Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards 2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>:

Thanks Grace.

Dear CCWG, Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration.

Best,

Sam

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Hi all, Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs* with staff in copy* to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. Have a good weekend, Grace

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear all,

We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report.

Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, Grace

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear all,

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

Version 10 incorporates the following:

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

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

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

Almost there! — Grace

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

Kavouss et AL Extremely important totally agree. The remainder of the report will hang on that or be hung is not righted. RD On May 2, 2015 3:36 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

IMPORTANT AND URGENT

Dear co-chairs,

Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this

doc. for final comments

I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now.

I therefore do not wish to delay the work.

However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last

e-mail.

That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as

being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process.

This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one

category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) .

I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that

term.

All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL be

treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders.

In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake

which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders.

There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led

multistakeholder are referred to in the doc.

Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other

part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference.

Regards

Kavouss

2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time

constrain, I have an important edit that is attached.

...

The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards

2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>:

...

Thanks Grace.

Dear CCWG, Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration.

Best,

Sam

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <

accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

...

Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Hi all, Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. Have a good weekend, Grace

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear all,

We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report.

Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, Grace

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear all,

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

Version 10 incorporates the following: Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list bySaturday 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

Dear Co chair, The message that I sent you and supported by others needs to be implemented. I strongly oppose top any discriminatory terms, expressions motivations attepmting to polarize the community in " Private led " por " public led" or any other divding terms to be used as an adjective for Multistakeholder. It is to be noted that a group of people even disagree with multistakeholer approach .Then let us try to convince them that the multistakeholder approach is widely agreed by many but and but without the use of and adjective such as " private led" . If this important issue is not taken on board there will be considerable opposition to the entire report. This is the issue of " to be " or " not to be" a biary approach yes with the report provided that the term " private led" in 4 or 5 places in the report is deleted . You are kindly urged to acknowledge receipt of this message and ensure of the proper ,neutral, impartial treatment of all categories of multistake holder and Regards Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Date: 2015-05-02 16:06 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert < rickert@anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga 2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: IMPORTANT AND URGENT

Dear co-chairs,

Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments

I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now.

I therefore do not wish to delay the work.

However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail.

That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process.

This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) .

I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term.

All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. *SHALL * be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders.

In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders.

There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc.

Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference.

Regards

Kavouss

2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards

2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>:

...

Thanks Grace.

Dear CCWG, Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration.

Best,

Sam

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Hi all, Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs* with staff in copy* to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. Have a good weekend, Grace

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear all,

We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report.

Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, Grace

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear all,

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

Version 10 incorporates the following:

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

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

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

Almost there! — Grace

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

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

Dear Jon, Icann Bylaws is not a holly book It was written many yaears ago ,We arae amending bylaws according the draft . Perhaps you did not raed my message. What we should say should be neutral and impartial. It is quite clear that private sector or private entities contributing to the activities in a considerable manner than perhaps other entities . This does not necessirily requires that we explicily prefer one group to other group or explictly focuss the attention to one group vis a vis other group. Like YOU I am also in favour of private contributions which has been till now erormous but I do not want to polarize the society or stakeholder. With or without that term the Internet will be developped then why we create an atmosphere of division and polarization , If the organisation has been let by private nothing will prevent that to continue without saying that explictly. Let us be practical pragmatic, neutral, impèartial, inclussive and democratic. Let us be together . Let us be united . The issue is not critical that we would obliged to specifically mention that. I request you to kindly carefully read my analysis and in view of the fact that nothing prevent the private entities to contribute or led the organization but not spell it out and creating division polarization divergence and animosity I spent 42 years dealing with similar matter. If we can reconcile why not you are right . every body is right but once again let us not to be divided. Kavouss t 2015-05-03 16:14 GMT+02:00 Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co>:

With respect, I don't support the deletion of the words "private" or "private-led" in the context of the concept of multi-stakeholderism and the report.

It is clear from ICANN Bylaws ( https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en) that the organization is to be led privately, while at the same time receiving important advice from the governments.

"Section 2 Core Values 11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations."

Similarly, the NTIA announcement on the transition specifically mentions that it should be privately led: "The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 *Statement of Policy* <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/6_5_98dns.pdf> stated that the U.S. Government 'is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.'”

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-...

Best,

Jon

On May 2, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Co chair, The message that I sent you and supported by others needs to be implemented. I strongly oppose top any discriminatory terms, expressions motivations attepmting to polarize the community in " Private led " por " public led" or any other divding terms to be used as an adjective for Multistakeholder. It is to be noted that a group of people even disagree with multistakeholer approach .Then let us try to convince them that the multistakeholder approach is widely agreed by many but and but without the use of and adjective such as " private led" . If this important issue is not taken on board there will be considerable opposition to the entire report. This is the issue of " to be " or " not to be" a biary approach yes with the report provided that the term " private led" in 4 or 5 places in the report is deleted . You are kindly urged to acknowledge receipt of this message and ensure of the proper ,neutral, impartial treatment of all categories of multistake holder and Regards Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Date: 2015-05-02 16:06 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert < rickert@anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga

2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

IMPORTANT AND URGENT

...

Dear co-chairs, Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. I therefore do not wish to delay the work. However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. *SHALL * be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. Regards

Kavouss

2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards

2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>:

...

Thanks Grace.

Dear CCWG, Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration.

Best,

Sam

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Hi all, Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs* with staff in copy* to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. Have a good weekend, Grace

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear all,

We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report.

Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, Grace

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear all,

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

Version 10 incorporates the following:

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

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

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

Almost there! — Grace

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

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

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

i am against government involvement in any of this, on principle, and have been so, on the record for ever, but this is supposed to be a multistakeholder effort. Whatever that is. e -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On May 3, 2015, at 16:04, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co> wrote:

Dear Kavouss:

I did read your message. I respectfully disagree with it. This is not an issue with which to be impartial or neutral. It is a fundamental tenet of the multi-stakeholder model that should not be ignored in the document. If being explicit about it would polarize the folks on the list or those reviewing these accountability recommendations, so be it. Let's have the debate and settle the issue. We should not sweep the proverbial dust under the rug on an issue that is a core value to the model. Being explicit should not create animosity, but rather clarity of expectations. The NTIA was explicit in 2014 when it announced the transition. I don't see why we shouldn't be as well.

Best,

Jon

...

