I'm also a bit confused by the prevalence of "N/A". There seem to be a great many cases where the respondent writes "We support this recommendation and ... (think/stress X,Y,Z)" where the item is marked as "N/A" in the support/disagreement columns. But it looks as though surveymonkey and direct replies may have been counted separately. Nor is it at all clear on what basis some replies have been picked out for "analysis", but not others. Perhaps the staff could give more of an explanation as to how this was constructed? Thanks, Malcolm. On 06/01/2016 16:44, Schaefer, Brett wrote:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------ BrettSchaefer 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 heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>

*From:*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 *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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear Bernard, Thanks for your explanation, I still have some questions though. There are a fair amount of N/A's in colum D, E, and F as you mentioned. But at the bottom, there is a summary of support, against, neutral and N/A. I would be very interested where the number of support, against and neutral are based on, because they do not correspond to the 1's and 0's in column D, E and F. Or am I mistaken? Or, if the staff assessed these, could you also let us know which proposals are counted as support, which as against and which as neutral? Thanks in advance for your explanation. All the best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 01/06/2016 08:28 PM, Bernard Turcotte wrote:

All,

Malcolm confirmed his issue was around all the N/A's in the summary sheets in columns D, E and F.

This is to be expected. As the overarching title of these three columns states "If no survey response - staff assessment".

As such if there was a response given in the survey monkey these columns are not filled in and contain N/A (almost 57% of responses used the survey).

Additionally if the survey monkey form was not used and a respondent did not comment on a recommendation those columns will also contain N/A (there were quite a few of these also).

Hope this clears up any misconceptions.

Cheers.

B.

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> wrote:

I'm also a bit confused by the prevalence of "N/A".

There seem to be a great many cases where the respondent writes "We support this recommendation and ... (think/stress X,Y,Z)" where the item is marked as "N/A" in the support/disagreement columns.

But it looks as though surveymonkey and direct replies may have been counted separately.

Nor is it at all clear on what basis some replies have been picked out for "analysis", but not others.

Perhaps the staff could give more of an explanation as to how this was constructed?

Thanks,

Malcolm.

On 06/01/2016 16:44, Schaefer, Brett wrote:

...

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

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

BrettSchaefer

...

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 <tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org <http://heritage.org> <http://heritage.org/>

*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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-propos

al-30nov15/.

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-propos

al-2015-11-30-en.

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

...

-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> 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

_______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWjrwRAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpsMEH/3ka78ew0KaXQZz7VSK++ujB GtLQmchagbf9PrAB4eNw2oV2+6R8NJUzgXlxsHWF4LpInrN42HTolEe0/hcDMZsG fydbREiaELGpX0lx2mmRycYzTQgyCLyV/p/nwGw0QMPz3Dv4XzdmN4ittFgp+dTA 99Vq6sQ58wBB4CPZJ1ZRLSsO4LMu1tZltLb9PsVhtFeNsc1iAMXDbLOhFoc402HN ND8s9c+Kc5ZQGLN0x4hOFTzaJYFf+IGE87P5X6TEEdC0ynqXlzyxcAPFcrcXhi9m yOjXoXTA4skCfJM6VxTBvCSbFDfarn/nBAZlpCm3qM0uJzIvJnu/90n34Tq1d/0= =ufQ1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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> 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>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <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 heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>

From: 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 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... <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 <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... <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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Hello George, Your email raises two issues for me: 1. Below, are you simply arguing that organizations (and perhaps you can include individuals in it as well) can NOT represent their own organizations and can only represent their ICANN constituency ? I am not a veteran but as far as I know everyone, being a part of a constituency or not can file a public comment at ICANN! and if there are discrepancies in the interpretation of those comments they can speak up! "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.

2. I am wondering what you mean by "least personally annoying" ! You put us in little boxes : annoying, less annoying too annoying? and I really wanna know what you mean by Annoying! you mean the ones that speak up and argue against what you think is right? Thank you On 6 January 2016 at 20:07, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

Heritage Foundation is an NCUC/NCSG member in good standing and has every right to advocate for its position, which is a constituent position of the NCSG consensus.

Its outrageous that a board member would even contemplate taking a position that would logically taken to its conclusion would seek to minimise or reject the views of a constituent of the ICANN community. I seriously hope you will retract this message George, as its not representative of the high standards you generally display as a veteran of the ICANN board.

