Dear CCWG-Accountability, We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date. The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents. The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated. 12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>) for everyone to view. 15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal. 17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>). To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained. 18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report. 19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval. Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> call this past Tuesday: 25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG. By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider). 10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA. Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February. If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist. Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
Thomas, Thank you. I assume this is the text relevant to the discussion over the past several days? Annex 02 - Recommendation #2 The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects , with the following exception. Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only either (1) after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or (2) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question. If the Empowered Community has brought such an IRP and does not prevail, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds. I do not agree with the notion that if the IRP does not prevail, that the Empowered Community cannot proceed to recall the Board based on that matter. Also, I’m not sure what the language saying, “It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds” is intended to mean. Of course a failed IRP should not bind other/future efforts to spill the Board. Overall, it seems too convoluted. When Bruce floated this proposal we had this exchange on the list (Saturday 7:27 EST): Hello Brett,
The only change is that the EC would be required to go to an IRP process first before moving to spill the Board?
That is correct, and only in the case of the GAC-carve out scenario. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Taking that into account, this version would seem to more directly and simply address the matter at hand: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects, with the following exception. Prior to exercising its power to recall the entire Board, if the relevant matter was one where the Empowered Community alleges that a Board decision violated ICANN Bylaws or Articles, the Empowered Community must first initiate a binding community Independent Review Process (IRP). Best, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 4:09 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear CCWG-Accountability, We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date. The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents. The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated. 12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>) for everyone to view. 15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal. 17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>). To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained. 18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report. 19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval. Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> call this past Tuesday: 25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG. By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider). 10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA. Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February. If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist. Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
I’m not sure either text actually states what the exception is to the reduced threshold. The proposed text states situations where the reduced threshold would continue to apply; and the suggestion from Brett, likewise doesn’t seem to give an exception to the reduced threshold. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 4:48 PM To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Thomas, Thank you. I assume this is the text relevant to the discussion over the past several days? Annex 02 - Recommendation #2 The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects , with the following exception. Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only either (1) after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or (2) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question. If the Empowered Community has brought such an IRP and does not prevail, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds. I do not agree with the notion that if the IRP does not prevail, that the Empowered Community cannot proceed to recall the Board based on that matter. Also, I’m not sure what the language saying, “It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds” is intended to mean. Of course a failed IRP should not bind other/future efforts to spill the Board. Overall, it seems too convoluted. When Bruce floated this proposal we had this exchange on the list (Saturday 7:27 EST): Hello Brett,
The only change is that the EC would be required to go to an IRP process first before moving to spill the Board?
That is correct, and only in the case of the GAC-carve out scenario. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Taking that into account, this version would seem to more directly and simply address the matter at hand: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects, with the following exception. Prior to exercising its power to recall the entire Board, if the relevant matter was one where the Empowered Community alleges that a Board decision violated ICANN Bylaws or Articles, the Empowered Community must first initiate a binding community Independent Review Process (IRP). Best, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 4:09 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear CCWG-Accountability, We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date. The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents. The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated. 12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view. 15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal. 17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained. 18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report. 19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval. Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> call this past Tuesday: 25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG. By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider). 10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA. Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February. If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist. Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
Thomas I an sorry that such an important and fundamental has been treated in hurry and inappropriately The trxt. That you have highlighted is unclear , Vague, ambiguous and even non legally shaky due yo the language used to describe the case I therefore can not support that language and the associated circumstances which so poorly Described Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:48, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Thomas,
Thank you. I assume this is the text relevant to the discussion over the past several days?
Annex 02 - Recommendation #2
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects , with the following exception. Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only either (1) after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or (2) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question. If the Empowered Community has brought such an IRP and does not prevail, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds.
I do not agree with the notion that if the IRP does not prevail, that the Empowered Community cannot proceed to recall the Board based on that matter. Also, I’m not sure what the language saying, “It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds” is intended to mean. Of course a failed IRP should not bind other/future efforts to spill the Board. Overall, it seems too convoluted.
When Bruce floated this proposal we had this exchange on the list (Saturday 7:27 EST):
Hello Brett,
The only change is that the EC would be required to go to an IRP process first before moving to spill the Board?
