I agree that we can delete it from the end of (f) in para 169, BUT the end of (d) where we explain the rationale for Alternative A should then say: d. "The rationale for Alternative A is that it gives the bulk of influence to the SOs, while guaranteeing a say for the ACs on an equal basis between them. It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN, which is rooted in the private sector." So the phrase is descriptive rather than duplicative, and belongs in (d) where the rationale for the suggestion is provided. Thanks, Robin On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:22 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

It’s fine for me Thomas.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Thomas Rickert Envoyé : jeudi 30 avril 2015 11:45 À : Drazek, Keith Cc : Accountability Cross Community Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed text to add to public comment document

All, we had agreed earlier today to just delete the second half of the sentence, so in my view, the „private sector“ term is gone.

see para 122 2.f.- the sentence would now read:

a. . It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN.

and we deleted:

and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector.

I hope that helps, Thomas

Am 30.04.2015 um 12:31 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:

I recall we had a lengthy discussion on the term "private sector" during our chartering process for the CCWG. It is not meant to exclude users or governments from participation. In this context, it is used to clarify that the management of assigned names and numbers is "not a governmental function."

Regards, Keith

On Apr 30, 2015, at 12:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

I have a real problem with this.

There is no doubt that the private sector has been a major and influential component since its inception, but it is similarly true that governments and users (albeit in varying models) have been an integral component of ICANN. Our roles may be different, but our roots go as deep, and the import of the public interest in ICANN cannot and should not be swept under the carpet.

Alan

At 28/04/2015 08:05 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

As requested in our call today, below is proposed text for various parts of the draft public comment document.

Section 6.6.1.2 p. 54 add to end of (f): "It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector." _______________________________________________ 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.

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