November 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
by David Post Nov. 23, 2015

Nov. 23, 2015

Bruce One question: The Board suggests that if language i adopted that says "ICANN shall not impose regulations on services (i.e., any software process that accepts connections for the Internet) that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide ..." there might be some existing registry agreements that would be "out of compliance with ICANN's responsibilities." I'd be curious to know what the Board is concerned with there - what parts of which registry agreements might be affected (and made non-compliant) by this language? With respect to that same "regulations on services" language, the Board says that it is "unclear," and asks for "some examples of what the CCWG believes that ICANN should and should not be able to do." I agree that the "services" language isn't clear at the moment. Here's my attempt to capture the point that I think is being made: ICANN should not be allowed to impose -- directly or indirectly, via its contracts -- obligations on persons or entities whose only connection to the DNS is that they use a domain name for Internet communication. I think it's pretty straightforward. I use a domain name (davidpost.com) for Internet communication. The idea -- and I think pretty much everyone agrees with this? - is that ICANN can't impose any obligations on me that affect how I operate the site, what content I host or don't host, what goods or services I can or cannot offer, what billing system I use for those goods and services, what anti-virus software I install, ... It can't do that directly (by imposing some contract terms on me itself) or indirectly (by getting 3d parties like the registries or registrars to impose the obligations on me). Registries and registrars, of course, are not entities "whose only connection to the DNS is that they use a domain name for Internet communication," so this clause shouldn't affect ICANN's ability to impose obligations on them (which remains limited by other portions of the Mission Statement). David David At 02:12 AM 11/19/2015, Bruce Tonkin wrote: >Hello All, > >The Board has been considering the CCWG Update on Progress Made In >and After ICANN54 in Dublin published on 15 Nov 2015. > >The Board information call today considered the changes to the >mission statement identified in that update. > >Attached is the Board's preliminary comments on the mission >statement part of the Dublin update report. As we review the >remainder of that Update, we'll send through additional comments. > >Regards, > >Bruce Tonkin > >ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG > > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >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 book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************

8 10

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
by David Post Nov. 23, 2015

Nov. 23, 2015

The problem with the current "services clause" - "ICANN shall not impose regulations on services (i.e., any software process that accepts connections for the Internet) that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide ..." - is that it doesn't mean what it says; because registrars/registries are "services that use the Internet's unique identifiers," and because we recognize that ICANN can and does "impose regulations" on them ... I had proposed a revised "sevices clause" : ICANN should not be allowed to impose -- directly or indirectly, via its contracts -- obligations on persons or entities whose only connection to the DNS is that they use a domain name for Internet communication. A couple of people raised a problem: What about the obligation that ICANN already imposes, through the RAA, on domain holders to provide accurate WHOIS data? Am I suggesting they can't do that? No, I'm not. I suspect there's agreement that ICANN should be permitted to do this - but why? Where does ICANN's authority to impose these obligations on name holders (but not others) come from? It comes, n my opinion, from its ability to implement consensus policies reasonably necessary to insure the security/stability of the DNS, developed by consensus. ICANN can impose these obligations on the holder of the davidpost.com domain because the WHOIS policy is one for which "uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS; and was developed through a bottomup, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process." As I've said before, I think this is already captured in the Mission Statement; but since others think we should have an additional clarifying prohibition, it could read: "ICANN should not be allowed to impose -- directly or indirectly, via its contracts -- obligations on persons or entities whose only connection to the DNS is that they use a domain name for Internet communication, except for implementation of policies for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS; and which are developed through a bottomup, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems." David >From: David Post <<mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com>david.g.post(a)gmail.com> >Date: Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 4:39 PM >To: Bruce Tonkin ><<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >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 > >Bruce > >One question: The Board suggests that if language i adopted that >says "ICANN shall not impose regulations on services (i.e., any >software process that accepts connections for the Internet) that use >the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services >carry or provide ..." there might be some existing registry >agreements that would be "out of compliance with ICANN's >responsibilities." I'd be curious to know what the Board is >concerned with there - what parts of which registry agreements might >be affected (and made non-compliant) by this language? > >With respect to that same "regulations on services" language, the >Board says that it is "unclear," and asks for "some examples of what >the CCWG believes that ICANN should and should not be able to do." > >I agree that the "services" language isn't clear at the >moment. Here's my attempt to capture the point that I think is >being made: ICANN should not be allowed to impose -- directly or >indirectly, via its contracts -- obligations on persons or entities >whose only connection to the DNS is that they use a domain name for >Internet communication. > >I think it's pretty straightforward. I use a domain name >(davidpost.com) for Internet communication. The idea -- and I think >pretty much everyone agrees with this? - is that ICANN can't impose >any obligations on me that affect how I operate the site, what >content I host or don't host, what goods or services I can or cannot >offer, what billing system I use for those goods and services, what >anti-virus software I install, ... It can't do that directly (by >imposing some contract terms on me itself) or indirectly (by >getting 3d parties like the registries or registrars to impose the >obligations on me). > >Registries and registrars, of course, are not entities "whose only >connection to the DNS is that they use a domain name for Internet >communication," so this clause shouldn't affect ICANN's ability to >impose obligations on them (which remains limited by other portions >of the Mission Statement). > >David > > > >David > > > >At 02:12 AM 11/19/2015, Bruce Tonkin wrote: >>Hello All, >> >>The Board has been considering the CCWG Update on Progress Made In >>and After ICANN54 in Dublin published on 15 Nov 2015. >> >>The Board information call today considered the changes to the >>mission statement identified in that update. >> >>Attached is the Board's preliminary comments on the mission >>statement part of the Dublin update report. As we review the >>remainder of that Update, we'll send through additional comments. >> >>Regards, >> >>Bruce Tonkin >> >>ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 >book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n >music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications >etc. http://www.davidpost.com >******************************* ******************************* 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 ******************************* ******************************* 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 62

