Proposed text to add to public comment document
As requested in our call today, below is proposed text for various parts of the draft public comment document. Section 4 P. 18 under "Headquarters" Strike the last sentence add the end of the paragraph since often times parties are required to waive their rights to pursue their legal rights in a court of law against ICANN, so the final sentence is not accurate about the reality for many. P. 18 under "Accountability and Transparency Review Teams..." Add sentence at the end of the paragraph: "ICANN is still in the process implementing all of the ATRT recommendations." The last three headlines on p. 19-20 should be deleted. The "board of directors documentation" policy is a subject of much controversy, which this group has not yet delved into, but will in WS 2 and this text seems misleading. The "general ICANN operational info" headline sites the DIDP, which is really a "don't disclose" policy, so putting this in here is misleading the public. The "ICANN board selection process" headline / assertion as an accountability mechanism seems to be desperately reaching in that assertion and it certainly isn't anything this group discussed and passed judgment on. These last three PR headlines in section 4 should be removed. Section 6.2 p. 24 - change "ICANN remains accountable" to "ICANN is accountable". p. 25 - delete phrase "Regulation of content is the role of a sovereign". That's a debate we never had. Section 6.5 p. 46 under "Introduction" add: The CCWG proposes a number of key reforms to ICANN's Request for Reconsideration process, whereby the ICANN Board of Directors is obliged to reconsider a recent decision or action / inaction by ICANN's board or staff, and which is provided for in Article IV, section 2 of ICANN's bylaws. The key reforms proposed include: the scope of permissible requests has been expanded to include board/staff actions or inactions that contradict ICANN's mission or core values, and the time for filing a Request for Reconsideration has been extended from 15 to 30 days. Additionally, the grounds for summary dismissal have been narrowed and the ICANN board of directors must make determinations on all requests (rather than a committee handling staff issues). Another proposed change is that ICANN's ombudsman should make the initial substantive evaluation of the requests to aid the Board Governance Committee in its recommendation, and then requesters are provided an opportunity to rebut the BGC's recommendation before a final decision by the entire board. More transparency requirements and firm deadlines in issuing of determinations are also proposed. p. 50 under "Question", add 2 questions: "Are the timeframes and deadlines proposed herein sufficient to meet the community's needs? Is the scope of permissible requests broad / narrow enough to meet the community's needs?" Section 6.6.1.1 p. 51: edit b) as follows: "Under the designator model, two of the six powers that the community seeks (veto of budget and strategic plan) would require more difficult enforceability provisions than under the membership model, according legal counsel, although they could be created. The other community powers sought herein regarding community approval of bylaws and board removal present no enforcement barriers under the designator model; however given the enforceability concerns on two desired powers, it is advised that the membership model creates the tightest control on the ICANN board by the community. In preparing for the environment that emerges following the end of the post-NTIA contract, our task as a CCWG is to strengthen ICANN's accountability, not to allow it to be weakened. So the status quo is not an option and the community should select either a true membership model or an empowered designator model to achieve that accountability." p. 51 edit d) 4) as follows: "Our legal advisors are clear that under California law through this structure, there would be no material increase in the risks and liabilities individual ICANN participants face today" p. 52 edit (f) as follows: "Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve reliable enforcement of 4 of the 6 community powers sought, specifically with respect to community approval or blocking of changes of bylaws and the selection and removal of board members. There is concern however, regarding the ease and reliability with which the other 2 community powers sought (approval of budget and strategic plan) can be enforced once created under the designator model, according to legal counsel. Legal counsel further advises that the SOs and ACs organize themselves into unincorporated associations in both corporate governance models, whether a designator or membership structure." p. 52 edit (i) as follows: "Because, according to legal counsel, the membership model provides the tightest control of the ICANN board by the community regarding the six community powers explicitly sought by the CCWG, it has been suggested as the Reference Mechanism by the group. Section 6.6.1.2 p. 54 add to end of (f): "It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector." Section 6.6.2: p. 55 under "Question" add: "Would it better to focus on ensuring community input is duly taken into account in the development process leading up ultimate adoption of the budget or strategic plan by the board?" Section 8: p. 95 under "Recommendation", edit text as follows: "The CCWG recommends that the Board adopts a transitional article in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to confirm the CCWG recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below)." p. 95 under "Items for WS2": - Agreed previously to add: Enhancements to ICANN's whistle-blower policy. - Suggest to add a review of ICANN's conflict of interest policy as that is a key transparency mechanism. - I have no idea what is meant by the first item in WS2: "Enhancements to ICANN's accountability based on the law(s) applicable to its actions;" Maybe just a one sentence explanation would suffice. That's all for now, folks! Thanks! - Robin -----
I have a real problem with this. There is no doubt that the private sector has been a major and influential component since its inception, but it is similarly true that governments and users (albeit in varying models) have been an integral component of ICANN. Our roles may be different, but our roots go as deep, and the import of the public interest in ICANN cannot and should not be swept under the carpet. Alan At 28/04/2015 08:05 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
As requested in our call today, below is proposed text for various parts of the draft public comment document.