That is correct, and only in the case of the GAC-carve out scenario.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Taking that into account, this version would seem to more directly and simply address the matter at hand:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects, with the following exception. Prior to exercising its power to recall the entire Board, if the relevant matter was one where the Empowered Community alleges that a Board decision violated ICANN Bylaws or Articles, the Empowered Community must first initiate a binding community Independent Review Process (IRP).
Best,
Brett
Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 4:09 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear CCWG-Accountability,
We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date.
The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents.
The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated.
12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view.
15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal.
17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained.
18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report.
19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval.
Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation call this past Tuesday:
25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG.
By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider).
10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA.
Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February.
If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist.
Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Based on the timestamp on this message, can I presume the 48 hr deadline is 19 Feb at 21:09 UTC. Or are we being given a period of grace until 23:59? Alan At 17/02/2016 04:09 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Dear CCWG-Accountability,
We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date.
The revised sections have been posted at <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments and subsequent changes made between the 12 February and 17 February documents.
The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated.
12 Feb Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view.
15 Feb Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal.
17 Feb Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained.
18 Feb at 17:00 UTC Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report.
19 Feb Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval.
Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en>Transition Program Facilitation call this past Tuesday:
25 Feb â CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG.
By 9 Mar at the latest Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider).
10 Mar â Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA.
Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February.
If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist.
Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Alan, all, 23.59 UtC is fine. Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 19.02.2016 um 00:41 schrieb Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>:
Based on the timestamp on this message, can I presume the 48 hr deadline is 19 Feb at 21:09 UTC. Or are we being given a period of grace until 23:59?
Alan
At 17/02/2016 04:09 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Dear CCWG-Accountability,
We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date.
The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents.
The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated.
12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki ( https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view.
15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal.
17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained.
18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report.
19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval.
Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation call this past Tuesday:
25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG.
By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider).
10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA.
Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February.
If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist.
Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ 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 Thomas, After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept. There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga. Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga. That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT TKS KAVOUSD Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear CCWG-Accountability,
We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date.
The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents.
The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated.
12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view.
15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal.
17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained.
18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report.
19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval.
Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation call this past Tuesday:
25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG.
By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider).
10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA.
Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February.
If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist.
Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Can one of the co-chairs please explain to me -- in simple terms -- the Objection/Minority procedure in the Charter as referred to by Eberhard. I understand from Eberhard's statement that a Minority Statement is one part (probably the most important) of an objection, which may only be filed by a Member of the WG -- is that correct?? On 19/02/16 13:25, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Thomas, After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept. There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga. Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga. That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT TKS KAVOUSD
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote:
Dear CCWG-Accountability, We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date. *The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes **made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents. * The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated. *12 Feb* — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view. *15 Feb* — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal. *17 Feb*— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
*/To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day./ /All other dates have been retained./* *18 Feb at 17:00 UTC *– Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report. *19 Feb *– Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval. Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> call this past Tuesday: *25 Feb* – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG. *By 9 Mar* at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider). *10 Mar* – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA. Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than *18 February at 17:00 UTC *to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February. If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist. Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ 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
Kavouss, So that means that over 130 governments declined to join or support that statement in whole or in part? Thanks, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:26 AM To: Thomas Rickert Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Thomas, After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept. There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga. Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga. That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT TKS KAVOUSD Sent from my iPhone On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote: Dear CCWG-Accountability, We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date. The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents. The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated. 12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>) for everyone to view. 15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal. 17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>). To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained. 18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report. 19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval. Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> call this past Tuesday: 25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG. By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider). 10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA. Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February. If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist. Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ 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<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
I think the words are 'failed to' (which is a passive step) not 'declined' (which is active). On 19/02/16 14:17, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
Kavouss,
So that means that over 130 governments declined to join or support that statement in whole or in part?
Thanks,
Brett
------------------------------------------------------------------------ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 8:26 AM *To:* Thomas Rickert *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Thomas,
After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept.
There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga.
Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga.
That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT
TKS
KAVOUSD
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote:
Dear CCWG-Accountability,
We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date.
*The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents. *
The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated.
*12 Feb* — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view.
*15 Feb* — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal.
*17 Feb*— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
*/To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day./ /All other dates have been retained./*
*18 Feb at 17:00 UTC *– Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report.
*19 Feb *– Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval.
Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> call this past Tuesday:
*25 Feb* – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG.
*By 9 Mar* at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider).
*10 Mar* – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA.
Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than *18 February at 17:00 UTC *to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February.
If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist.
Sincerely,
Mathieu, León and Thomas
CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Brett. I am not qualifying any thing but reflecting what is posted by these 11 GAC colleagues Pls do not make any rush conclusion of it. Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:17, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Kavouss,
So that means that over 130 governments declined to join or support that statement in whole or in part?
Thanks,
Brett
Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:26 AM To: Thomas Rickert Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Thomas, After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept. There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga. Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga. That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT TKS KAVOUSD
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear CCWG-Accountability,
We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date.
The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents.
The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated.
12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view.
15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal.
17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained.
18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report.
19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval.
Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation call this past Tuesday:
25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG.
By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider).
10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA.
Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February.
If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist.
Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Brett Pls DO NOT make any interpretation of my message. I just informed of the growing concerns tabled That is all Regards Ksvousd Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:17, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Kavouss,
So that means that over 130 governments declined to join or support that statement in whole or in part?
Thanks,
Brett
Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:26 AM To: Thomas Rickert Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Thomas, After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept. There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga. Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga. That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT TKS KAVOUSD
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear CCWG-Accountability,
We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date.
The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents.
The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated.
12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view.
15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal.
17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained.
18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report.
19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval.
Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation call this past Tuesday:
25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG.
By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider).
10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA.
Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February.
If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist.
Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Kavouss, You raised the matter. Olga circulated her minority statement to the list (twice) where everyone could read it. You saw fit to chime in with your interpretation. I was merely seeking clarification on your point. Best, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 9:31 AM To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: Thomas Rickert; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Brett Pls DO NOT make any interpretation of my message. I just informed of the growing concerns tabled That is all Regards Ksvousd Sent from my iPhone On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:17, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Kavouss, So that means that over 130 governments declined to join or support that statement in whole or in part? Thanks, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:26 AM To: Thomas Rickert Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Thomas, After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept. There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga. Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga. That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT TKS KAVOUSD Sent from my iPhone On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote: Dear CCWG-Accountability, We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date. The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents. The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated. 12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>) for everyone to view. 15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal. 17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>). To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained. 18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report. 19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval. Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> call this past Tuesday: 25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG. By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider). 10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA. Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February. If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist. Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ 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<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Dear Kavous Theres is not “growing” concern. These same countries were all quite vocal earlier, both in the CCWG and in their public comments. Their view has not prevailed. If it had, then then the gNSO would have rejected the proposal Your attempts to reopen settled decisions by portraying old information as new are, frankly, illegitimate and disturbing. 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 <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 9:31 AM To: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Brett Pls DO NOT make any interpretation of my message. I just informed of the growing concerns tabled That is all Regards Ksvousd Sent from my iPhone On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:17, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> > wrote: Kavouss, So that means that over 130 governments declined to join or support that statement in whole or in part? Thanks, Brett _____ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 <http://heritage.org/> heritage.org From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:26 AM To: Thomas Rickert Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Thomas, After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept. There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga. Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga. That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT TKS KAVOUSD Sent from my iPhone On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> > wrote: Dear CCWG-Accountability, We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date. The revised sections have been posted at <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents. The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated. 12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki ( <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view. 15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal. 17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained. 18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report. 19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval. Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> Transition Program Facilitation call this past Tuesday: 25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG. By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider). 10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA. Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February. If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist. Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Brett Olga Statement received 10 supports as are either in CCWG mailing list or in the GAC list. I did not interpret that I just drew the attention of the co-chairs that there are growing concerns expressed That is all. NO INTERPRETATION. Best Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 15:37 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
Dear Kavous
Theres is not “growing” concern. These same countries were all quite vocal earlier, both in the CCWG and in their public comments. Their view has not prevailed. If it had, then then the gNSO would have rejected the proposal
Your attempts to reopen settled decisions by portraying old information as new are, frankly, illegitimate and disturbing.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <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...>
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 9:31 AM *To:* Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Brett
Pls DO NOT make any interpretation of my message.
I just informed of the growing concerns tabled
That is all
Regards
Ksvousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:17, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Kavouss,
So that means that over 130 governments declined to join or support that statement in whole or in part?
Thanks,
Brett
------------------------------
*Brett* *Schaefer*
*Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory AffairsMargaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy* The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 8:26 AM *To:* Thomas Rickert *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Thomas,
After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept.
There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga.
Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga.
That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT
TKS
KAVOUSD
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear CCWG-Accountability,
We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date.
*The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents. *
The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated.
*12 Feb* — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki ( https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view.
*15 Feb* — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal.
*17 Feb*— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
*To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained.*
*18 Feb at 17:00 UTC *– Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report.
*19 Feb *– Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval.
Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> call this past Tuesday:
*25 Feb* – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG.
*By 9 Mar* at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider).
*10 Mar* – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA.
Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than *18 February at 17:00 UTC *to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February.
If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist.
Sincerely,
Mathieu, León and Thomas
CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Brett I am not making any attempt. I have just drawing attention to the concerns expressed by these countries some of which never attended CCWG calls . Take it as it is and please do not accuse me to reopening any thing at all The issue is there Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:37, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear Kavous
Theres is not “growing” concern. These same countries were all quite vocal earlier, both in the CCWG and in their public comments. Their view has not prevailed. If it had, then then the gNSO would have rejected the proposal
Your attempts to reopen settled decisions by portraying old information as new are, frankly, illegitimate and disturbing.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@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 <image001.png>
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 9:31 AM To: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Brett Pls DO NOT make any interpretation of my message. I just informed of the growing concerns tabled That is all Regards Ksvousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:17, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Kavouss,
So that means that over 130 governments declined to join or support that statement in whole or in part?
Thanks,
Brett
Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:26 AM To: Thomas Rickert Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Thomas, After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept. There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga. Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga. That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT TKS KAVOUSD
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear CCWG-Accountability,
We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date.
The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents.
The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated.
12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view.
15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal.
17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained.
18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report.
19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval.
Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation call this past Tuesday:
25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG.
By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider).
10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA.
Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February.
If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist.
Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Kavous Just so we are clear – so what? There are thousands of people who have never attended the CCWG calls. More or less having failed to do so is on them …. In any event here is the list of people who joined Olga’s statement, annotated Argentina – attended CCWG and filed comments Brazil -- attended CCWG and filed comments Chile France – filed comments Paraguay Peru Portugal – attended CCWG and filed comments Uruguay Venezuela So, essentially, you are arguing that because 5 countries have now joined a position held by 4 others we should take note or reopen the discussion. We should not. They are free to express disappointment in solidarity with their colleagues if they like, but it doesn’t change the process or the result. 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 <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 10:30 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Brett I am not making any attempt. I have just drawing attention to the concerns expressed by these countries some of which never attended CCWG calls . Take it as it is and please do not accuse me to reopening any thing at all The issue is there Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:37, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Dear Kavous Theres is not “growing” concern. These same countries were all quite vocal earlier, both in the CCWG and in their public comments. Their view has not prevailed. If it had, then then the gNSO would have rejected the proposal Your attempts to reopen settled decisions by portraying old information as new are, frankly, illegitimate and disturbing. 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 <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> <image001.png> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 9:31 AM To: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> > Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Brett Pls DO NOT make any interpretation of my message. I just informed of the growing concerns tabled That is all Regards Ksvousd Sent from my iPhone On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:17, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> > wrote: Kavouss, So that means that over 130 governments declined to join or support that statement in whole or in part? Thanks, Brett _____ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 <http://heritage.org/> heritage.org From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:26 AM To: Thomas Rickert Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Thomas, After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept. There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga. Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga. That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT TKS KAVOUSD Sent from my iPhone On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> > wrote: Dear CCWG-Accountability, We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date. The revised sections have been posted at <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents. The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated. 12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki ( <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view. 15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal. 17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained. 18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report. 19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval. Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> Transition Program Facilitation call this past Tuesday: 25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG. By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider). 10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA. Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February. If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist. Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ 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
