Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
Tijani: Thanks so much for the email. I understand better now where you are coming from on this issue. I have a broader view of the term "private sector" than do you (and some others on the list). I am using the term the same way Larry Strickling mentions it in his written congressional testimony from last year -- http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/testimony-assistant-secretary-s.... According to his testimony, we are on a process to "privatize" the function -- it is in this context of how I am referring to the term. I don't support removing the term "private sector" as we are moving down the path towards "privatization" -- I am fine if we want to add some more context. Best, Jon On May 3, 2015, at 1:06 PM, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:
Jon,
The multi-stakeholder approach has its roots: you sure remember when all international (intergovernmental) meetings were always held in comfortable rooms while the other stakeholders and especially the civil society activists, demonstrated in the street near the meeting buildings, with the police pushing them and having incidents with them reaching in certain cases the death of some activists.
The millennium summit found that it will be better to have those noisy people inside the room rather than making trouble in the street, and the first experience of accepting all stakeholders in the meetings was the world summit on information society (WSIS). Nobody thought that it will be possible to make them work with the governments in an organized and efficient manner, but it happened. I will not be long on how we created an organizational structure (Civil Society Bureau) and a content and themes structure for the preparation of the substantial contributions, and how we surprised the ITU (organizer) and the governments by the seriousness and the depth of our participation.
The WSIS was organized in a multi-stakeholder fashion, the stakeholders were: · Governments · Private sector (Business) · Civil Society · International Organizations
The second experience was the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) where the multi-stakeholder model was fully applied, with the same 4 stakeholders participating on an equal footing, while in the WSIS, we were considered as observers, and we could only give written contributions or sometimes we were given 5 minutes at the end of the session.
I consider that the best use of the multi-stakeholder model is in ICANN, and I’m proud of it. It is not the private sector model. It is multi-stake holder where Governments, private sector (contracted parties and business sector), ccTLDs, technical community, end users, etc. have their say. If you call all those stakeholders “private sector”, I think there is a problem of terminology. If you consider that only the private sector should have a say, this is a different thing. But I’m sure this is not your intention.
Since we all agree on the multi-stakeholder model, let’s call it by its name: “multi-stakeholder”. And if we want it to be more detailed, we can mention all the stakeholders that compose the ICANN community.
I apologize for this long mail. I hope I made things clearer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jon Nevett Envoyé : dimanche 3 mai 2015 16:05 À : Kavouss Arasteh Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
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
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.
Dear Jon We should be clear on the term , its use, its application, its context and its implementation. Let us further discuss it. There is no consensus on the matter Regards. Square bracketed the term For the time being Regards Kavouss. Sent from my iPhone
On 3 May 2015, at 19:28, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co> wrote:
Tijani:
Thanks so much for the email. I understand better now where you are coming from on this issue. I have a broader view of the term "private sector" than do you (and some others on the list). I am using the term the same way Larry Strickling mentions it in his written congressional testimony from last year -- http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/testimony-assistant-secretary-s.... According to his testimony, we are on a process to "privatize" the function -- it is in this context of how I am referring to the term. I don't support removing the term "private sector" as we are moving down the path towards "privatization" -- I am fine if we want to add some more context.
Best,
Jon
On May 3, 2015, at 1:06 PM, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:
Jon,
The multi-stakeholder approach has its roots: you sure remember when all international (intergovernmental) meetings were always held in comfortable rooms while the other stakeholders and especially the civil society activists, demonstrated in the street near the meeting buildings, with the police pushing them and having incidents with them reaching in certain cases the death of some activists.
The millennium summit found that it will be better to have those noisy people inside the room rather than making trouble in the street, and the first experience of accepting all stakeholders in the meetings was the world summit on information society (WSIS). Nobody thought that it will be possible to make them work with the governments in an organized and efficient manner, but it happened. I will not be long on how we created an organizational structure (Civil Society Bureau) and a content and themes structure for the preparation of the substantial contributions, and how we surprised the ITU (organizer) and the governments by the seriousness and the depth of our participation.