-James Gannon

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday 6 January 2016 at 6:58 p.m. 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> *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>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < 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

------------------------------ BrettSchaefer 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 heritage.org

*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <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 *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 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

-- Farzaneh

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

Brett, you should ask the Ombudsman for an incident number. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On 6 Jan 2016, at 21:21, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:

George,

I’m confused. My e-mail was directly related to and sought to clarify the summary of public comments/analysis circulated by Alice, which included the public comment by Heritage. That summary includes public comments by a number of individuals and organizations. Is it your position that none of those comments should be included?

Best,

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 heritage.org From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 1:59 PM To: ICANN Board; Accountability Cross Community 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> 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>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <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 heritage.org

From: 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 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 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

George, Thank you for the apology. However, on your larger point, I disagree. I don’t see the problem with individuals, businesses, or other organizations submitting their views through public comments. I thought that that was the essence of the multi-stakeholder process – to welcome, debate, and incorporate a variety of views to arrive at a position that reflects the broader ICANN community. 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 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 4:33 PM To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: ICANN Board; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The CCWG and external self-interest Brett, I want to start by saying that I have no problem with your participation in the CCWG. We've interacted personally in a work group in Dublin, and I found you to be a good and fair collaborator. Your contributions to the list have been articulate and positive. What I find really bothersome is that some of the positions expressed, often emotional and unfair ones such as the recent comment asking which human rights ICANN did not want to respect, seem to be based strictly upon the CCWG members pique and their biases, and not at all related to any position that their constituency might be willing to support. My point is more of a macro point. I have no problem with clarification of public comments, or of assuring that they are all taken into account. What I have a problem with is CCWG members speaking not for their constituencies but for their own personal interests or the specific interests of their external organizations, rather than for the point of view of the constituencies from which they come. If you were simply pointing out that it was, among others, the comments from your organization that were not captured, then I misunderstood, and I apologize. If you were saying that you want to put this comment in because it comes from the organization you work for, that is a different matter. I'm glad that you clarified that you took the former position, not the latter. I saw your post as pushing your employer's views, and I apparently misunderstood. But the larger point still stands. Out of the current 6,000 posts to the list that I've retained, there have been a significant number that I believe represent personal points of view rather than constituency points of view. AFAIK all constituencies are sufficiently heterogeneous that there exist multiple points of view, many of which oppose each other. I would hope that CCWG members would be sufficiently judicious that they would not let themselves be swayed by their personal beliefs to bias their contributions to the process, and that they would recognize this multiplicity of views within their constituency as well as in others. In addition, there have been repeated posts that spoke derogatorily of what they believe are the Board's intentions without any knowledge of actual facts or attempts at direct dialogue. You are not one of the people who does this. However, one result of this tendency is that the Board has become a punching bag for these people, and the behavior perpetuates itself in part because there is little if any pushback to these posts. It's not appreciated, it's counterproductive, it is irritating, and it contributes to the enlargement of a divide between groups which should be working together. Yet I have seen no sign whatsoever that their constituencies are concerned about this, or that there is any attempt to reprimand or change the behavior of their representatives. Is their behavior condoned by their constituency? I hope not. For a bunch of reasons, some historical, the culture surrounding this accountability exercise has acquired a component of "us vs. them." It has been divisive and has contributed IMO to a weakening and a lengthening of the effectiveness of the process. While this has nothing to do with my reaction to your post, it may explain the extent of my frustration in trying to engage constructively with the process. So in summary, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. However, I do welcome this opportunity provided to share some observations of the CCWG process. Regards, George On Jan 6, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: George, I’m confused. My e-mail was directly related to and sought to clarify the summary of public comments/analysis circulated by Alice, which included the public comment by Heritage. That summary includes public comments by a number of individuals and organizations. Is it your position that none of those comments should be included? Best, 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 heritage.org<http://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 George Sadowsky Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 1:59 PM To: ICANN Board; Accountability Cross Community 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 heritage.org<http://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-30nov15/<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/>. Note: a download all page is available at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613<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-2015-11-30-en<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en>. In the meantime, it is located on your wiki at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613<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<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

Brett, I guess I differentiate between the responsibilities of the CCWG members themselves, who have voting power when it comes to decisions that must be made by vote, and individuals who just chime in during the process. I agree with you with respect to the rights and role of the latter group, including people and organizations who comment both verbally and in writing. However IMHO members of the former group have some responsibility to look after the interest of the entire process as well as understanding the various positions of the stakeholder group that designated them for membership on the CCWG. Is that more in accord with your sense of things? Regards, George

On Jan 7, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:

George,

Thank you for the apology. However, on your larger point, I disagree. I don’t see the problem with individuals, businesses, or other organizations submitting their views through public comments. I thought that that was the essence of the multi-stakeholder process – to welcome, debate, and incorporate a variety of views to arrive at a position that reflects the broader ICANN community.

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 heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>

From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 4:33 PM To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: ICANN Board; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The CCWG and external self-interest

Brett,

I want to start by saying that I have no problem with your participation in the CCWG. We've interacted personally in a work group in Dublin, and I found you to be a good and fair collaborator. Your contributions to the list have been articulate and positive.

What I find really bothersome is that some of the positions expressed, often emotional and unfair ones such as the recent comment asking which human rights ICANN did not want to respect, seem to be based strictly upon the CCWG members pique and their biases, and not at all related to any position that their constituency might be willing to support.

My point is more of a macro point. I have no problem with clarification of public comments, or of assuring that they are all taken into account. What I have a problem with is CCWG members speaking not for their constituencies but for their own personal interests or the specific interests of their external organizations, rather than for the point of view of the constituencies from which they come.

If you were simply pointing out that it was, among others, the comments from your organization that were not captured, then I misunderstood, and I apologize. If you were saying that you want to put this comment in because it comes from the organization you work for, that is a different matter. I'm glad that you clarified that you took the former position, not the latter. I saw your post as pushing your employer's views, and I apparently misunderstood.

But the larger point still stands. Out of the current 6,000 posts to the list that I've retained, there have been a significant number that I believe represent personal points of view rather than constituency points of view. AFAIK all constituencies are sufficiently heterogeneous that there exist multiple points of view, many of which oppose each other. I would hope that CCWG members would be sufficiently judicious that they would not let themselves be swayed by their personal beliefs to bias their contributions to the process, and that they would recognize this multiplicity of views within their constituency as well as in others.

In addition, there have been repeated posts that spoke derogatorily of what they believe are the Board's intentions without any knowledge of actual facts or attempts at direct dialogue. You are not one of the people who does this. However, one result of this tendency is that the Board has become a punching bag for these people, and the behavior perpetuates itself in part because there is little if any pushback to these posts. It's not appreciated, it's counterproductive, it is irritating, and it contributes to the enlargement of a divide between groups which should be working together. Yet I have seen no sign whatsoever that their constituencies are concerned about this, or that there is any attempt to reprimand or change the behavior of their representatives. Is their behavior condoned by their constituency? I hope not.

For a bunch of reasons, some historical, the culture surrounding this accountability exercise has acquired a component of "us vs. them." It has been divisive and has contributed IMO to a weakening and a lengthening of the effectiveness of the process. While this has nothing to do with my reaction to your post, it may explain the extent of my frustration in trying to engage constructively with the process.

So in summary, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. However, I do welcome this opportunity provided to share some observations of the CCWG process.

Regards,

George

On Jan 6, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote:

George,

I’m confused. My e-mail was directly related to and sought to clarify the summary of public comments/analysis circulated by Alice, which included the public comment by Heritage. That summary includes public comments by a number of individuals and organizations. Is it your position that none of those comments should be included?

Best,

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 heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 1:59 PM To: ICANN Board; Accountability Cross Community 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 heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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... <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 <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... <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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

Dear Co-Chairs, If its all too annoying, maybe Sadowsky should replace himself with someone who is not so emotional and can deal with others' situations objectively, especially when they do not suit him. Whenever someone displeases him, bullying follows. To the extent that is happening it's just outrageous. And, there are other words for it. Of course, he is wrong: To state that someone can not request the record of Comments be corrected by the author of said Comments defies comprehension. Never mind that I agree with him that the appointed ALAC members have had their minds changed for them, when it suited the Board's position, followed by deafening silence on Sadowsky's part, I can not find anything in the Charter mandating participants or even members positions on internal ICANN constituencies, if it even were possible. Sadowsky is economical with the veracity, he knows quite well that Brett Schaefer is listed as participant 63 (he himself as participant 20). greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On 6 Jan 2016, at 20:58, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@gmail.com> wrote:

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> 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>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <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 heritage.org

From: 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 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 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

On 06-Jan-16 14:52, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:

To state that someone can not request the record of Comments be corrected by the author of said Comments defies comprehension.

This was, incidentally part of another ATRT2 recommendation, accepted by the Board, that commenters have the opportunity to correct the synthesis of their comments. Without imputing motives where there may well be none, the ATRT2 recommendation took into account the difficulty of understanding all things correctly all the time.