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
by David Post Nov. 22, 2015

Nov. 22, 2015

At 07:41 PM 11/20/2015, Bruce Tonkin wrote: >I have asked the legal staff at ICANN to provide some examples. > >Here is one that occurs to me though. The current new gTLD >registry agreements in Specification >5 >(http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved…) >have a provision that restrict the ability of a registrant to >register a country or territory name, or names relating to the >International Olympic Committee; International Red Cross and Red >Crescent Movement. > >These are examples of content in domain names that have some >restrictions. There are no technical or security reasons for such >restrictions. The restrictions have been put in place on the basis >of "public policy" advice from the GAC. So let's take the two examples of restrictions that ICANN already imposes on registrants: (1) the obligation to provide accurate WHOIS information, and (2) restrictions on the registrants' ability to use certain strings in their domain names. ICANN can take down a domain that fails to comply with these requirements. Let's assume we agree that these are appropriate exercises of ICANN's power - that ICANN can legitimately impose restrictions/obligations "like these" on registrants. At the same time, I assume everyone also agrees that ICANN should NOT be permitted to impose restrictions/obligations/regulations on registrants that are not "like these" - that it can't use its power over the Amazon.com domain name to tell Amazon what kind of products and services it can or cannot offer, or how it has to deal with fraud complaints, or what privacy protections it needs to include in its operations; for things "like that." ICANN should NOT have the power to take down the domain (directly or indirectly, i.e. by requiring registrars to do the takedown for them). So the problem is how to reconcile these two positions - to articulate why the first set is OK but the second isn't. In may mind - and if this is too simple-minded, I apologize - the answer is: the former concerns the registrants' activities that directly affect the content of the DNS databases themselves, while the latter do not. The UDRP is a good example of how this line works, for me. ICANN does have the power to set up a process to resolve disputes over domain names, because the outcomes of those disputes necessarily and inherently affect the content of the DNS databases directly. ICANN does not have the power to set up a process to resolve disputes over consumer fraud complaints, because the outcomes of those disputes do not affect the content of the DNS databases. David ******************************* 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 *******************************