On May 3, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Jon, Icann Bylaws is not a holly book It was written many yaears ago ,We arae amending bylaws according the draft . Perhaps you did not raed my message. What we should say should be neutral and impartial. It is quite clear that private sector or private entities contributing to the activities in a considerable manner than perhaps other entities . This does not necessirily requires that we explicily prefer one group to other group or explictly focuss the attention to one group vis a vis other group. Like YOU I am also in favour of private contributions which has been till now erormous but I do not want to polarize the society or stakeholder. With or without that term the Internet will be developped then why we create an atmosphere of division and polarization , If the organisation has been let by private nothing will prevent that to continue without saying that explictly. Let us be practical pragmatic, neutral, impèartial, inclussive and democratic. Let us be together . Let us be united . The issue is not critical that we would obliged to specifically mention that. I request you to kindly carefully read my analysis and in view of the fact that nothing prevent the private entities to contribute or led the organization but not spell it out and creating division polarization divergence and animosity I spent 42 years dealing with similar matter. If we can reconcile why not you are right . every body is right but once again let us not to be divided. Kavouss t

2015-05-03 16:14 GMT+02:00 Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co>:

...

With respect, I don't support the deletion of the words "private" or "private-led" in the context of the concept of multi-stakeholderism and the report.

It is clear from ICANN Bylaws (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en) that the organization is to be led privately, while at the same time receiving important advice from the governments.

"Section 2 Core Values 11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations."

Similarly, the NTIA announcement on the transition specifically mentions that it should be privately led: "The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government 'is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.'”

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-...

Best,

Jon

...

On May 2, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Co chair, The message that I sent you and supported by others needs to be implemented. I strongly oppose top any discriminatory terms, expressions motivations attepmting to polarize the community in " Private led " por " public led" or any other divding terms to be used as an adjective for Multistakeholder. It is to be noted that a group of people even disagree with multistakeholer approach .Then let us try to convince them that the multistakeholder approach is widely agreed by many but and but without the use of and adjective such as " private led" . If this important issue is not taken on board there will be considerable opposition to the entire report. This is the issue of " to be " or " not to be" a biary approach yes with the report provided that the term " private led" in 4 or 5 places in the report is deleted . You are kindly urged to acknowledge receipt of this message and ensure of the proper ,neutral, impartial treatment of all categories of multistake holder and Regards Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Date: 2015-05-02 16:06 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga

2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

IMPORTANT AND URGENT Dear co-chairs, Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. I therefore do not wish to delay the work. However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. Regards Kavouss

2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards

2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>: > Thanks Grace. > > Dear CCWG, > Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration. > > Best, > > Sam > > From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM > To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > > Hi all, > Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. > Have a good weekend, > Grace > > From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM > To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > > Dear all, > > We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. > > Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, > Grace > > From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM > To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > > Dear all, > > Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). > > Version 10 incorporates the following: > Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC > Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) > Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations > Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs > Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list bySaturday 2 May 01:00 UTC (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits. > > Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane. > > Almost there! > — Grace > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

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

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

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

Dear Jon Yes Let us discuss it . I also humbly and respectfully disagree with you and your argument. Should we disagree to reconcile then I propose to put " private led" in a square bracket with a note saying that " no consensus was reached on the retention or deletion of this tern. Let us be practical. At this very late hours we hardly could resolve it if you do not agree for deletion Several others agreed with tgat deletion, We certainly do not agree with the retention of that term Explicit Square bracket is the the only solution Best regard Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 3 May 2015, at 17:04, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co> wrote:

Dear Kavouss:

I did read your message. I respectfully disagree with it. This is not an issue with which to be impartial or neutral. It is a fundamental tenet of the multi-stakeholder model that should not be ignored in the document. If being explicit about it would polarize the folks on the list or those reviewing these accountability recommendations, so be it. Let's have the debate and settle the issue. We should not sweep the proverbial dust under the rug on an issue that is a core value to the model. Being explicit should not create animosity, but rather clarity of expectations. The NTIA was explicit in 2014 when it announced the transition. I don't see why we shouldn't be as well.

Best,

Jon

...

On May 3, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Jon, Icann Bylaws is not a holly book It was written many yaears ago ,We arae amending bylaws according the draft . Perhaps you did not raed my message. What we should say should be neutral and impartial. It is quite clear that private sector or private entities contributing to the activities in a considerable manner than perhaps other entities . This does not necessirily requires that we explicily prefer one group to other group or explictly focuss the attention to one group vis a vis other group. Like YOU I am also in favour of private contributions which has been till now erormous but I do not want to polarize the society or stakeholder. With or without that term the Internet will be developped then why we create an atmosphere of division and polarization , If the organisation has been let by private nothing will prevent that to continue without saying that explictly. Let us be practical pragmatic, neutral, impèartial, inclussive and democratic. Let us be together . Let us be united . The issue is not critical that we would obliged to specifically mention that. I request you to kindly carefully read my analysis and in view of the fact that nothing prevent the private entities to contribute or led the organization but not spell it out and creating division polarization divergence and animosity I spent 42 years dealing with similar matter. If we can reconcile why not you are right . every body is right but once again let us not to be divided. Kavouss t

2015-05-03 16:14 GMT+02:00 Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co>:

...

With respect, I don't support the deletion of the words "private" or "private-led" in the context of the concept of multi-stakeholderism and the report.

It is clear from ICANN Bylaws (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en) that the organization is to be led privately, while at the same time receiving important advice from the governments.

"Section 2 Core Values 11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations."

Similarly, the NTIA announcement on the transition specifically mentions that it should be privately led: "The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government 'is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.'”

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-...

Best,

Jon

...

On May 2, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Co chair, The message that I sent you and supported by others needs to be implemented. I strongly oppose top any discriminatory terms, expressions motivations attepmting to polarize the community in " Private led " por " public led" or any other divding terms to be used as an adjective for Multistakeholder. It is to be noted that a group of people even disagree with multistakeholer approach .Then let us try to convince them that the multistakeholder approach is widely agreed by many but and but without the use of and adjective such as " private led" . If this important issue is not taken on board there will be considerable opposition to the entire report. This is the issue of " to be " or " not to be" a biary approach yes with the report provided that the term " private led" in 4 or 5 places in the report is deleted . You are kindly urged to acknowledge receipt of this message and ensure of the proper ,neutral, impartial treatment of all categories of multistake holder and Regards Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Date: 2015-05-02 16:06 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga

2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

IMPORTANT AND URGENT Dear co-chairs, Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. I therefore do not wish to delay the work. However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. Regards Kavouss

2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards

2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>: > Thanks Grace. > > Dear CCWG, > Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration. > > Best, > > Sam > > From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM > To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > > Hi all, > Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. > Have a good weekend, > Grace > > From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM > To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > > Dear all, > > We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. > > Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, > Grace > > From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM > To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > > Dear all, > > Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). > > Version 10 incorporates the following: > Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC > Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) > Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations > Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs > Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list bySaturday 2 May 01:00 UTC (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits. > > Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane. > > Almost there! > — Grace > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

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

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

Robin Tks But this is an important issue either we delete the term and just make it General and leave it to each individual to interprets it in the way she or he deems appropriate or put the term in square bracket with an explanatory note as suggested Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 3 May 2015, at 17:28, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:

But this *isn't* a consensus document, as we explicitly say in the beginning. There isn't agreement in this group on how to weight the various SO's and AC's relative to each other, so those who are suggesting one of the alternatives are providing the rationale for the proposal. I'm concerned about crossing out the rationale for the proposal based on whether everyone in the group *agrees* with the proposal. Is it really appropriate for those who disagree with a proposal to insist that its rationale not be included? Aren't we supposed to be informing the community about why proposals were made and not claiming we are all agree with every proposal in the document?

Thanks, Robin

...

On May 3, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Dear Jon Yes Let us discuss it . I also humbly and respectfully disagree with you and your argument. Should we disagree to reconcile then I propose to put " private led" in a square bracket with a note saying that " no consensus was reached on the retention or deletion of this tern. Let us be practical. At this very late hours we hardly could resolve it if you do not agree for deletion Several others agreed with tgat deletion, We certainly do not agree with the retention of that term Explicit Square bracket is the the only solution Best regard Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 3 May 2015, at 17:04, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co> wrote:

Dear Kavouss:

I did read your message. I respectfully disagree with it. This is not an issue with which to be impartial or neutral. It is a fundamental tenet of the multi-stakeholder model that should not be ignored in the document. If being explicit about it would polarize the folks on the list or those reviewing these accountability recommendations, so be it. Let's have the debate and settle the issue. We should not sweep the proverbial dust under the rug on an issue that is a core value to the model. Being explicit should not create animosity, but rather clarity of expectations. The NTIA was explicit in 2014 when it announced the transition. I don't see why we shouldn't be as well.

Best,

Jon

...

On May 3, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Jon, Icann Bylaws is not a holly book It was written many yaears ago ,We arae amending bylaws according the draft . Perhaps you did not raed my message. What we should say should be neutral and impartial. It is quite clear that private sector or private entities contributing to the activities in a considerable manner than perhaps other entities . This does not necessirily requires that we explicily prefer one group to other group or explictly focuss the attention to one group vis a vis other group. Like YOU I am also in favour of private contributions which has been till now erormous but I do not want to polarize the society or stakeholder. With or without that term the Internet will be developped then why we create an atmosphere of division and polarization , If the organisation has been let by private nothing will prevent that to continue without saying that explictly. Let us be practical pragmatic, neutral, impèartial, inclussive and democratic. Let us be together . Let us be united . The issue is not critical that we would obliged to specifically mention that. I request you to kindly carefully read my analysis and in view of the fact that nothing prevent the private entities to contribute or led the organization but not spell it out and creating division polarization divergence and animosity I spent 42 years dealing with similar matter. If we can reconcile why not you are right . every body is right but once again let us not to be divided. Kavouss t

2015-05-03 16:14 GMT+02:00 Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co>:

...

With respect, I don't support the deletion of the words "private" or "private-led" in the context of the concept of multi-stakeholderism and the report.

It is clear from ICANN Bylaws (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en) that the organization is to be led privately, while at the same time receiving important advice from the governments.

"Section 2 Core Values 11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations."

Similarly, the NTIA announcement on the transition specifically mentions that it should be privately led: "The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government 'is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.'”

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-...

Best,

Jon

...

On May 2, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Co chair, The message that I sent you and supported by others needs to be implemented. I strongly oppose top any discriminatory terms, expressions motivations attepmting to polarize the community in " Private led " por " public led" or any other divding terms to be used as an adjective for Multistakeholder. It is to be noted that a group of people even disagree with multistakeholer approach .Then let us try to convince them that the multistakeholder approach is widely agreed by many but and but without the use of and adjective such as " private led" . If this important issue is not taken on board there will be considerable opposition to the entire report. This is the issue of " to be " or " not to be" a biary approach yes with the report provided that the term " private led" in 4 or 5 places in the report is deleted . You are kindly urged to acknowledge receipt of this message and ensure of the proper ,neutral, impartial treatment of all categories of multistake holder and Regards Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Date: 2015-05-02 16:06 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga

2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

> IMPORTANT AND URGENT > Dear co-chairs, > Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments > I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. > I therefore do not wish to delay the work. > However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. > That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. > This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . > I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. > All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. > In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. > There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. > Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. > Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: >> Dear All, >> I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. >> The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. >> Regards >> >> >> 2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>: >>> Thanks Grace. >>> >>> Dear CCWG, >>> Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Sam >>> >>> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM >>> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC >>> >>> Hi all, >>> Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. >>> Have a good weekend, >>> Grace >>> >>> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM >>> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. >>> >>> Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, >>> Grace >>> >>> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM >>> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). >>> >>> Version 10 incorporates the following: >>> Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC >>> Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) >>> Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations >>> Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs >>> Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list bySaturday 2 May 01:00 UTC (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits. >>> >>> Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane. >>> >>> Almost there! >>> — Grace >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

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

---

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

Dear Co-Chairs, This is another example that not only we are (and should not be) rushing this, and it requires a formal Consensus Call with attachment of minority viewpoint(s) if any. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On May 3, 2015, at 16:16, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Jon Yes Let us discuss it . I also humbly and respectfully disagree with you and your argument. Should we disagree to reconcile then I propose to put " private led" in a square bracket with a note saying that " no consensus was reached on the retention or deletion of this tern. Let us be practical. At this very late hours we hardly could resolve it if you do not agree for deletion Several others agreed with tgat deletion, We certainly do not agree with the retention of that term Explicit Square bracket is the the only solution Best regard Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 3 May 2015, at 17:04, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co> wrote:

Dear Kavouss:

I did read your message. I respectfully disagree with it. This is not an issue with which to be impartial or neutral. It is a fundamental tenet of the multi-stakeholder model that should not be ignored in the document. If being explicit about it would polarize the folks on the list or those reviewing these accountability recommendations, so be it. Let's have the debate and settle the issue. We should not sweep the proverbial dust under the rug on an issue that is a core value to the model. Being explicit should not create animosity, but rather clarity of expectations. The NTIA was explicit in 2014 when it announced the transition. I don't see why we shouldn't be as well.

Best,

Jon

...