Final Recommendation #7 Public Comment Process ... 7.2. The Board should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s).

As with many of the transparency and accountability recommendations made and accepted in the past, this awaits implementation. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I'm not going to use the word "outrageous" in responding to this email thread, except to say that characterizing anything in this discussion as outrageous is outrageous. In other words, I am manifestly not outraged. First, as Dr. Lisse kindly pointed out, Brett is a participant, not a member, and duly provided a Statement of Interest. I view the members as having a heightened responsibility to act on behalf of their appointing organization, while the participants have much greater latitude to take personal (or employer-driven) positions. Second, all that Brett was doing was attempting to do was to improve the accuracy of the summaries of Heritage's positions in the quickly-cooked and boiled-down "comment tool." That benefits the entire process (what value is there in having inaccurate summaries?). I would not call that a manifestation of "external self-interest." So the particular activity complained of should be of absolutely no concern. Third, this is related only to a public comment filed by Heritage, which was entirely appropriate, whether or not Heritage is a member of an SG/C within the GNSO. This is the exact opposite of a "hidden agenda." If the larger concern is that Brett somehow "dropped the kimono" (apologies for cultural and gender insensitivities) and revealed that he is participating (at least in part) in his capacity as an employee of the Heritage Foundation, I think that concern is misplaced as well. "Casablanca" (apologies for culturally specific and possibly archaic (?) reference): "I'm shocked, shocked that there are people representing "external interests" in the CCWG." We could probably spend a week discussing the subtleties of stakeholder and stakeholder group representation in this CCWG (and in other WGs of various types). I don't think there is any expectation that each of us took some ritual purifying bath before joining the CCWG, shed our outside engagements and donned the robes of our SO/AC Order (the IPC robes are particularly beautiful, by the way). For me at least, there's an ongoing calibration and consideration of various interests -- the Global Public Interest (whatever that is), the Internet community's Interest, the ICANN Community's Interest, the ICANN Interest (yes, even that interest), the Multistakeholder Interest, the GNSO Interest, the Non-Contracted Parties Interest, the CSG Interest, the IPC Interest, the interests of the business community, the interests of the Intellectual Property community, the interests of accurate and appropriate application of IP laws (however they cut), my employer's interests, my clients' interests (NB: I do not take instruction from any client on how to act on ICANN matters) and even my own personal opinions, beliefs and values. I don't feel that I can go completely "off the reservation" (apologies for culturally insensitive and privilege-based reference) and take positions that directly contradict those of the my "home stakeholder structure," the IPC (especially given my position as President), but neither do I feel that I am a mere mouthpiece. We should each be balancing similar multiple layers of interests, avoiding selfishness but not expecting selflessness -- this is, after all, a "multi- *stakeholder*" process (not a "no stakes held" process), and people's actions should be driven by the stake(s) they hold, as well as by an enlightened interest in the larger communities and issues at stake and a firm commitment to engaging in a "*consensus*-driven" process (which means that you need to be prepared to move off your "home" interests (whatever they are) in order to reach consensus (except in what should be the rare cases where doing so would do traitorously great violence to those home interests). I think this contrasts somewhat with the role of a Board member (at ICANN or anywhere else). We have discussed many times the need for Board members *not* to act as representatives of their designating body. Perhaps that is the basis for some of the views expressed by George. But this is not that. It's a different model, and we should embrace it, not call it outrageous (oops, I said it again). Greg On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:

George

I literally do not understand your position. Why can’t any organization in the world express their own position in a public comment period?

---MM

*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *George Sadowsky *Sent:* Wednesday, January 6, 2016 1:59 PM *To:* ICANN Board; Accountability Cross Community *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>

*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>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < 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 heritage.org

*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <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 *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 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