2 1

Addressing future scenarios in the present
by Seun Ojedeji Nov. 22, 2015

Nov. 22, 2015

Hello, Just thought I should share this interesting situation in one of the states in my country: There was a governorship election yesterday and the electoral commission declared the result inconclusive, due to the difference in the votes of the 2 top candidates. The leading candidate died after announcement of the election status. There then arise a question about what the next action could be: - The constitution has a provision for installing the deputy governor if the governor elect dies, but in this case there is no governor elect yet. - The electoral act has a provision to replace a candidate who dies before the election, but in this case election has been conducted just that it's inconclusive and electoral body is yet to announce next step of action. The legislative arm of government cannot update constitution overnight to address this scenario neither can such be done on the electoral act. It remains a puzzle that has been left in the hands of the judicial system of the country to address. Why are my saying all these, it's to emphasis that one may not be able to capture all the possible scenarios until they are experienced and when they are experienced, the board and community should be ready to address them on case basis, including updating the governing document if applicable. It is my hope that we face this realistically going forward. Thanks for reading the short story,(apologies in advance if this annoys anyone) do have a wonderful week ahead. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

2 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary
by tijani.benjemaa＠topnet.tn Nov. 22, 2015

Nov. 22, 2015

Jordan, I think for the Fundamental Bylaws modification, the Board (or the community) proposes the modification In case the community proposes the modification It should go through the escalation process we described for the other powers to trigger the modification process, consult about its pertinence, formulate the proposal and then decide to submit the proposal, but perhaps with other thresholds then, and if the board accepts the proposal, it will put it to public comment In case the Board is the trigger of the modification, the community should go through the escalation process to approve or reject the proposal. In both cases, I do think the discussion in the community forum would be important for the following reasons: The community proposal would be well discussed so that the consensus to submit the modification would be easier to reach The community position on a board proposal to modify the fundamental bylaws would be better taken and the rationals better developed after a deep discussion in the community forum. Also, an alternative proposal could be discussed there. In both cases, I don’t see why we should skip the community forum. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Association (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 Fax: +216 70 853 376 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

CCWG - Third Draft Proposal with annexes - First full version for CCWG comments (1 of many emails due to size)
by Bernard Turcotte Nov. 21, 2015

Nov. 21, 2015

All, As per the schedule please find attached in separate files the third draft of the CCWG-Accountability Proposal and all its core annexes. We have opted to present it as separate files for ease of consideration. The core proposal file is aptly named CWG-3rdMainProposalV3.0 and all the Annex file names conveniently start with the word Annex and the number matches the recommendation . You will quickly realize that the main proposal is very closely based on the Update that was published on the 15th of November. Its slightly bigger at about 50 pages vs 30 for the update document. Some of the texts have been updated or replaced given the work that was carried out in developing the annexes however the core content has not changed - simply how we present it. A good part of the size increase is due to the comparative chart of the Mission and Core values which takes up 7 pages, but we felt it was critical content which needed to be in the main proposal. Graphics have been updated and new ones added which also accounts for some of the increase. Each Recommendation also now has a Detailed Recommendations section which tries to clearly identify what will need to be done for the specific Recommendation to be implemented. These changes by themselves probably account for the majority increase in volume. Each Annex has 4 sections completed , Summary, Detailed Recommendations, Explanation, Changes from the 2nd Draft. The summary is intended to be a high level functional summary of the recommendation and can sometimes be the same as the text in the main proposal. Detailed Recommendations should be the same as in the main proposal. The 3rd section is where the detailed content is. As an example we essentially copied the IRP section from the second draft into the detail section of the annex 7 on IRP. The 4th section Changes is a high level summary of changes from the second draft.There are additional sections but these are still under development. Given the size of the project and the schedule we hope you will understand that staff has only been able to do a first pass at editing these. As such final formatting has not been done and there will certainly be some spelling, grammar and other types of nits. Before being finalized the documents will be scrubbed by editors, writers and formatters. As you can see we have all the appropriate resources that will do their usual great editing job and as such we do not require everyone to volunteer to be our copy editors. It is also important to understand that line edits are a big problem for staff given not everyone works to the same standards and multiple line edited versions of the same document, as we learned in the comment exercise on the Update document, can be divergent and require an incredible amount of work to reconcile into a single version - which for the volume of work we are considering in this phase would make it impossible.So please, everyone, and especially our legally minded collaborators, no line edits. We are however looking forward to comments about content, are the recommendations clear and correctly presented, is there enough information in the main document, if not what is missing, is there too much information, what is that, Is the material organized and structured in an effective format. This is what we need at this point. Therefore we look forward to your comments, as per the above caveats, on this draft by 23:59UTC Monday November 23rd. B ernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support. for the co-chairs and staff.