On May 3, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Jon, Icann Bylaws is not a holly book It was written many yaears ago ,We arae amending bylaws according the draft . Perhaps you did not raed my message. What we should say should be neutral and impartial. It is quite clear that private sector or private entities contributing to the activities in a considerable manner than perhaps other entities . This does not necessirily requires that we explicily prefer one group to other group or explictly focuss the attention to one group vis a vis other group. Like YOU I am also in favour of private contributions which has been till now erormous but I do not want to polarize the society or stakeholder. With or without that term the Internet will be developped then why we create an atmosphere of division and polarization , If the organisation has been let by private nothing will prevent that to continue without saying that explictly. Let us be practical pragmatic, neutral, impèartial, inclussive and democratic. Let us be together . Let us be united . The issue is not critical that we would obliged to specifically mention that. I request you to kindly carefully read my analysis and in view of the fact that nothing prevent the private entities to contribute or led the organization but not spell it out and creating division polarization divergence and animosity I spent 42 years dealing with similar matter. If we can reconcile why not you are right . every body is right but once again let us not to be divided. Kavouss t

2015-05-03 16:14 GMT+02:00 Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co>:

...

With respect, I don't support the deletion of the words "private" or "private-led" in the context of the concept of multi-stakeholderism and the report.

It is clear from ICANN Bylaws (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en) that the organization is to be led privately, while at the same time receiving important advice from the governments.

"Section 2 Core Values 11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations."

Similarly, the NTIA announcement on the transition specifically mentions that it should be privately led: "The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government 'is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.'”

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-...

Best,

Jon

...

On May 2, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Co chair, The message that I sent you and supported by others needs to be implemented. I strongly oppose top any discriminatory terms, expressions motivations attepmting to polarize the community in " Private led " por " public led" or any other divding terms to be used as an adjective for Multistakeholder. It is to be noted that a group of people even disagree with multistakeholer approach .Then let us try to convince them that the multistakeholder approach is widely agreed by many but and but without the use of and adjective such as " private led" . If this important issue is not taken on board there will be considerable opposition to the entire report. This is the issue of " to be " or " not to be" a biary approach yes with the report provided that the term " private led" in 4 or 5 places in the report is deleted . You are kindly urged to acknowledge receipt of this message and ensure of the proper ,neutral, impartial treatment of all categories of multistake holder and Regards Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Date: 2015-05-02 16:06 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga

2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

IMPORTANT AND URGENT Dear co-chairs, Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. I therefore do not wish to delay the work. However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. Regards Kavouss

2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: > Dear All, > I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. > The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. > Regards > > > 2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>: >> Thanks Grace. >> >> Dear CCWG, >> Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration. >> >> Best, >> >> Sam >> >> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM >> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC >> >> Hi all, >> Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. >> Have a good weekend, >> Grace >> >> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM >> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC >> >> Dear all, >> >> We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. >> >> Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, >> Grace >> >> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM >> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC >> >> Dear all, >> >> Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). >> >> Version 10 incorporates the following: >> Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC >> Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) >> Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations >> Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs >> Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list bySaturday 2 May 01:00 UTC (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits. >> >> Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane. >> >> Almost there! >> — Grace >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

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

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

---

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

+1 Jon Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone

El may 3, 2015, a las 8:14, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co> escribió:

With respect, I don't support the deletion of the words "private" or "private-led" in the context of the concept of multi-stakeholderism and the report.

It is clear from ICANN Bylaws (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en) that the organization is to be led privately, while at the same time receiving important advice from the governments.

"Section 2 Core Values 11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations."

Similarly, the NTIA announcement on the transition specifically mentions that it should be privately led: "The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government 'is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.'”

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-...

Best,

Jon

...

On May 2, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Co chair, The message that I sent you and supported by others needs to be implemented. I strongly oppose top any discriminatory terms, expressions motivations attepmting to polarize the community in " Private led " por " public led" or any other divding terms to be used as an adjective for Multistakeholder. It is to be noted that a group of people even disagree with multistakeholer approach .Then let us try to convince them that the multistakeholder approach is widely agreed by many but and but without the use of and adjective such as " private led" . If this important issue is not taken on board there will be considerable opposition to the entire report. This is the issue of " to be " or " not to be" a biary approach yes with the report provided that the term " private led" in 4 or 5 places in the report is deleted . You are kindly urged to acknowledge receipt of this message and ensure of the proper ,neutral, impartial treatment of all categories of multistake holder and Regards Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Date: 2015-05-02 16:06 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga

2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

IMPORTANT AND URGENT Dear co-chairs, Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. I therefore do not wish to delay the work. However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. Regards Kavouss

2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards

2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>:

...

Thanks Grace.

Dear CCWG, Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration.

Best,

Sam

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Hi all, Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. Have a good weekend, Grace

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear all,

We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report.

Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, Grace

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear all,

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

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

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

Almost there! — Grace

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

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

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

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

I agree with Jon and Carlos. It should also be noted that the AOC refers to ICANN as being a "multi-stakeholder private sector led organization with input from the public." I read the term 'private' liberally to include, for example, private civil society organisations where the principle distinctive purpose of the word 'private' is to ensure ICANN does not become, e.g., a 'multi-stakeholder public sector run organization'. In addition to substance I would suggest that the day before document delivery is not an appropriate time to be making such substantive changes to the document, changes that run counter to ICANN's current bylaws and AOC. Perhaps it might be best to address such concerns during the public comment period. Best, Ed On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 3:41 PM, "Carlos Raúl G." <carlosraulg@gmail.com> wrote:

+1 Jon

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone

El may 3, 2015, a las 8:14, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co> escribió:

With respect, I don't support the deletion of the words "private" or "private-led" in the context of the concept of multi-stakeholderism and the report.

It is clear from ICANN Bylaws ( https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en) that the organization is to be led privately, while at the same time receiving important advice from the governments.

"Section 2 Core Values 11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations."

Similarly, the NTIA announcement on the transition specifically mentions that it should be privately led: "The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 *Statement of Policy* <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/6_5_98dns.pdf> stated that the U.S. Government 'is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.'”

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-...

Best,

Jon

On May 2, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Co chair, The message that I sent you and supported by others needs to be implemented. I strongly oppose top any discriminatory terms, expressions motivations attepmting to polarize the community in " Private led " por " public led" or any other divding terms to be used as an adjective for Multistakeholder. It is to be noted that a group of people even disagree with multistakeholer approach .Then let us try to convince them that the multistakeholder approach is widely agreed by many but and but without the use of and adjective such as " private led" . If this important issue is not taken on board there will be considerable opposition to the entire report. This is the issue of " to be " or " not to be" a biary approach yes with the report provided that the term " private led" in 4 or 5 places in the report is deleted . You are kindly urged to acknowledge receipt of this message and ensure of the proper ,neutral, impartial treatment of all categories of multistake holder and Regards Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Date: 2015-05-02 16:06 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert < rickert@anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga

2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

IMPORTANT AND URGENT

...