“You like us; you really like us!” -- [Modified from Sally Fields at the Oscars, circa 1995] 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: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el@lisse.na] Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 12:26 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET>; ICANN Board <icann-board@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The CCWG and external self-interest Just to add three more cents, I personally could not be more opposed to what the Heritage Foundation stands for, but that is the Multi Stakeholder Model, conservative think tanks, and repressive governments, whether appeased or not, have the same rights as anyone else to participate. And I disagree with members being restricted, if only if that were the case the representative of the interests of the German Internet Industry could no longer provide amusement, it would make dealing with ALAC's revolving positions easier, though. Hence I, to my chagrin, and on this issue only, find myself in agreement with the representative of the IP interests, and even the very civil Versign front man pushing things here. I am in transit by the way, and hence can not increase the peace on tomorrow's call. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On 6 Jan 2016, at 23:37, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: I'm not going to use the word "outrageous" in responding to this email thread, except to say that characterizing anything in this discussion as outrageous is outrageous. In other words, I am manifestly not outraged. First, as Dr. Lisse kindly pointed out, Brett is a participant, not a member, and duly provided a Statement of Interest. I view the members as having a heightened responsibility to act on behalf of their appointing organization, while the participants have much greater latitude to take personal (or employer-driven) positions. Second, all that Brett was doing was attempting to do was to improve the accuracy of the summaries of Heritage's positions in the quickly-cooked and boiled-down "comment tool." That benefits the entire process (what value is there in having inaccurate summaries?). I would not call that a manifestation of "external self-interest." So the particular activity complained of should be of absolutely no concern. Third, this is related only to a public comment filed by Heritage, which was entirely appropriate, whether or not Heritage is a member of an SG/C within the GNSO. This is the exact opposite of a "hidden agenda." If the larger concern is that Brett somehow "dropped the kimono" (apologies for cultural and gender insensitivities) and revealed that he is participating (at least in part) in his capacity as an employee of the Heritage Foundation, I think that concern is misplaced as well. "Casablanca" (apologies for culturally specific and possibly archaic (?) reference): "I'm shocked, shocked that there are people representing "external interests" in the CCWG." We could probably spend a week discussing the subtleties of stakeholder and stakeholder group representation in this CCWG (and in other WGs of various types). I don't think there is any expectation that each of us took some ritual purifying bath before joining the CCWG, shed our outside engagements and donned the robes of our SO/AC Order (the IPC robes are particularly beautiful, by the way). For me at least, there's an ongoing calibration and consideration of various interests -- the Global Public Interest (whatever that is), the Internet community's Interest, the ICANN Community's Interest, the ICANN Interest (yes, even that interest), the Multistakeholder Interest, the GNSO Interest, the Non-Contracted Parties Interest, the CSG Interest, the IPC Interest, the interests of the business community, the interests of the Intellectual Property community, the interests of accurate and appropriate application of IP laws (however they cut), my employer's interests, my clients' interests (NB: I do not take instruction from any client on how to act on ICANN matters) and even my own personal opinions, beliefs and values. I don't feel that I can go completely "off the reservation" (apologies for culturally insensitive and privilege-based reference) and take positions that directly contradict those of the my "home stakeholder structure," the IPC (especially given my position as President), but neither do I feel that I am a mere mouthpiece. We should each be balancing similar multiple layers of interests, avoiding selfishness but not expecting selflessness -- this is, after all, a "multi-stakeholder" process (not a "no stakes held" process), and people's actions should be driven by the stake(s) they hold, as well as by an enlightened interest in the larger communities and issues at stake and a firm commitment to engaging in a "consensus-driven" process (which means that you need to be prepared to move off your "home" interests (whatever they are) in order to reach consensus (except in what should be the rare cases where doing so would do traitorously great violence to those home interests). I think this contrasts somewhat with the role of a Board member (at ICANN or anywhere else). We have discussed many times the need for Board members not to act as representatives of their designating body. Perhaps that is the basis for some of the views expressed by George. But this is not that. It's a different model, and we should embrace it, not call it outrageous (oops, I said it again). Greg On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> > wrote: George I literally do not understand your position. Why can’t any organization in the world express their own position in a public comment period? ---MM

Constituencies have designated representatives, but stakeholders in ICANN May have personal or individual views And hearing those is what we always envisioned as a unique multi stakeholder forum - long before WSIS codified such. What is needed is self identification. Eg. I speak as an individual, an organization w the following 'credential' , or I speak on behalf of an organization, IGO, association like ICC -basis or a company. Members of an association or company sold identify if they are speaking in their personal capacity. But the world is not required to join a constituency at ICANN In order to have relevance. So, one more comment. I am disappointed to see a comment from a board member a bout annoyance About the community's participants. Whomever we are.,, Probably I misunderstood. Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 7, 2016, at 04:36, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:

George - I saw this exchange and I'm not certain why we would object that the Heritage Foundation's position will be noted as part of the record? Brett was always talking on behalf of the HF but the same is true for other members who are talking on behalf of their organisation. Are you saying that each outside-ICANN constituency position must be accepted first by an ICANN community to become registered and noted?

Thanks, Erika

...

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@gmail.com> wrote: 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> 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>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <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 heritage.org

From: 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 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ icann-board mailing list icann-board@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-board

_______________________________________________ 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