The WSIS was organized in a multi-stakeholder fashion, the stakeholders were: · Governments · Private sector (Business) · Civil Society · International Organizations
The second experience was the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) where the multi-stakeholder model was fully applied, with the same 4 stakeholders participating on an equal footing, while in the WSIS, we were considered as observers, and we could only give written contributions or sometimes we were given 5 minutes at the end of the session.
I consider that the best use of the multi-stakeholder model is in ICANN, and I’m proud of it. It is not the private sector model. It is multi-stake holder where Governments, private sector (contracted parties and business sector), ccTLDs, technical community, end users, etc. have their say. If you call all those stakeholders “private sector”, I think there is a problem of terminology. If you consider that only the private sector should have a say, this is a different thing. But I’m sure this is not your intention.
Since we all agree on the multi-stakeholder model, let’s call it by its name: “multi-stakeholder”. And if we want it to be more detailed, we can mention all the stakeholders that compose the ICANN community.
I apologize for this long mail. I hope I made things clearer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jon Nevett Envoyé : dimanche 3 mai 2015 16:05 À : Kavouss Arasteh Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
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
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.
Jon's response is more articulate and timely than mine, but I echo his position exactly. The transition of IANA stewardship represents the next (final?) stage in privatization of Internet governance. Our language should reflect this. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. On May 3, 2015, at 12:29, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co<mailto:jon@donuts.co>> wrote: Tijani: Thanks so much for the email. I understand better now where you are coming from on this issue. I have a broader view of the term "private sector" than do you (and some others on the list). I am using the term the same way Larry Strickling mentions it in his written congressional testimony from last year -- http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/testimony-assistant-secretary-s.... According to his testimony, we are on a process to "privatize" the function -- it is in this context of how I am referring to the term. I don't support removing the term "private sector" as we are moving down the path towards "privatization" -- I am fine if we want to add some more context. Best, Jon On May 3, 2015, at 1:06 PM, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> wrote: Jon, The multi-stakeholder approach has its roots: you sure remember when all international (intergovernmental) meetings were always held in comfortable rooms while the other stakeholders and especially the civil society activists, demonstrated in the street near the meeting buildings, with the police pushing them and having incidents with them reaching in certain cases the death of some activists. The millennium summit found that it will be better to have those noisy people inside the room rather than making trouble in the street, and the first experience of accepting all stakeholders in the meetings was the world summit on information society (WSIS). Nobody thought that it will be possible to make them work with the governments in an organized and efficient manner, but it happened. I will not be long on how we created an organizational structure (Civil Society Bureau) and a content and themes structure for the preparation of the substantial contributions, and how we surprised the ITU (organizer) and the governments by the seriousness and the depth of our participation. The WSIS was organized in a multi-stakeholder fashion, the stakeholders were: • Governments • Private sector (Business) • Civil Society • International Organizations The second experience was the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) where the multi-stakeholder model was fully applied, with the same 4 stakeholders participating on an equal footing, while in the WSIS, we were considered as observers, and we could only give written contributions or sometimes we were given 5 minutes at the end of the session. I consider that the best use of the multi-stakeholder model is in ICANN, and I’m proud of it. It is not the private sector model. It is multi-stake holder where Governments, private sector (contracted parties and business sector), ccTLDs, technical community, end users, etc. have their say. If you call all those stakeholders “private sector”, I think there is a problem of terminology. If you consider that only the private sector should have a say, this is a different thing. But I’m sure this is not your intention. Since we all agree on the multi-stakeholder model, let’s call it by its name: “multi-stakeholder”. And if we want it to be more detailed, we can mention all the stakeholders that compose the ICANN community. I apologize for this long mail. I hope I made things clearer. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Jon Nevett Envoyé : dimanche 3 mai 2015 16:05 À : Kavouss Arasteh Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: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<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://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png] <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active. _______________________________________________ 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
participants (3)
-
James M. Bladel -
Jon Nevett -
Kavouss Arasteh