We need to be conservative with our changes. Otherwise, we might as well put the entire bylaws in square brackets. I don't believe that everything is possibly being changed unless we say it's not. Quite the opposite. This would be a drastic change in ICANN's core values. Opening it up at this point in the preparation of this Draft would be inappropriate. Those who disagree with status quo on this point are free to say so in comments. Greg On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg Thanks We need to freely and openly debate that. We hardly can agree to the retention if the term I suggested square bracketed with a note describing it. By the way I did not refer to WSIS with its narrow or wide aspects Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 3 May 2015, at 17:17, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>> wrote:
I agree with Jon, Carlos, David and Edward. We should clarify that "private sector" is used in the broad sense Edward describes and not the narrow sense used in e.g. The Tunis Agenda.
Greg
On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','egmorris1@toast.net');>> wrote:
I agree with Jon and Carlos.
It should also be noted that the AOC refers to ICANN as being a "multi-stakeholder private sector led organization with input from the public." I read the term 'private' liberally to include, for example, private civil society organisations where the principle distinctive purpose of the word 'private' is to ensure ICANN does not become, e.g., a 'multi-stakeholder public sector run organization'.
In addition to substance I would suggest that the day before document delivery is not an appropriate time to be making such substantive changes to the document, changes that run counter to ICANN's current bylaws and AOC. Perhaps it might be best to address such concerns during the public comment period.
Best,
Ed
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 3:41 PM, "Carlos Raúl G." <carlosraulg@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 Jon
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone
El may 3, 2015, a las 8:14, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co> escribió:
With respect, I don't support the deletion of the words "private" or "private-led" in the context of the concept of multi-stakeholderism and the report.
It is clear from ICANN Bylaws ( https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en) that the organization is to be led privately, while at the same time receiving important advice from the governments.
"Section 2 Core Values 11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations."
Similarly, the NTIA announcement on the transition specifically mentions that it should be privately led: "The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 *Statement of Policy* <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/6_5_98dns.pdf> stated that the U.S. Government 'is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.'”
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-...
Best,
Jon
On May 2, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co chair, The message that I sent you and supported by others needs to be implemented. I strongly oppose top any discriminatory terms, expressions motivations attepmting to polarize the community in " Private led " por " public led" or any other divding terms to be used as an adjective for Multistakeholder. It is to be noted that a group of people even disagree with multistakeholer approach .Then let us try to convince them that the multistakeholder approach is widely agreed by many but and but without the use of and adjective such as " private led" . If this important issue is not taken on board there will be considerable opposition to the entire report. This is the issue of " to be " or " not to be" a biary approach yes with the report provided that the term " private led" in 4 or 5 places in the report is deleted . You are kindly urged to acknowledge receipt of this message and ensure of the proper ,neutral, impartial treatment of all categories of multistake holder and Regards Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Date: 2015-05-02 16:06 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert < rickert@anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga
2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
IMPORTANT AND URGENT
Dear co-chairs, Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. I therefore do not wish to delay the work. However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. *SHALL * be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. Regards
Kavouss
2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards
2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>:
Thanks Grace.
Dear CCWG, Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration.
Best,
Sam
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
Hi all, Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs* with staff in copy* to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. Have a good weekend, Grace
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
Dear all,
We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report.
Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, Grace
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
Dear all,
Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF).
Version 10 incorporates the following:
- Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC - Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) - Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations - Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs
Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list by*Saturday 2 May 01:00 UTC* (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. *If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. *There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits.
Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane.
Almost there! — Grace
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community