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Third Draft Proposal with annexes - First full version for CCWG comments (5 of many emails due to size)
by Bernard Turcotte Nov. 20, 2015

Nov. 20, 2015

Annexes 8,9,10 and 11 B. On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Annex 4 > > B. > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Bernard Turcotte < > turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> All, >> >> As per the schedule please find attached in separate files the third >> draft of the CCWG-Accountability Proposal and all its core annexes. >> >> We have opted to present it as separate files for ease of consideration. >> >> The core proposal file is aptly named CWG-3rdMainProposalV3.0 and all the >> Annex file names conveniently start with the word Annex and the number >> matches the recommendation >> . >> >> You will quickly realize that the main proposal is very closely based on >> the Update that was published on the 15th of November. Its slightly bigger >> at about 50 pages >> >> vs 30 for the update >> >> document. Some of the texts have been updated or replaced given the work >> that was carried out in developing the annexes however the core content has >> not changed - simply how we present it. A good part of the size increase is >> due to the comparative chart of the Mission and Core values which takes up >> 7 pages, but we felt it was critical content which needed to be in the main >> proposal. Graphics have been updated and new ones added which also accounts >> for some of the increase. Each Recommendation also now has a Detailed >> Recommendations section which tries to clearly identify what will need to >> be done for the specific Recommendation to be implemented. These changes by >> themselves probably account for the majority increase in volume. >> >> Each Annex has 4 sections >> completed >> , Summary, Detailed Recommendations, Explanation, Changes from the 2nd >> Draft. The summary is intended to be a high level functional summary of the >> recommendation and can sometimes be the same as the text in the main >> proposal. Detailed Recommendations should be the same as in the main >> proposal. The 3rd section is where the detailed content is. As an example >> we essentially copied the IRP section from the second draft into the detail >> section of the annex 7 on IRP. The 4th section Changes is a high level >> summary of changes from the second draft.There are additional sections but >> these are still under development. >> >> Given the size of the project and the schedule we hope you will >> understand that staff has only been able to do a first pass at editing >> these. As such final formatting has not been done and there will certainly >> be some spelling, grammar and other types of nits. >> >> Before being finalized the documents will be scrubbed by editors, writers >> and formatters. >> >> As you can see we have all the appropriate resources that will do their >> usual great editing job and as such we do not require everyone to volunteer >> to be our copy editors. It is also important to understand that line edits >> are a big problem for staff given not everyone works to the same standards >> and multiple line edited versions of the same document, as we learned in >> the comment exercise on the Update document, can be divergent and require >> an incredible amount of work to reconcile into a single version - which for >> the volume of work we are considering in this phase would make it >> impossible.So please, everyone, and especially our legally minded >> collaborators, no line edits. >> >> We are however looking forward to comments about content, are the >> recommendations clear and correctly presented, is there enough information >> in the main document, if not what is missing, is there too much >> information, what is that, Is the material organized and structured in an >> effective format. This is what we need at this point. >> >> Therefore we look forward to your comments, as per the above caveats, on >> this draft by 23:59UTC Monday November 23rd. >> >> B >> ernard Turcotte >> ICANN Staff Support. >> >> for the co-chairs and staff. >> >> >

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Third Draft Proposal with annexes - First full version for CCWG comments (4 of many emails due to size)
by Bernard Turcotte Nov. 20, 2015