Dear co-chairs, Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. I therefore do not wish to delay the work. However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. *SHALL * be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. Regards

Kavouss

2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards

2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>:

...

Thanks Grace.

Dear CCWG, Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration.

Best,

Sam

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Hi all, Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs* with staff in copy* to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. Have a good weekend, Grace

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear all,

We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report.

Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, Grace

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear all,

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

Version 10 incorporates the following:

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

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

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

Almost there! — Grace

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Greg Thanks We need to freely and openly debate that. We hardly can agree to the retention if the term I suggested square bracketed with a note describing it. By the way I did not refer to WSIS with its narrow or wide aspects Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 3 May 2015, at 17:17, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with Jon, Carlos, David and Edward. We should clarify that "private sector" is used in the broad sense Edward describes and not the narrow sense used in e.g. The Tunis Agenda.

Greg

...

On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote: I agree with Jon and Carlos.

It should also be noted that the AOC refers to ICANN as being a "multi-stakeholder private sector led organization with input from the public." I read the term 'private' liberally to include, for example, private civil society organisations where the principle distinctive purpose of the word 'private' is to ensure ICANN does not become, e.g., a 'multi-stakeholder public sector run organization'.

In addition to substance I would suggest that the day before document delivery is not an appropriate time to be making such substantive changes to the document, changes that run counter to ICANN's current bylaws and AOC. Perhaps it might be best to address such concerns during the public comment period.

Best,

Ed

...

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 3:41 PM, "Carlos Raúl G." <carlosraulg@gmail.com> wrote: +1 Jon

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone

...

El may 3, 2015, a las 8:14, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co> escribió:

With respect, I don't support the deletion of the words "private" or "private-led" in the context of the concept of multi-stakeholderism and the report.

It is clear from ICANN Bylaws (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en) that the organization is to be led privately, while at the same time receiving important advice from the governments.

"Section 2 Core Values 11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations."

Similarly, the NTIA announcement on the transition specifically mentions that it should be privately led: "The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government 'is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.'”

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-...

Best,

Jon

...

On May 2, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Co chair, The message that I sent you and supported by others needs to be implemented. I strongly oppose top any discriminatory terms, expressions motivations attepmting to polarize the community in " Private led " por " public led" or any other divding terms to be used as an adjective for Multistakeholder. It is to be noted that a group of people even disagree with multistakeholer approach .Then let us try to convince them that the multistakeholder approach is widely agreed by many but and but without the use of and adjective such as " private led" . If this important issue is not taken on board there will be considerable opposition to the entire report. This is the issue of " to be " or " not to be" a biary approach yes with the report provided that the term " private led" in 4 or 5 places in the report is deleted . You are kindly urged to acknowledge receipt of this message and ensure of the proper ,neutral, impartial treatment of all categories of multistake holder and Regards Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Date: 2015-05-02 16:06 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga

2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

IMPORTANT AND URGENT Dear co-chairs, Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. I therefore do not wish to delay the work. However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. Regards Kavouss

2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: > Dear All, > I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. > The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. > Regards > > > 2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>: >> Thanks Grace. >> >> Dear CCWG, >> Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration. >> >> Best, >> >> Sam >> >> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM >> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC >> >> Hi all, >> Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. >> Have a good weekend, >> Grace >> >> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM >> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC >> >> Dear all, >> >> We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. >> >> Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, >> Grace >> >> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM >> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC >> >> Dear all, >> >> Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). >> >> Version 10 incorporates the following: >> Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC >> Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) >> Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations >> Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs >> Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list bySaturday 2 May 01:00 UTC (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits. >> >> Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane. >> >> Almost there! >> — Grace >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

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

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

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

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

---

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

Dear Greg Respectfully I do not share your views Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 3 May 2015, at 18:02, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

We need to be conservative with our changes. Otherwise, we might as well put the entire bylaws in square brackets. I don't believe that everything is possibly being changed unless we say it's not. Quite the opposite.

This would be a drastic change in ICANN's core values. Opening it up at this point in the preparation of this Draft would be inappropriate. Those who disagree with status quo on this point are free to say so in comments.

Greg

...

On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Greg Thanks We need to freely and openly debate that. We hardly can agree to the retention if the term I suggested square bracketed with a note describing it. By the way I did not refer to WSIS with its narrow or wide aspects Regards Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 3 May 2015, at 17:17, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with Jon, Carlos, David and Edward. We should clarify that "private sector" is used in the broad sense Edward describes and not the narrow sense used in e.g. The Tunis Agenda.

Greg

...

On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote: I agree with Jon and Carlos.

It should also be noted that the AOC refers to ICANN as being a "multi-stakeholder private sector led organization with input from the public." I read the term 'private' liberally to include, for example, private civil society organisations where the principle distinctive purpose of the word 'private' is to ensure ICANN does not become, e.g., a 'multi-stakeholder public sector run organization'.

In addition to substance I would suggest that the day before document delivery is not an appropriate time to be making such substantive changes to the document, changes that run counter to ICANN's current bylaws and AOC. Perhaps it might be best to address such concerns during the public comment period.

Best,

Ed

...

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 3:41 PM, "Carlos Raúl G." <carlosraulg@gmail.com> wrote: +1 Jon

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone

...

El may 3, 2015, a las 8:14, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co> escribió:

With respect, I don't support the deletion of the words "private" or "private-led" in the context of the concept of multi-stakeholderism and the report.

It is clear from ICANN Bylaws (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en) that the organization is to be led privately, while at the same time receiving important advice from the governments.

"Section 2 Core Values 11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations."

Similarly, the NTIA announcement on the transition specifically mentions that it should be privately led: "The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government 'is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.'”

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-...

