publications >etc. <http://www.davidpost.com />http://www.davidpost.com >******************************* > >================================================================= >Reminder: Any email that requests your login >credentials or that asks you to click on a link >could be a phishing attack. If you have any >questions regarding the authenticity of this >email or its sender, please contact the IT >Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ><mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com>ITServices(a)timewarner.com > > >================================================================= > >=================================================================This >message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and >is intended only for the use of theaddressee(s) >and may be legally privileged and/or >confidential. If the reader of this messageis >not the intended recipient, or the employee or >agent responsible to deliver it to the >intendedrecipient, he or she is hereby notified >that any dissemination, distribution, printing, >forwarding,or any method of copying of this >information, and/or the taking of any action in >reliance onthe information herein is strictly >prohibited except by the intended recipient or >those to whomhe or she intentionally distributes >this message. If you have received this >communication inerror, please immediately notify >the sender, and delete the original message and >any copiesfrom your computer or storage system. >Thank you.================================================================= ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************

18 34

What happened to the "Principles" section of the Second Draft?
by Greg Shatan Nov. 24, 2015

Nov. 24, 2015

In reviewing the Third Draft, the "Principles" section of the Second Draft seems to have disappeared entirely. This section contained a number of important parts of our proposal, and is an integral part of the overall proposal. I anticipate a response that these recommendations have somehow been parceled out and absorbed into other sections of the Third Draft, but even a spot-check show that this is clearly not the case. It appears that our quest for readability has resulted in significant and difficult to find changes to the substance of our proposals. This undermines the proposal as a whole and makes the job of reviewing this draft much harder. I am deeply concerned. Greg

3 3