Tijani, Your proposal certainly addresses my concerns and I thank you for it. Although I would still prefer to stick with the status quo for reasons elucidated earlier, should there be support for your re-write it certainly is one I could easily join others in supporting. Thanks for coming up with it and I do agree - I think this is more a question of expression than it is of substance. At least I hope that is the case. Best, Edward On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:

Edward,

The universal definition of private sector is known by all, but I understood from you and others that the meaning in this context is “not governmental, not public”. If this is what you mean, I agree with your meaning, and to avoid any misunderstanding, let’s call it as you explain it; “not led by a government or an intergovernmental entity”. I think that this will satisfy everyone since I feel that we all mean the same thing, but disagree on the formulation.

My fear is that the private sector has more financial interest than the global public interest, and in using “private sector” will exclude the civil society and the end users.

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

*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 :* Edward Morris [mailto:egmorris1@toast.net] *Envoyé :* dimanche 3 mai 2015 19:51 *À :* Tijani BEN JEMAA *Cc :* Jon Nevett; Kavouss Arasteh; Accountability Cross Community *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC

Tijani,

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I respectfully disagree, though, with your assertion that 'private sector' in the context of ICANN's governing documents equates to business. It does not.

I think it is important to emphasis that ICANN currently is defined, as Avri and I and others have pointed out, in it's Bylaws and in the AOC as a private sector led multi-stakeholder organization. The ICANN you are "proud of" is one defined in this way. I would question the need to change that which by your own admission works. I would fear that those outside the community, those whose goodwill we need to finalise the transition, would question the removal of the word 'private'. I believe some would ask whether this was an attempt to leave open the future possibility of a 'public sector led multi-srtakeholder model.' If I were not personally involved in this process it certainly would be a question I would ask and probably would do so in a pejorative way. I see no reason in the current context of things to change the status quo.

Ed

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 6:06 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 <%2B%20216%2070%20853%C2%A0376>

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

*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* <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

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

[image: Image supprimée par l'expéditeur.] <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

------------------------------ <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.