Best,

Jon

> On May 2, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Co chair, > The message that I sent you and supported by others needs to be implemented. > I strongly oppose top any discriminatory terms, expressions motivations attepmting to polarize the community in " Private led " por " public led" or any other divding terms to be used as an adjective for Multistakeholder. It is to be noted that a group of people even disagree with multistakeholer approach .Then let us try to convince them that the multistakeholder approach is widely agreed by many but and but without the use of and adjective such as " private led" . > If this important issue is not taken on board there will be considerable opposition to the entire report. > This is the issue of " to be " or " not to be" a biary approach yes with the report provided that the term " private led" in 4 or 5 places in the report is deleted . > You are kindly urged to acknowledge receipt of this message and ensure of the proper ,neutral, impartial treatment of all categories of multistake holder and > Regards > Kavouss > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> > Date: 2015-05-02 16:06 GMT+02:00 > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > > > Dear all, > thanks for the draft. > I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. > Regards > Olga > > 2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: > >> IMPORTANT AND URGENT >> Dear co-chairs, >> Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments >> I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. >> I therefore do not wish to delay the work. >> However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. >> That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. >> This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . >> I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. >> All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. >> In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. >> There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. >> Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> 2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: >>> Dear All, >>> I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. >>> The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> 2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>: >>>> Thanks Grace. >>>> >>>> Dear CCWG, >>>> Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Sam >>>> >>>> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >>>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM >>>> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. >>>> Have a good weekend, >>>> Grace >>>> >>>> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >>>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM >>>> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>>> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. >>>> >>>> Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, >>>> Grace >>>> >>>> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >>>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM >>>> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>>> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). >>>> >>>> Version 10 incorporates the following: >>>> Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC >>>> Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) >>>> Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations >>>> Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs >>>> Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list bySaturday 2 May 01:00 UTC (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits. >>>> >>>> Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane. >>>> >>>> Almost there! >>>> — Grace >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

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

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

---

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

Dear Dr. As you mentioned at various occasions There is no consensus on the issue and that should be explicitly indicated. By the way I do not agree that we should be CONSERVATIVE. We should be neutral, impartial, pragnatic Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 3 May 2015, at 18:46, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:

Dear Co-Chairs,

in addition subordinate content to arbitrary deadlines, now the un-appointed participant representing the interests of the IPC wants us to be "conservative" in our changes.

I find no such restriction in our Charter.

el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

...

On May 3, 2015, at 17:02, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

We need to be conservative with our changes. Otherwise, we might as well put the entire bylaws in square brackets. I don't believe that everything is possibly being changed unless we say it's not. Quite the opposite.

This would be a drastic change in ICANN's core values. Opening it up at this point in the preparation of this Draft would be inappropriate. Those who disagree with status quo on this point are free to say so in comments.

Greg

...

On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Greg Thanks We need to freely and openly debate that. We hardly can agree to the retention if the term I suggested square bracketed with a note describing it. By the way I did not refer to WSIS with its narrow or wide aspects Regards Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 3 May 2015, at 17:17, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with Jon, Carlos, David and Edward. We should clarify that "private sector" is used in the broad sense Edward describes and not the narrow sense used in e.g. The Tunis Agenda.

Greg

...

On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote: I agree with Jon and Carlos.

It should also be noted that the AOC refers to ICANN as being a "multi-stakeholder private sector led organization with input from the public." I read the term 'private' liberally to include, for example, private civil society organisations where the principle distinctive purpose of the word 'private' is to ensure ICANN does not become, e.g., a 'multi-stakeholder public sector run organization'.

In addition to substance I would suggest that the day before document delivery is not an appropriate time to be making such substantive changes to the document, changes that run counter to ICANN's current bylaws and AOC. Perhaps it might be best to address such concerns during the public comment period.

Best,

Ed

...

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 3:41 PM, "Carlos Raúl G." <carlosraulg@gmail.com> wrote: +1 Jon

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

Dear Edward Yes It should neither be a private. Multistajeholder is multistajeholdet covering all stakeholders private and public Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 3 May 2015, at 17:07, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

I agree with Jon and Carlos.

It should also be noted that the AOC refers to ICANN as being a "multi-stakeholder private sector led organization with input from the public." I read the term 'private' liberally to include, for example, private civil society organisations where the principle distinctive purpose of the word 'private' is to ensure ICANN does not become, e.g., a 'multi-stakeholder public sector run organization'.

In addition to substance I would suggest that the day before document delivery is not an appropriate time to be making such substantive changes to the document, changes that run counter to ICANN's current bylaws and AOC. Perhaps it might be best to address such concerns during the public comment period.

Best,

Ed

...

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 3:41 PM, "Carlos Raúl G." <carlosraulg@gmail.com> wrote: +1 Jon

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone

...

El may 3, 2015, a las 8:14, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co> escribió:

With respect, I don't support the deletion of the words "private" or "private-led" in the context of the concept of multi-stakeholderism and the report.

It is clear from ICANN Bylaws (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en) that the organization is to be led privately, while at the same time receiving important advice from the governments.

"Section 2 Core Values 11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations."

Similarly, the NTIA announcement on the transition specifically mentions that it should be privately led: "The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government 'is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.'”

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-...

Best,

Jon

...

On May 2, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Co chair, The message that I sent you and supported by others needs to be implemented. I strongly oppose top any discriminatory terms, expressions motivations attepmting to polarize the community in " Private led " por " public led" or any other divding terms to be used as an adjective for Multistakeholder. It is to be noted that a group of people even disagree with multistakeholer approach .Then let us try to convince them that the multistakeholder approach is widely agreed by many but and but without the use of and adjective such as " private led" . If this important issue is not taken on board there will be considerable opposition to the entire report. This is the issue of " to be " or " not to be" a biary approach yes with the report provided that the term " private led" in 4 or 5 places in the report is deleted . You are kindly urged to acknowledge receipt of this message and ensure of the proper ,neutral, impartial treatment of all categories of multistake holder and Regards Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Date: 2015-05-02 16:06 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga

2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

IMPORTANT AND URGENT Dear co-chairs, Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. I therefore do not wish to delay the work. However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. Regards Kavouss

2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards

2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>: > Thanks Grace. > > Dear CCWG, > Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration. > > Best, > > Sam > > From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM > To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > > Hi all, > Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. > Have a good weekend, > Grace > > From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM > To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > > Dear all, > > We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. > > Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, > Grace > > From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM > To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > > Dear all, > > Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). > > Version 10 incorporates the following: > Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC > Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) > Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations > Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs > Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list bySaturday 2 May 01:00 UTC (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits. > > Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane. > > Almost there! > — Grace > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, I too agree that the report should take a multistakeholder view that treats all ICANN stakeholders equally. I do not think that it is necessary that that all stakeholders decide to do things in the same manner, but that the various options should be open to all stakeholders on an overall equal footing. I do not believe that all stakeholders have the same roles and responsibilities in each phase of every operation. But in the overall process there needs to be a balanced and equal footing. This is a goal in my view in all Internet Governance (IG) mechanisms. ICANN is an organization that is closer to doing this in a open and equal footing manner than most organizations in IG. I think that it is is important in this Accountabilty work to be clear about that continuing goal. I do not, however, wish to accidentally fall into the pattern where there is parity between 2 stakeholder grouping: private and public. Rather we need the full multistakeholder mix. I think we should mention neither public nor private and just mention the diversity of stakeholder groups involved in ICANN. The word multistakeholder should be sufficient. avri On 02-May-15 10:06, Olga Cavalli wrote:

Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga

2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

IMPORTANT AND URGENT

Dear co-chairs,

Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments

I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now.

