On 13 Nov 2015, at 11:40, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote:

As announced on your call #67, this is to kindly remind you that final edits on the attached draft Formal Update (circulated on 12 November) are needed by 17:00 UTC today.
As indicated on the call, no line edits will be taken into account. Co-Chairs are asking for content related comments.
Per the note below, any format, font and proofreading issues are being addressed by a professional writer.
Thank you,

Dear Alice,

I just wanted to check you'd received the message copied below and understood it as responsive to this call,

Kind Regards,

Malcolm


On 12/11/2015 23:04, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
All,

As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal
Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.

There has been a major, unacceptable change between the last revision of
this document and this one.

Concerning the Mission, the previous revision said, on page 30

The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core
Values to:
* Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to
the Domain Name System (DNS)
- ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique
identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide.
- ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted
parties (entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to
top level domain names)

That fairly reflected the decision recommendation from the previous
draft, at least at the level of detail that appears in this document.

The new revision just released removes those statements, and in their
place says merely

"The CCWG-Accountability is yet to reach consensus on the proposed
language that is intended to address contract enforcement and
regulation."  (page 21)

That is not correct. The existing recommendation from our previous draft
Report remains intact until replaced. There has been nothing remotely
like a consensus to remove it. Please revert to the previous statement.

Based on Greg's most recent e-mail, of just a couple of hours ago, I
think there are grounds for optimism that there WILL be a broadly based
consensus to replace the previous text with his new suggestion.

But if that fails, the fall-back is the existing text, not no text at
all. The CCWG's existing recommendation remains until we have consensus
to change it.

It is essential that we follow proper process here, especially on such a
crucial issue.

Malcolm.
-- 
           Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
  Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                London Internet Exchange Ltd
      Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ

        Company Registered in England No. 3137929
      Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA