I agree with Keith on this point and see another related problem with the text (which I am only seeing now for the 1st time after the long journey home).
The document states that scope of our work is in seeing that ICANN "remains accountable" - but that is not really true. The reason this group was formed is because the community felt ICANN was inadequately accountable today. That is a big difference
in scope. So we such just say "ICANN is accountable" because there isn't agreement that ICANN currently is accountable as the current text implies by using the word "remains" in the first sentence.
Thank you,
Robin
On Jan 22, 2015, at 7:48 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
Thanks Alice.
I think the statement looks good.
I would ask the Co-Chairs for only one small (but meaningful) edit in the following sentence. Remove the word “perceived.” I think it’s now widely accepted that the backstop
role is real. If that change is problematic for anyone, then add “real or” so it becomes “real or perceived backstop.” Regardless, it’s more than only perceived and I think that needs to be made explicit.
The scope of the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process is defined as ensuring that ICANN remains accountable in the absence of its historical contractual relationship with the U.S. Government, and
the perceived backstop with regard to ICANN's organization-wide accountability provided by that role.
Thanks, Keith
On behalf of the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, please find attached a draft statement (Frankfurt – 19-20 January) for your consideration.
Please flag any edits and/or comments you may have by today – Thursday, 22 January - 17:00 UTC.
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community