Section 6.6.1.2 p. 54 add to end of (f): "It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector."
Could we add at the end "as a opposed to a multilateral solution."? On Thursday, April 30, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I have a real problem with this.
There is no doubt that the private sector has been a major and influential component since its inception, but it is similarly true that governments and users (albeit in varying models) have been an integral component of ICANN. Our roles may be different, but our roots go as deep, and the import of the public interest in ICANN cannot and should not be swept under the carpet.
Alan
At 28/04/2015 08:05 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
As requested in our call today, below is proposed text for various parts of the draft public comment document.
*Section 6.6.1.2 *p. 54 add to end of (f): "It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN *and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector*."
In support of Alan Greenbergs observation. Best Regards On 4/30/15, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Could we add at the end "as a opposed to a multilateral solution."?
On Thursday, April 30, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I have a real problem with this.
There is no doubt that the private sector has been a major and influential component since its inception, but it is similarly true that governments and users (albeit in varying models) have been an integral component of ICANN. Our roles may be different, but our roots go as deep, and the import of the public interest in ICANN cannot and should not be swept under the carpet.
Alan
At 28/04/2015 08:05 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
As requested in our call today, below is proposed text for various parts of the draft public comment document.
*Section 6.6.1.2 *p. 54 add to end of (f): "It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN *and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector*."
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
what is the rationale for the proposed additional text? is it really necessary? On 4/30/2015 5:56 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Could we add at the end "as a opposed to a multilateral solution."?
On Thursday, April 30, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
I have a real problem with this.
There is no doubt that the private sector has been a major and influential component since its inception, but it is similarly true that governments and users (albeit in varying models) have been an integral component of ICANN. Our roles may be different, but our roots go as deep, and the import of the public interest in ICANN cannot and should not be swept under the carpet.
Alan
At 28/04/2015 08:05 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
As requested in our call today, below is proposed text for various parts of the draft public comment document.
*_Section 6.6.1.2 _*p. 54 add to end of (f): "It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN */and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector/*."
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
I recall we had a lengthy discussion on the term "private sector" during our chartering process for the CCWG. It is not meant to exclude users or governments from participation. In this context, it is used to clarify that the management of assigned names and numbers is "not a governmental function." Regards, Keith On Apr 30, 2015, at 12:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: I have a real problem with this. There is no doubt that the private sector has been a major and influential component since its inception, but it is similarly true that governments and users (albeit in varying models) have been an integral component of ICANN. Our roles may be different, but our roots go as deep, and the import of the public interest in ICANN cannot and should not be swept under the carpet. Alan At 28/04/2015 08:05 PM, Robin Gross wrote: As requested in our call today, below is proposed text for various parts of the draft public comment document. Section 6.6.1.2 p. 54 add to end of (f): "It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector." _______________________________________________ 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
All, we had agreed earlier today to just delete the second half of the sentence, so in my view, the „private sector“ term is gone. see para 122 2.f.- the sentence would now read: a. . It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN. <> <> and we deleted: and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector. <> I hope that helps, Thomas
Am 30.04.2015 um 12:31 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
I recall we had a lengthy discussion on the term "private sector" during our chartering process for the CCWG. It is not meant to exclude users or governments from participation. In this context, it is used to clarify that the management of assigned names and numbers is "not a governmental function."
Regards, Keith
On Apr 30, 2015, at 12:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
I have a real problem with this.
There is no doubt that the private sector has been a major and influential component since its inception, but it is similarly true that governments and users (albeit in varying models) have been an integral component of ICANN. Our roles may be different, but our roots go as deep, and the import of the public interest in ICANN cannot and should not be swept under the carpet.
Alan
At 28/04/2015 08:05 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
As requested in our call today, below is proposed text for various parts of the draft public comment document.
Section 6.6.1.2 p. 54 add to end of (f): "It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector."
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>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Interesting, I agree with lowering ambiguity by leaving wording out, but yet another point proving my objections against the pace, the drafters and participants at meetings at 05:00 UTC don't recall what was said on the call a few hours later.s el On 2015-04-30 11:44, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, we had agreed earlier today to just delete the second half of the sentence, so in my view, the „private sector“ term is gone.
see para 122 2.f.- the sentence would now read:
a. . It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN.
and we deleted:
*and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector*. */__/*
I hope that helps, Thomas [...]
