Dear Izumi, all, Thank you for raising this point, indeed this is quite important. Hopefully we can engage with the numbering community, through our ASO appointed members, in order to investigate such implications. Best Mathieu Le 01/05/2015 07:01, Izumi Okutani a écrit :

Dear Grace and all,

Thanks for the latest draft and reminder for the comments.

I would like to suggest to add notes below for "2.4 INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL ENHANCEMENT" and "2.5 RECONSIDERATION PROCESS ENHANCEMENT sections".

"In case of including the global number resources policy in its scope, further considerations should be made of its implications. The bottom up policy development process and its forum for the number resources is outside the ICANN, even though the ICANN Board approves its global policies, and the same mechanisms as the names related policies may not be applicable."

I had raised it earlier in my post "The scope of "policy"" and according to my memory it was agreed in one of the CCWG meetings to incorporate it.

Thanks, Izumi

On 2015/05/01 10:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote:

...

Dear all,

Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF).

Version 10 incorporates the following: * Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC * Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) * Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations * Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list by Saturday 2 May 01:00 UTC (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits.

Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane.

Almost there! � Grace

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

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

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

I do think that we should have some clarity on the status of Kavouss's comments. -James -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 1:10 PM To: Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear Mathieu, You have replied to every body except me, olga, paar, and those others who have supported me for the deletion of the adjective/term " private led" before multistakeholders throughout the entire document This is the fifth reminder Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone

On 3 May 2015, at 13:45, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

Dear Izumi, all,

Thank you for raising this point, indeed this is quite important. Hopefully we can engage with the numbering community, through our ASO appointed members, in order to investigate such implications.

Best Mathieu

Le 01/05/2015 07:01, Izumi Okutani a écrit :

...

Dear Grace and all,

Thanks for the latest draft and reminder for the comments.

I would like to suggest to add notes below for "2.4 INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL ENHANCEMENT" and "2.5 RECONSIDERATION PROCESS ENHANCEMENT sections".

"In case of including the global number resources policy in its scope, further considerations should be made of its implications. The bottom up policy development process and its forum for the number resources is outside the ICANN, even though the ICANN Board approves its global policies, and the same mechanisms as the names related policies may not be applicable."

I had raised it earlier in my post "The scope of "policy"" and according to my memory it was agreed in one of the CCWG meetings to incorporate it.

Thanks, Izumi

...

On 2015/05/01 10:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote: Dear all,

Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF).

Version 10 incorporates the following: * Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC * Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) * Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations * Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list by Saturday 2 May 01:00 UTC (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits.

Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane.

Almost there! � Grace

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

---

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

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

_______________________________________________ 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

These are general comments (late as I was in transit so missed the deadline) - if I have misinterpreted things or missed them in the proposal my apologies: Para 16 - we introduce the membership and designator concepts here without any real legal/clear definition of the membership concept. For those who have not been through the intense work on this issue the notion should be explained up front and very clearly. For example what does it mean to "become a member of ICANN"? And then it quickly moves on the UAs, which adds further confusion. While the model is revisited again in Para 166 in more detail it still is not clear what the legal definition is of "members" or "membership" up front is essential. Para 16.2 - it is unclear what is meant by "create new members or UAs" - again for someone not following these discussions in depth this may be confusing. Para 20 - last line should probably read "as both WGs/the community are/is awaiting" or something similar Para 42 - 1st bullet - is it a "veto"? or is it "to force a reconsideration of..." or better still we should use the langauge in 2.6.2 - reconsider/reject. Para 51.2 and 3 - we seem to have commitments, guarantees and core values... are commitments the same as guarantees? where did guarantees come from? Para 61 - perhaps we should refer here to 2.3.3 and the specific ways in which the mission could evolve rather than make it seem impossible/improbable? Para 64 .1 - the section on AoC 8b and does not actually say what is going to happen to that AoC article. While it is addressed in 253 - 257 it still does not say whether the community agrees or not that it is _not_ necessary for AoC 8b to be taken over int the bylaws/AoI as jurisdiction issues are already addressed therein. Perhaps we are leaving it vague because our discussions have not got to that point? Paras 66 - 112 - unfortunately the column formatting doesn't work that well as in places it is difficult to map and see how the existing language or intent is reflected in the new language. Para 125 bullet 3 - the Sidley note. Have these limitations been discussed in the CCWG? The first point should be expanded upon so that we understand how the IRP may be limited or not. Para 166 - again need a very clear definition somewhere of "member" and "membership" in the context of this proposal. Para 166 4d is not clear - "Community participants would have the choice of opting in and participating in this new accountability system, or to simply keep on doing what they do today in an ICANN that is more accountable than it is today." This appears to suggest that a SO or AC could become fragmented with some opting in and other not... Also appears to contradict 4a which suggests that only the SOs and ACs as entities are members. Para 190 - can we standardize the language - is it a budget reconsideration and a bylaws change rejection? Para 202 - probably need to say "a process *developed and* led by that organization or subdivision would lead to the *relevant* director’s removal." Para 210 - do we mean "two thirds of the SOs or ACs in ICANN" or do we mean "SOs *and* ACs"? Para 215 - an interesting list which led me to wonder what about the CEO? If the entire Board is recalled is that not also an indictment of the CEO who was selected by the Board/and is a "member" of the Board. What if the CEO is the problem? Para 688/689 - I don't think that we have captured anywhere the need for WS2 (or some group/process) to undertake a systematic review of the implementation and effectiveness of the WS1 enhancements/powers and the ability to reassess/review/recommend changes? I may have missed it. Hope these help. Matthew On 5/2/2015 6:34 AM, Robin Gross wrote:

Thanks for the quick turnaround. Here's a few comments and proposed edits to this draft.

Thanks, Robin

*_Section 2.6.1.1_* 1. This exact sentence is repeated twice in this section (para 2 and para 6). Please delete it from the end of para 2: "In preparing for the environment that emerges.... is not an option."

2. under 4 e. (p. 38): We need to qualify this claim as "as per California law" or the public commenters will surely point it out for us, and rebuke us for not realizing, being US-centric in our legal thinking, and overstating UA protections to the international community.

3. under 5 (p.38): This sentence should stand alone as its own bullet point (as per agreement to this in this week's call). The sentence is important enough to stand on its own and it doesn't neatly tie to the preceding sentence in this paraLegal counsel further advises that the SO's and AC's should organize themselves into UAs in both corporate governance models, whether a designator or a membership structure, to ensure their ability to enforce their rights."

4. para 6 (p. 38): Both sentences in this bullet are duplicates of what was said above. Delete this para as it is repetitious and no new info provided.

*_Section 2.6.1.2_*

5. Para 179 (d): Please add the rationale onto the end of the sentence that explains why this alternative was proposed. It should read: "It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN, which is rooted in the private sector." This *is* the rationale for why it was proposed, even if some don't agree with the conclusion, it should be provided as the rationale (as the bullet claims to provide the rationale).

*_Glossary at the End:_*

6. para 779 (p.96) - Description of the GNSO is factually incorrect in several ways. Here's a corrected version: "The GNSO is the body responsible for developing policy recommendations regarding GTLD policy matters to ICANN's Board. The GNSO is comprised of 4 stakeholder groups: non-commercial users, commercial users, registries, and registrars."

7. para 836 (p. 101) - SO's are NOT "advisory" bodies. AC's are "advisory" bodies - hence the "A" in their name. SO's develop policy recommendations, so they should be correctly described as "policy development bodies" in this para.

8. In general, some of the paragraphs on the organizations, SO's, and AC's in the glossary read like commercial advertisements for them (especially ICANN's). I doubt that this is the appropriate forum for some of the promotional text in these group's "bios", but am more focused on editing substantive points herein.

That's all! Thank you.

On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:

...

Dear all,

Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF).

Version 10 incorporates the following:

* Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC * Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) * Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations * Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs

Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list by*Saturday 2 May 01:00 UTC* (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. /If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the _clean_ version so that they are _clearly marked and visible_. /There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits.

Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane.

Almost there! — Grace

<CCWG-Draft-Proposal-V10-clean.docx><CCWG-Draft-Proposal-V10-clean.pdf><CCWG-Draft-Proposal-V10-redline.docx><CCWG-Draft-Proposal-V10-redline.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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

-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987