I therefore do not wish to delay the work.

However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail.

That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process.

This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) .

I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term.

All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. *SHALL * be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders.

In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders.

There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc.

Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference.

Regards

Kavouss

2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards

2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>:

Thanks Grace.

Dear CCWG, Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration.

Best,

Sam

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Hi all, Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs_with staff in copy_ to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. Have a good weekend, Grace

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear all,

We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report.

Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, Grace

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Dear all,

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

Version 10 incorporates the following:

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

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

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

Almost there! — Grace

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <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 <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

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

Dear all I would like to echo my GAC colleagues regarding the definition of the term “multistakeholder” to be used in the report. We (DK) agree that using the term “multistakeholder “ without the qualifiers is preferable as the term in itself embraces all stakeholders. Best, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Kavouss Arasteh Sendt: 2. maj 2015 18:16 Til: Avri Doria Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear Avri, YES and Yes . I fully agree with what you said we just need to mention everywhere referenced " in a multistakeholder button up approach without any refernce to private or public..We are emerging more and more and should refrain to motivate any division or polarisation. Regards Kavouss 2015-05-02 17:28 GMT+02:00 Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>: Hi, I too agree that the report should take a multistakeholder view that treats all ICANN stakeholders equally. I do not think that it is necessary that that all stakeholders decide to do things in the same manner, but that the various options should be open to all stakeholders on an overall equal footing. I do not believe that all stakeholders have the same roles and responsibilities in each phase of every operation. But in the overall process there needs to be a balanced and equal footing. This is a goal in my view in all Internet Governance (IG) mechanisms. ICANN is an organization that is closer to doing this in a open and equal footing manner than most organizations in IG. I think that it is is important in this Accountabilty work to be clear about that continuing goal. I do not, however, wish to accidentally fall into the pattern where there is parity between 2 stakeholder grouping: private and public. Rather we need the full multistakeholder mix. I think we should mention neither public nor private and just mention the diversity of stakeholder groups involved in ICANN. The word multistakeholder should be sufficient. avri On 02-May-15 10:06, Olga Cavalli wrote: Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga 2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: IMPORTANT AND URGENT Dear co-chairs, Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. I therefore do not wish to delay the work. However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. Regards Kavouss 2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards 2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>: Thanks Grace. Dear CCWG, Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration. Best, Sam From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Hi all, Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. Have a good weekend, Grace From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all, We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, Grace From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all, Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). Version 10 incorporates the following: * Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC * Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) * Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations * Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list bySaturday 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<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<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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ [Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ 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

Of course, all the governments want to eliminate the phrase “private sector” from discussion, even though it has been part of the ICANN Bylaws and AOC for dozens of years. I would too if I were in their shoes. As a non-government person who reads the NTIA conditions as critically emphasizing only one thing – the absence of future government control – I would see the elimination of a phrase that has been in the system for a long time as signifying a change in practice. Clearly the governments do too – that’s why they want it eliminated. If we make this change we signal to the world that the governments will have a bigger role than they do now, and we jeopardize the transition altogether. Ed Morris is right – this is a change we should not make … 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 From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 8:08 AM To: Julia Katja Wolman; Avri Doria; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Hi All Spain would also like to stress our support for the use of the term “multistakeholder” without additional qualifiers. Best Rafa De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Julia Katja Wolman Enviado el: lunes, 04 de mayo de 2015 13:34 Para: Avri Doria; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all I would like to echo my GAC colleagues regarding the definition of the term “multistakeholder” to be used in the report. We (DK) agree that using the term “multistakeholder “ without the qualifiers is preferable as the term in itself embraces all stakeholders. Best, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Kavouss Arasteh Sendt: 2. maj 2015 18:16 Til: Avri Doria Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear Avri, YES and Yes . I fully agree with what you said we just need to mention everywhere referenced " in a multistakeholder button up approach without any refernce to private or public..We are emerging more and more and should refrain to motivate any division or polarisation. Regards Kavouss 2015-05-02 17:28 GMT+02:00 Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> >: Hi, I too agree that the report should take a multistakeholder view that treats all ICANN stakeholders equally. I do not think that it is necessary that that all stakeholders decide to do things in the same manner, but that the various options should be open to all stakeholders on an overall equal footing. I do not believe that all stakeholders have the same roles and responsibilities in each phase of every operation. But in the overall process there needs to be a balanced and equal footing. This is a goal in my view in all Internet Governance (IG) mechanisms. ICANN is an organization that is closer to doing this in a open and equal footing manner than most organizations in IG. I think that it is is important in this Accountabilty work to be clear about that continuing goal. I do not, however, wish to accidentally fall into the pattern where there is parity between 2 stakeholder grouping: private and public. Rather we need the full multistakeholder mix. I think we should mention neither public nor private and just mention the diversity of stakeholder groups involved in ICANN. The word multistakeholder should be sufficient. avri On 02-May-15 10:06, Olga Cavalli wrote: Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga 2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >: IMPORTANT AND URGENT Dear co-chairs, Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. I therefore do not wish to delay the work. However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. Regards Kavouss 2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >: Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards 2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> >: Thanks Grace. Dear CCWG, Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration. Best, Sam From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Hi all, Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. Have a good weekend, Grace From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all, We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, Grace From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all, Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). Version 10 incorporates the following: * Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC * Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) * Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations * Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list bySaturday 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 <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 <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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _____ <http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ 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

