Dear all, I realize that data interpretation is a very risky business, but I would advise to read answers to questions 1 to 5 in conjunction. My personal feeling is that there is, first, overall agreement to keep the current advisory role to the Board, that, second, there is a what I personally see as a large plurality of opinions favoring an adaptation of the advisory role so as to be able to also advise the new community empowerment mechanism and, third, finally another plurality which favors a voting role of the GAC, with varying degrees of qualifications in their inputs. Again, this is just my individual take of the responses, but I feel that at least we should strive to see the answers to the connected issues 1 to 5 as a whole. Hope this is helpful Jorge Cancio Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Olga Cavalli Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Juli 2015 13:30 An: Bernard Turcotte Cc: Accountability Cross Community Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Analysis of GAC Comments Dear Bernard, Thanks for the summary. I would like to make some comments and additions to your document: - Question 2: There is no reference in the summary about the request from governements that want to have a full balanced participation among all the stakeholders, with equal footing among them. - Question 3: There is no reference about the % of governments that want to be fully involved in the CEM (not ONLY trough liaisons). Argentina is one of them and there are others. - Question 4: There is no reference to % of governments that want to have a different role as only advisory. Argentina is one of them and there are others. - Question 5: There is no reference to the % of governments that WANT to excercise community powers. Argentina is one of them and there are others. As representative of the Government of Argentina, I kindly ask you to include these other views into the summary. Best regards Olga Cavalli 2015-07-17 6:46 GMT-03:00 Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>: All, Per the co-chairs request please find attached the analysis of the GAC comments to the CCWG. Cheers. B. PS I will circulate the open format version later. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

All, After consulting with several govts regarding our draft analysis of the GAC comments to the CCWG it was agreed that it would be difficult for us to produce an analysis which would properly represent all the views presented in the the document. Given the GAC comments is not a long document it should be allowed to stand on its own to represent the views of the govts which have provided responses. The original document from the GAC is attached for your convenience. Mathieu Weill CCWG co-Chair Le 17/07/2015 14:41, Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva a écrit :

Hello,

I agree with the comments made by Olga.

The positions expressed by Brazil, Argentina and other countries have not been properly captured in this presentation and therefore it does not reflect the whole spectrum of views present in the GAC input document.

Regards,

Pedro ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *De:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Olga Cavalli [olgacavalli@gmail.com] *Enviado:* sexta-feira, 17 de julho de 2015 8:30 *Para:* Bernard Turcotte *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Assunto:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Analysis of GAC Comments

Dear Bernard,

Thanks for the summary.

I would like to make some comments and additions to your document:

- Question 2: There is no reference in the summary about the request from governements that want to have a full balanced participation among all the stakeholders, with equal footing among them.

- Question 3: There is no reference about the % of governments that want to be fully involved in the CEM (not ONLY trough liaisons). Argentina is one of them and there are others.

- Question 4: There is no reference to % of governments that want to have a different role as only advisory. Argentina is one of them and there are others.

- Question 5: There is no reference to the % of governments that WANT to excercise community powers. Argentina is one of them and there are others.

As representative of the Government of Argentina, I kindly ask you to include these other views into the summary.

Best regards

Olga Cavalli

2015-07-17 6:46 GMT-03:00 Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>:

All,

Per the co-chairs request please find attached the analysis of the GAC comments to the CCWG.

Cheers.

B.

PS I will circulate the open format version later.

_______________________________________________ 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

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