So all the other comments from all the other participants that identify their affiliation are also invalid? That’s nonsense George. A partial list of comments from non-ICANN constituencys includes business groups, governmements, think tanks across the globe and myriad individuals. Your effort to delegitimize those contributions is what is outrageous, not the contributions themselves and continues to reflect your myopic view of what ICANN is and will become. For the record Heritage is a member of the NCUG and we provided our input through that organization. To the extent Heritage felt the need to amplify or diverge from its constituency it is free to do so and di. To the extent that the summary from staff did not accurately reflect that Brett was perfectly reasonable in correcting the summary. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 1:59 PM To: ICANN Board <icann-board@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> 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@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@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@icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org> >, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> " <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@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 <http://heritage.org/> heritage.org From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 9:04 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@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-30n.... Note: a download all page is available at 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-201.... In the meantime, it is located on your wiki at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613 Thank you Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