Agree with Paul and Ed. Removing the “private sector” qualifier is inconsistent with the existing bylaws (Core Values, #11), and sections #1, #4, and #8 of the Affirmation of Commitments. It represents a significant and unacceptable modification of the status quo. Thanks— J. From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Date: Monday, May 4, 2015 at 8:20 To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Of course, all the governments want to eliminate the phrase “private sector” from discussion, even though it has been part of the ICANN Bylaws and AOC for dozens of years. I would too if I were in their shoes. As a non-government person who reads the NTIA conditions as critically emphasizing only one thing – the absence of future government control – I would see the elimination of a phrase that has been in the system for a long time as signifying a change in practice. Clearly the governments do too – that’s why they want it eliminated. If we make this change we signal to the world that the governments will have a bigger role than they do now, and we jeopardize the transition altogether. Ed Morris is right – this is a change we should not make … Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 8:08 AM To: Julia Katja Wolman; Avri Doria; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Hi All Spain would also like to stress our support for the use of the term “multistakeholder” without additional qualifiers. Best Rafa De:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Julia Katja Wolman Enviado el: lunes, 04 de mayo de 2015 13:34 Para: Avri Doria; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all I would like to echo my GAC colleagues regarding the definition of the term “multistakeholder” to be used in the report. We (DK) agree that using the term “multistakeholder “ without the qualifiers is preferable as the term in itself embraces all stakeholders. Best, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH PPlease consider the environment before printing this email. Fra:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Kavouss Arasteh Sendt: 2. maj 2015 18:16 Til: Avri Doria Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear Avri, YES and Yes . I fully agree with what you said we just need to mention everywhere referenced " in a multistakeholder button up approach without any refernce to private or public..We are emerging more and more and should refrain to motivate any division or polarisation. Regards Kavouss 2015-05-02 17:28 GMT+02:00 Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>: Hi, I too agree that the report should take a multistakeholder view that treats all ICANN stakeholders equally. I do not think that it is necessary that that all stakeholders decide to do things in the same manner, but that the various options should be open to all stakeholders on an overall equal footing. I do not believe that all stakeholders have the same roles and responsibilities in each phase of every operation. But in the overall process there needs to be a balanced and equal footing. This is a goal in my view in all Internet Governance (IG) mechanisms. ICANN is an organization that is closer to doing this in a open and equal footing manner than most organizations in IG. I think that it is is important in this Accountabilty work to be clear about that continuing goal. I do not, however, wish to accidentally fall into the pattern where there is parity between 2 stakeholder grouping: private and public. Rather we need the full multistakeholder mix. I think we should mention neither public nor private and just mention the diversity of stakeholder groups involved in ICANN. The word multistakeholder should be sufficient. avri On 02-May-15 10:06, Olga Cavalli wrote: Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga 2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: IMPORTANT AND URGENT Dear co-chairs, Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. I therefore do not wish to delay the work. However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. Regards Kavouss 2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards 2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>: Thanks Grace. Dear CCWG, Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration. Best, Sam From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Hi all, Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. Have a good weekend, Grace From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all, We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, Grace From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all, Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). Version 10 incorporates the following: * Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC * Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) * Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations * Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list bySaturday 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<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<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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ [Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ 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

+1 David W. Maher Senior Vice President – Law & Policy Public Interest Registry 312 375 4849 From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Date: Monday, May 4, 2015 8:20 AM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Of course, all the governments want to eliminate the phrase “private sector” from discussion, even though it has been part of the ICANN Bylaws and AOC for dozens of years. I would too if I were in their shoes. As a non-government person who reads the NTIA conditions as critically emphasizing only one thing – the absence of future government control – I would see the elimination of a phrase that has been in the system for a long time as signifying a change in practice. Clearly the governments do too – that’s why they want it eliminated. If we make this change we signal to the world that the governments will have a bigger role than they do now, and we jeopardize the transition altogether. Ed Morris is right – this is a change we should not make … Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 8:08 AM To: Julia Katja Wolman; Avri Doria; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Hi All Spain would also like to stress our support for the use of the term “multistakeholder” without additional qualifiers. Best Rafa De:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Julia Katja Wolman Enviado el: lunes, 04 de mayo de 2015 13:34 Para: Avri Doria; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all I would like to echo my GAC colleagues regarding the definition of the term “multistakeholder” to be used in the report. We (DK) agree that using the term “multistakeholder “ without the qualifiers is preferable as the term in itself embraces all stakeholders. Best, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH PPlease consider the environment before printing this email. Fra:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Kavouss Arasteh Sendt: 2. maj 2015 18:16 Til: Avri Doria Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear Avri, YES and Yes . I fully agree with what you said we just need to mention everywhere referenced " in a multistakeholder button up approach without any refernce to private or public..We are emerging more and more and should refrain to motivate any division or polarisation. Regards Kavouss 2015-05-02 17:28 GMT+02:00 Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>: Hi, I too agree that the report should take a multistakeholder view that treats all ICANN stakeholders equally. I do not think that it is necessary that that all stakeholders decide to do things in the same manner, but that the various options should be open to all stakeholders on an overall equal footing. I do not believe that all stakeholders have the same roles and responsibilities in each phase of every operation. But in the overall process there needs to be a balanced and equal footing. This is a goal in my view in all Internet Governance (IG) mechanisms. ICANN is an organization that is closer to doing this in a open and equal footing manner than most organizations in IG. I think that it is is important in this Accountabilty work to be clear about that continuing goal. I do not, however, wish to accidentally fall into the pattern where there is parity between 2 stakeholder grouping: private and public. Rather we need the full multistakeholder mix. I think we should mention neither public nor private and just mention the diversity of stakeholder groups involved in ICANN. The word multistakeholder should be sufficient. avri On 02-May-15 10:06, Olga Cavalli wrote: Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga 2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: IMPORTANT AND URGENT Dear co-chairs, Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. I therefore do not wish to delay the work. However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. Regards Kavouss 2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards 2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>: Thanks Grace. Dear CCWG, Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration. Best, Sam From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Hi all, Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. Have a good weekend, Grace From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all, We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, Grace From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all, Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). Version 10 incorporates the following: * Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC * Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) * Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations * Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list bySaturday 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<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<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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ [Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ 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

Fully agree with you Avri. This is exactly my position, and thank you very much for expressing it very clearly and in the best way. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 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 Avri Doria Envoyé : samedi 2 mai 2015 16:28 À : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Hi, I too agree that the report should take a multistakeholder view that treats all ICANN stakeholders equally. I do not think that it is necessary that that all stakeholders decide to do things in the same manner, but that the various options should be open to all stakeholders on an overall equal footing. I do not believe that all stakeholders have the same roles and responsibilities in each phase of every operation. But in the overall process there needs to be a balanced and equal footing. This is a goal in my view in all Internet Governance (IG) mechanisms. ICANN is an organization that is closer to doing this in a open and equal footing manner than most organizations in IG. I think that it is is important in this Accountabilty work to be clear about that continuing goal. I do not, however, wish to accidentally fall into the pattern where there is parity between 2 stakeholder grouping: private and public. Rather we need the full multistakeholder mix. I think we should mention neither public nor private and just mention the diversity of stakeholder groups involved in ICANN. The word multistakeholder should be sufficient. avri On 02-May-15 10:06, Olga Cavalli wrote: Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga 2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: IMPORTANT AND URGENT Dear co-chairs, Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. I therefore do not wish to delay the work. However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder” organization or process. This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. Regards Kavouss 2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards 2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>: Thanks Grace. Dear CCWG, Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration. Best, Sam From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Hi all, Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we’d rather get your comments than not at all. Have a good weekend, Grace From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all, We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, Grace From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all, Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). Version 10 incorporates the following: * Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC * Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) * Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations * Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list bySaturday 2 May 01:00 UTC (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits. Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane. Almost there! — Grace _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Image supprimée par l'expéditeur. Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com