Nov. 20, 2015

Annexes 5,6,7 On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > All, > > As per the schedule please find attached in separate files the third draft > of the CCWG-Accountability Proposal and all its core annexes. > > We have opted to present it as separate files for ease of consideration. > > The core proposal file is aptly named CWG-3rdMainProposalV3.0 and all the > Annex file names conveniently start with the word Annex and the number > matches the recommendation > . > > You will quickly realize that the main proposal is very closely based on > the Update that was published on the 15th of November. Its slightly bigger > at about 50 pages > > vs 30 for the update > > document. Some of the texts have been updated or replaced given the work > that was carried out in developing the annexes however the core content has > not changed - simply how we present it. A good part of the size increase is > due to the comparative chart of the Mission and Core values which takes up > 7 pages, but we felt it was critical content which needed to be in the main > proposal. Graphics have been updated and new ones added which also accounts > for some of the increase. Each Recommendation also now has a Detailed > Recommendations section which tries to clearly identify what will need to > be done for the specific Recommendation to be implemented. These changes by > themselves probably account for the majority increase in volume. > > Each Annex has 4 sections > completed > , Summary, Detailed Recommendations, Explanation, Changes from the 2nd > Draft. The summary is intended to be a high level functional summary of the > recommendation and can sometimes be the same as the text in the main > proposal. Detailed Recommendations should be the same as in the main > proposal. The 3rd section is where the detailed content is. As an example > we essentially copied the IRP section from the second draft into the detail > section of the annex 7 on IRP. The 4th section Changes is a high level > summary of changes from the second draft.There are additional sections but > these are still under development. > > Given the size of the project and the schedule we hope you will understand > that staff has only been able to do a first pass at editing these. As such > final formatting has not been done and there will certainly be some > spelling, grammar and other types of nits. > > Before being finalized the documents will be scrubbed by editors, writers > and formatters. > > As you can see we have all the appropriate resources that will do their > usual great editing job and as such we do not require everyone to volunteer > to be our copy editors. It is also important to understand that line edits > are a big problem for staff given not everyone works to the same standards > and multiple line edited versions of the same document, as we learned in > the comment exercise on the Update document, can be divergent and require > an incredible amount of work to reconcile into a single version - which for > the volume of work we are considering in this phase would make it > impossible.So please, everyone, and especially our legally minded > collaborators, no line edits. > > We are however looking forward to comments about content, are the > recommendations clear and correctly presented, is there enough information > in the main document, if not what is missing, is there too much > information, what is that, Is the material organized and structured in an > effective format. This is what we need at this point. > > Therefore we look forward to your comments, as per the above caveats, on > this draft by 23:59UTC Monday November 23rd. > > B > ernard Turcotte > ICANN Staff Support. > > for the co-chairs and staff. > >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Third Draft Proposal with annexes - First full version for CCWG comments (3 of many emails due to size)
by Bernard Turcotte Nov. 20, 2015

Nov. 20, 2015

Annex 4 B. On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > All, > > As per the schedule please find attached in separate files the third draft > of the CCWG-Accountability Proposal and all its core annexes. > > We have opted to present it as separate files for ease of consideration. > > The core proposal file is aptly named CWG-3rdMainProposalV3.0 and all the > Annex file names conveniently start with the word Annex and the number > matches the recommendation > . > > You will quickly realize that the main proposal is very closely based on > the Update that was published on the 15th of November. Its slightly bigger > at about 50 pages > > vs 30 for the update > > document. Some of the texts have been updated or replaced given the work > that was carried out in developing the annexes however the core content has > not changed - simply how we present it. A good part of the size increase is > due to the comparative chart of the Mission and Core values which takes up > 7 pages, but we felt it was critical content which needed to be in the main > proposal. Graphics have been updated and new ones added which also accounts > for some of the increase. Each Recommendation also now has a Detailed > Recommendations section which tries to clearly identify what will need to > be done for the specific Recommendation to be implemented. These changes by > themselves probably account for the majority increase in volume. > > Each Annex has 4 sections > completed > , Summary, Detailed Recommendations, Explanation, Changes from the 2nd > Draft. The summary is intended to be a high level functional summary of the > recommendation and can sometimes be the same as the text in the main > proposal. Detailed Recommendations should be the same as in the main > proposal. The 3rd section is where the detailed content is. As an example > we essentially copied the IRP section from the second draft into the detail > section of the annex 7 on IRP. The 4th section Changes is a high level > summary of changes from the second draft.There are additional sections but > these are still under development. > > Given the size of the project and the schedule we hope you will understand > that staff has only been able to do a first pass at editing these. As such > final formatting has not been done and there will certainly be some > spelling, grammar and other types of nits. > > Before being finalized the documents will be scrubbed by editors, writers > and formatters. > > As you can see we have all the appropriate resources that will do their > usual great editing job and as such we do not require everyone to volunteer > to be our copy editors. It is also important to understand that line edits > are a big problem for staff given not everyone works to the same standards > and multiple line edited versions of the same document, as we learned in > the comment exercise on the Update document, can be divergent and require > an incredible amount of work to reconcile into a single version - which for > the volume of work we are considering in this phase would make it > impossible.So please, everyone, and especially our legally minded > collaborators, no line edits. > > We are however looking forward to comments about content, are the > recommendations clear and correctly presented, is there enough information > in the main document, if not what is missing, is there too much > information, what is that, Is the material organized and structured in an > effective format. This is what we need at this point. > > Therefore we look forward to your comments, as per the above caveats, on > this draft by 23:59UTC Monday November 23rd. > > B > ernard Turcotte > ICANN Staff Support. > > for the co-chairs and staff. > >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Third Draft Proposal with annexes - First full version for CCWG comments (2 of many emails due to size)
by Bernard Turcotte Nov. 20, 2015