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVQhhwAAoJEJcFHaN5RT+rD/MQAItuqLHWUj/ATLZSSafLpN2O pNvcxRVE5ECStZCxQ68/OPY+kqdrEKFUXOVwGAYIkKAtPxg5qJawu3Z/3sBA5vD/ 6PjBYDJbOQ+aKdJUDgMxfeqRCUvIlHXMl5/KMYzN+j2MGlPhb+WqNro2cCm/Xcek fWe2JXSu9zVH5A96ffK9DDFKCOI/DZBxmnrG7FWbDy6kFBcavDsyYRix9Acey/CL dJ0hG3yztbww1J1GkA8KZ5A8ZRT6BxCozJGtY3XBEc29lCQdhLF6Vaqg+BnTqkju ZQcSQ3vKnePTzpFX4hUXEmKVPJOVyv/6tqYSfZPv0cJ8rggXrqNE7ca3FmRCaBB/ jDPtdsX2Zf6KwDvYn/C036r5gjPw4qNHww4PbBnGXIM3hGsJvH0HZcZdivMjG+Y9 /mBReepmySoqMlu34dFIo3kxEyLavOKrF78QarPe/exWvZQHwDgFlOxAczwxZxH8 b1+dIYlMNLa1l7AAp4PCt+6QaTtjXoY0eJu6/oJgnU5jmnrNpnfuNVPBjZB4LgFB zjzRHSwlfMSwcub/UNPLiFT9J8WR+Fg1q5bewDIWV3RxTZHYmAQl85y3+Gmp5r7Q upDOnqs25vrWmDaOovRrxwqpX03tjlf0NzNJ1FBNCIV3R4hUqE3zBdp90yZkHzK8 BEjM3fgRBgWeu7hWCNf6 =0bra -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
It’s fine for me Thomas. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Thomas Rickert Envoyé : jeudi 30 avril 2015 11:45 À : Drazek, Keith Cc : Accountability Cross Community Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed text to add to public comment document All, we had agreed earlier today to just delete the second half of the sentence, so in my view, the „private sector“ term is gone. see para 122 2.f.- the sentence would now read: a. . It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN. and we deleted: and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector. I hope that helps, Thomas Am 30.04.2015 um 12:31 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>: I recall we had a lengthy discussion on the term "private sector" during our chartering process for the CCWG. It is not meant to exclude users or governments from participation. In this context, it is used to clarify that the management of assigned names and numbers is "not a governmental function." Regards, Keith On Apr 30, 2015, at 12:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: I have a real problem with this. There is no doubt that the private sector has been a major and influential component since its inception, but it is similarly true that governments and users (albeit in varying models) have been an integral component of ICANN. Our roles may be different, but our roots go as deep, and the import of the public interest in ICANN cannot and should not be swept under the carpet. Alan At 28/04/2015 08:05 PM, Robin Gross wrote: As requested in our call today, below is proposed text for various parts of the draft public comment document. Section 6.6.1.2 p. 54 add to end of (f): "It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector." _______________________________________________ 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 --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
Dear Co-Chairs, More semantics, to avoid calling the root what it is. What's the difference between the root and (cc)TLDs? Nothing much. What's the difference between the management thereof, nothing much. ICANN is however not rooted in the public sector. It is a multi-stakeholder organization... ...or supposed to be. el On 2015-04-30 11:31, Drazek, Keith wrote:
I recall we had a lengthy discussion on the term "private sector" during our chartering process for the CCWG. It is not meant to exclude users or governments from participation. In this context, it is used to clarify that the management of assigned names and numbers is "not a governmental function."
Regards, Keith
On Apr 30, 2015, at 12:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca wrote:
I have a real problem with this.
There is no doubt that the private sector has been a major and influential component since its inception, but it is similarly true that governments and users (albeit in varying models) have been an integral component of ICANN. Our roles may be different, but our roots go as deep, and the import of the public interest in ICANN cannot and should not be swept under the carpet.
Alan
At 28/04/2015 08:05 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
As requested in our call today, below is proposed text for various parts of the draft public comment document.
*_Section 6.6.1.2 _*p. 54 add to end of (f): "It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN */and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector/*." [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Yes Drazek, I do recall it and I think that the clarity and precision are necessary since the definition of the private sector is well known in the multi-stakeholder system at the global level (World Summit on Information Society, IGF, etc.) to be the business sector. The stakeholders are Governments, Private sector (business sector), Civil Society and International Organizations. It is important to precise that the multi-stakeholder model includes all the stakeholders including private sector and governments. The condition of the NTIA was that it shouldnt be government led, and I think we are all in agreement on that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Drazek, Keith Envoyé : jeudi 30 avril 2015 11:32 À : Alan Greenberg Cc : Accountability Cross Community Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed text to add to public comment document I recall we had a lengthy discussion on the term "private sector" during our chartering process for the CCWG. It is not meant to exclude users or governments from participation. In this context, it is used to clarify that the management of assigned names and numbers is "not a governmental function." Regards, Keith On Apr 30, 2015, at 12:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: I have a real problem with this. There is no doubt that the private sector has been a major and influential component since its inception, but it is similarly true that governments and users (albeit in varying models) have been an integral component of ICANN. Our roles may be different, but our roots go as deep, and the import of the public interest in ICANN cannot and should not be swept under the carpet. Alan At 28/04/2015 08:05 PM, Robin Gross wrote: As requested in our call today, below is proposed text for various parts of the draft public comment document. Section 6.6.1.2 p. 54 add to end of (f): "It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector." _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Barrack Otieno -
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Drazek, Keith -
Greg Shatan -
Matthew Shears -
Robin Gross -
Thomas Rickert -
Tijani BEN JEMAA