De : David W. Maher [mailto:dmaher@pir.org]
Envoyé : mercredi 31 décembre 2014 19:03
À : Tijani BEN JEMAA; 'Grace Abuhamad'; 'Accountability Cross Community'
Cc : 'Brenda Brewer'
Objet : Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December

Dear all,

First of all, I apologize again for being prevented from attending the last call. It was out of my control.

I received the call output sent by grace and listened to the adobe recording.

·         There was a deep silence during the period of report from Avri (WA 3) and Eric (WA 4) on the adobe recording. There is nothing related to those 2 work areas on the wiki.

o   Why the voice was removed on the adobe recording? Was it intended?

o   Why WA 3 and 4 didn’t have material on the wiki as it was for WA 1 and 2?

I found the rules for engagement with advisors pretty good, except that I find the procedure described in Page 3 of the presentation too formal. My understanding is that those advisors will integrate the CCWG and attend all meetings where everything is recorded. So why we need a so formal procedure for asking for advise and why we need a point of contact for clarification, etc. It gives me the impression that they will be in a closed office, and we deal with them through interfaces.

Work Area 1: the table is exhaustive; nevertheless, I have the following remarks:

·         Advisory Mechanism:

o   SSAC:  How can the ICANN community accountable to SSAC?

o   RSSAC: same remark: how can the ICANN Community to RSSAC?

·         Contractual requirements:

o   Registry & registrar agreements: I believe that the registries/registrars are accountable to ICANN (add ICANN to the column “to whom”)

·         I agree with Bladel that  a column should be added where we indicate whether each existing mechanism is worth keeping or not in future?

Work Area 2:

·         While I am a strong supporter of human rights, I want it to be Chrystal clear that any aspect of human right related to the Internet content can not apply here because ICANN is not about content at all. All other human rights that are not related to content can be included in the public interest in my PoV. That’s why I don’t agree on replacing “in the public interest” by for protection and advance of human rights and Internet Freedoms”.

·         The Ombudsman is an internal trusted intermediary and all his work should remain internal.

·         Why ICANN should remain subject to US Law?

·         I don’t know who is transparency International, and if they are so exceptional in auditing, why they don’t do so for the other ICANN components such as the Board?

Those are few remarks. I would like to thank the Working Areas 1 & 2 leaders for the wonderful work they did.

See you today on the call

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

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

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

• ACTION: contact Grace if you still have not received an account or uploaded your SOI
• ACTION - WA1: DIDP to be added to table per Doria's suggestion
• ACTION - WA2: Doria to cross check the document and add recommendations from ATRT1 and ATRT2
• ACTION - WA2: Add a column to flag what has been requested by other communities and specifically the 3 items that were requested by the CWG.
• ACTION - WA4: Staff to post comments of EBW and JB to Wiki page
• ACTION - WA4: All should provide input in contingencies so they can be considered.
• ACTION: Staff to prepare a more detailed timeline