Nov. 20, 2015

Annexes 1,2 and 3 B. On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > All, > > As per the schedule please find attached in separate files the third draft > of the CCWG-Accountability Proposal and all its core annexes. > > We have opted to present it as separate files for ease of consideration. > > The core proposal file is aptly named CWG-3rdMainProposalV3.0 and all the > Annex file names conveniently start with the word Annex and the number > matches the recommendation > . > > You will quickly realize that the main proposal is very closely based on > the Update that was published on the 15th of November. Its slightly bigger > at about 50 pages > > vs 30 for the update > > document. Some of the texts have been updated or replaced given the work > that was carried out in developing the annexes however the core content has > not changed - simply how we present it. A good part of the size increase is > due to the comparative chart of the Mission and Core values which takes up > 7 pages, but we felt it was critical content which needed to be in the main > proposal. Graphics have been updated and new ones added which also accounts > for some of the increase. Each Recommendation also now has a Detailed > Recommendations section which tries to clearly identify what will need to > be done for the specific Recommendation to be implemented. These changes by > themselves probably account for the majority increase in volume. > > Each Annex has 4 sections > completed > , Summary, Detailed Recommendations, Explanation, Changes from the 2nd > Draft. The summary is intended to be a high level functional summary of the > recommendation and can sometimes be the same as the text in the main > proposal. Detailed Recommendations should be the same as in the main > proposal. The 3rd section is where the detailed content is. As an example > we essentially copied the IRP section from the second draft into the detail > section of the annex 7 on IRP. The 4th section Changes is a high level > summary of changes from the second draft.There are additional sections but > these are still under development. > > Given the size of the project and the schedule we hope you will understand > that staff has only been able to do a first pass at editing these. As such > final formatting has not been done and there will certainly be some > spelling, grammar and other types of nits. > > Before being finalized the documents will be scrubbed by editors, writers > and formatters. > > As you can see we have all the appropriate resources that will do their > usual great editing job and as such we do not require everyone to volunteer > to be our copy editors. It is also important to understand that line edits > are a big problem for staff given not everyone works to the same standards > and multiple line edited versions of the same document, as we learned in > the comment exercise on the Update document, can be divergent and require > an incredible amount of work to reconcile into a single version - which for > the volume of work we are considering in this phase would make it > impossible.So please, everyone, and especially our legally minded > collaborators, no line edits. > > We are however looking forward to comments about content, are the > recommendations clear and correctly presented, is there enough information > in the main document, if not what is missing, is there too much > information, what is that, Is the material organized and structured in an > effective format. This is what we need at this point. > > Therefore we look forward to your comments, as per the above caveats, on > this draft by 23:59UTC Monday November 23rd. > > B > ernard Turcotte > ICANN Staff Support. > > for the co-chairs and staff. > >

1 0