I note that Iran did not endorse the statement -- and would be interested in knowing whether it was not asked, or was asked and declined. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:06 AM To: 'Kavouss Arasteh' Cc: 'Thomas Rickert'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Kavous Just so we are clear – so what? There are thousands of people who have never attended the CCWG calls. More or less having failed to do so is on them …. In any event here is the list of people who joined Olga’s statement, annotated Argentina – attended CCWG and filed comments Brazil -- attended CCWG and filed comments Chile France – filed comments Paraguay Peru Portugal – attended CCWG and filed comments Uruguay Venezuela So, essentially, you are arguing that because 5 countries have now joined a position held by 4 others we should take note or reopen the discussion. We should not. They are free to express disappointment in solidarity with their colleagues if they like, but it doesn’t change the process or the result. 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...> [cid:image001.png@01D16B06.AFA02960]<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 10:30 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Cc: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Brett I am not making any attempt. I have just drawing attention to the concerns expressed by these countries some of which never attended CCWG calls . Take it as it is and please do not accuse me to reopening any thing at all The issue is there Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:37, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Dear Kavous Theres is not “growing” concern. These same countries were all quite vocal earlier, both in the CCWG and in their public comments. Their view has not prevailed. If it had, then then the gNSO would have rejected the proposal Your attempts to reopen settled decisions by portraying old information as new are, frankly, illegitimate and disturbing. 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...> <image001.png><http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 9:31 AM To: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Brett Pls DO NOT make any interpretation of my message. I just informed of the growing concerns tabled That is all Regards Ksvousd Sent from my iPhone On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:17, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Kavouss, So that means that over 130 governments declined to join or support that statement in whole or in part? Thanks, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:26 AM To: Thomas Rickert Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Thomas, After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept. There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga. Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga. That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT TKS KAVOUSD Sent from my iPhone On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote: Dear CCWG-Accountability, We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date. The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents. The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated. 12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view. 15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal. 17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained. 18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report. 19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval. Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> call this past Tuesday: 25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG. By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider). 10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA. Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February. If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist. Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
Dear All I am not responsible to make any statistic on the issue. However, I have seen messages from Russia, Benin and Mali expressing support. However,I am not here to judge any thing but just draw your attention to the natter. Pls ask others to comment and not me Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2016, at 17:14, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
I note that Iran did not endorse the statement -- and would be interested in knowing whether it was not asked, or was asked and declined.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:06 AM To: 'Kavouss Arasteh' Cc: 'Thomas Rickert'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Kavous
Just so we are clear – so what? There are thousands of people who have never attended the CCWG calls. More or less having failed to do so is on them ….
In any event here is the list of people who joined Olga’s statement, annotated
Argentina – attended CCWG and filed comments Brazil -- attended CCWG and filed comments Chile France – filed comments Paraguay Peru Portugal – attended CCWG and filed comments Uruguay Venezuela
So, essentially, you are arguing that because 5 countries have now joined a position held by 4 others we should take note or reopen the discussion. We should not. They are free to express disappointment in solidarity with their colleagues if they like, but it doesn’t change the process or the result.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@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 <image001.png>
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 10:30 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Brett I am not making any attempt. I have just drawing attention to the concerns expressed by these countries some of which never attended CCWG calls . Take it as it is and please do not accuse me to reopening any thing at all The issue is there Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:37, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear Kavous
Theres is not “growing” concern. These same countries were all quite vocal earlier, both in the CCWG and in their public comments. Their view has not prevailed. If it had, then then the gNSO would have rejected the proposal
Your attempts to reopen settled decisions by portraying old information as new are, frankly, illegitimate and disturbing.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@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 <image001.png>
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 9:31 AM To: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Brett Pls DO NOT make any interpretation of my message. I just informed of the growing concerns tabled That is all Regards Ksvousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:17, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Kavouss,
So that means that over 130 governments declined to join or support that statement in whole or in part?
Thanks,
Brett
Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:26 AM To: Thomas Rickert Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Thomas, After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept. There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga. Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga. That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT TKS KAVOUSD
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear CCWG-Accountability,
We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date.
The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents.
The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated.
12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view.
15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal.
17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained.
18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report.
19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval.
Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation call this past Tuesday:
25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG.
By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider).
10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA.
Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February.
If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist.
Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
Dear Brett, Pls be kind and observe the ethic.of communication This is not a correct to say in an e-mail to others Quote "*The only one getting wound up here is you. I suggest you take a breath and focus on other matters for an hour or so*". Unquote If you wish I can reply you in the same manner as you did. It is Friday and I wish you a very Niced Week-end Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 17:24 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All I am not responsible to make any statistic on the issue. However, I have seen messages from Russia, Benin and Mali expressing support. However,I am not here to judge any thing but just draw your attention to the natter. Pls ask others to comment and not me Tks Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2016, at 17:14, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
I note that Iran did not endorse the statement -- and would be interested in knowing whether it was not asked, or was asked and declined.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 11:06 AM *To:* 'Kavouss Arasteh' *Cc:* 'Thomas Rickert'; 'Accountability Cross Community' *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Kavous
Just so we are clear – so what? There are thousands of people who have never attended the CCWG calls. More or less having failed to do so is on them ….
In any event here is the list of people who joined Olga’s statement, annotated
Argentina – attended CCWG and filed comments
Brazil -- attended CCWG and filed comments
Chile
France – filed comments
Paraguay
Peru
Portugal – attended CCWG and filed comments
Uruguay
Venezuela
So, essentially, you are arguing that because 5 countries have now joined a position held by 4 others we should take note or reopen the discussion. We should not. They are free to express disappointment in solidarity with their colleagues if they like, but it doesn’t change the process or the result.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <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...>
<image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 10:30 AM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>; Thomas Rickert < thomas@rickert.net>; Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Brett
I am not making any attempt. I have just drawing attention to the concerns expressed by these countries some of which never attended CCWG calls .
Take it as it is and please do not accuse me to reopening any thing at all
The issue is there
Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:37, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear Kavous
Theres is not “growing” concern. These same countries were all quite vocal earlier, both in the CCWG and in their public comments. Their view has not prevailed. If it had, then then the gNSO would have rejected the proposal
Your attempts to reopen settled decisions by portraying old information as new are, frankly, illegitimate and disturbing.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <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...>
<image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 9:31 AM *To:* Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Brett
Pls DO NOT make any interpretation of my message.
I just informed of the growing concerns tabled
That is all
Regards
Ksvousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:17, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Kavouss,
So that means that over 130 governments declined to join or support that statement in whole or in part?
Thanks,
Brett
------------------------------
*Brett* *Schaefer*
* Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy* The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 8:26 AM *To:* Thomas Rickert *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Thomas,
After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept.
There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga.
Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga.
That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT
TKS
KAVOUSD
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear CCWG-Accountability,
We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date.
*The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents. *
The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated.
*12 Feb* — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki ( https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view.
*15 Feb* — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal.
*17 Feb*— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
*To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained.*
*18 Feb at 17:00 UTC *– Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report.
*19 Feb *– Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval.
Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> call this past Tuesday:
*25 Feb* – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG.
*By 9 Mar* at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider).
*10 Mar* – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA.
Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than *18 February at 17:00 UTC *to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February.
If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist.
Sincerely,
Mathieu, León and Thomas
CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
Kavouss, You seem determined to make an issue here. I sent you that note off-list after you sent a flurry of e-mails that were duplicative, garbled and/or directed at the wrong people. I see nothing wrong with suggesting in a private note that you take a short break. I am disappointed that you saw the need to make this public. Best, Brett From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:52 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Thomas Rickert; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Brett, Pls be kind and observe the ethic.of communication This is not a correct to say in an e-mail to others Quote "The only one getting wound up here is you. I suggest you take a breath and focus on other matters for an hour or so". Unquote If you wish I can reply you in the same manner as you did. It is Friday and I wish you a very Niced Week-end Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 17:24 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear All I am not responsible to make any statistic on the issue. However, I have seen messages from Russia, Benin and Mali expressing support. However,I am not here to judge any thing but just draw your attention to the natter. Pls ask others to comment and not me Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 19 Feb 2016, at 17:14, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: I note that Iran did not endorse the statement -- and would be interested in knowing whether it was not asked, or was asked and declined. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:06 AM To: 'Kavouss Arasteh' Cc: 'Thomas Rickert'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Kavous Just so we are clear – so what? There are thousands of people who have never attended the CCWG calls. More or less having failed to do so is on them …. In any event here is the list of people who joined Olga’s statement, annotated Argentina – attended CCWG and filed comments Brazil -- attended CCWG and filed comments Chile France – filed comments Paraguay Peru Portugal – attended CCWG and filed comments Uruguay Venezuela So, essentially, you are arguing that because 5 countries have now joined a position held by 4 others we should take note or reopen the discussion. We should not. They are free to express disappointment in solidarity with their colleagues if they like, but it doesn’t change the process or the result. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image001.png><http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 10:30 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Cc: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Brett I am not making any attempt. I have just drawing attention to the concerns expressed by these countries some of which never attended CCWG calls . Take it as it is and please do not accuse me to reopening any thing at all The issue is there Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:37, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Dear Kavous Theres is not “growing” concern. These same countries were all quite vocal earlier, both in the CCWG and in their public comments. Their view has not prevailed. If it had, then then the gNSO would have rejected the proposal Your attempts to reopen settled decisions by portraying old information as new are, frankly, illegitimate and disturbing. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image001.png><http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 9:31 AM To: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Brett Pls DO NOT make any interpretation of my message. I just informed of the growing concerns tabled That is all Regards Ksvousd Sent from my iPhone On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:17, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Kavouss, So that means that over 130 governments declined to join or support that statement in whole or in part? Thanks, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:26 AM To: Thomas Rickert Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps Dear Thomas, After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept. There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga. Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga. That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT TKS KAVOUSD Sent from my iPhone On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote: Dear CCWG-Accountability, We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date. The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents. The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated. 12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>) for everyone to view. 15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal. 17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>). To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained. 18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report. 19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval. Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> call this past Tuesday: 25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG. By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider). 10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA. Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February. If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist. Sincerely, Mathieu, León and Thomas CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> _______________________________________________ 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<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
Dear Brett, I am sorry, I did not detect that it was private, Second even in private ,as I have fully respected you and others and recognize your valuable contribution and your competency on the matter I did not expect such an unfriendly statement Sorry Let us work together as usual. Let us be fair with each other and respect each other Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:02 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>:
Kavouss,
You seem determined to make an issue here. I sent you that note off-list after you sent a flurry of e-mails that were duplicative, garbled and/or directed at the wrong people. I see nothing wrong with suggesting in a private note that you take a short break. I am disappointed that you saw the need to make this public.
Best,
Brett
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 11:52 AM *To:* Phil Corwin
*Cc:* Thomas Rickert; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Brett,
Pls be kind and observe the ethic.of communication
This is not a correct to say in an e-mail to others
Quote
"*The only one getting wound up here is you. I suggest you take a breath and focus on other matters for an hour or so*".
Unquote
If you wish I can reply you in the same manner as you did.
It is Friday and I wish you a very Niced Week-end
Regards
Kavouss
2016-02-19 17:24 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All
I am not responsible to make any statistic on the issue.
However, I have seen messages from Russia, Benin and Mali expressing support.
However,I am not here to judge any thing but just draw your attention to the natter.
Pls ask others to comment and not me
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2016, at 17:14, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
I note that Iran did not endorse the statement -- and would be interested in knowing whether it was not asked, or was asked and declined.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 11:06 AM *To:* 'Kavouss Arasteh' *Cc:* 'Thomas Rickert'; 'Accountability Cross Community' *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Kavous
Just so we are clear – so what? There are thousands of people who have never attended the CCWG calls. More or less having failed to do so is on them ….
In any event here is the list of people who joined Olga’s statement, annotated
Argentina – attended CCWG and filed comments
Brazil -- attended CCWG and filed comments
Chile
France – filed comments
Paraguay
Peru
Portugal – attended CCWG and filed comments
Uruguay
Venezuela
So, essentially, you are arguing that because 5 countries have now joined a position held by 4 others we should take note or reopen the discussion. We should not. They are free to express disappointment in solidarity with their colleagues if they like, but it doesn’t change the process or the result.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <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...>
<image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 10:30 AM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>; Thomas Rickert < thomas@rickert.net>; Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Brett
I am not making any attempt. I have just drawing attention to the concerns expressed by these countries some of which never attended CCWG calls .
Take it as it is and please do not accuse me to reopening any thing at all
The issue is there
Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:37, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear Kavous
Theres is not “growing” concern. These same countries were all quite vocal earlier, both in the CCWG and in their public comments. Their view has not prevailed. If it had, then then the gNSO would have rejected the proposal
Your attempts to reopen settled decisions by portraying old information as new are, frankly, illegitimate and disturbing.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <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...>
<image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 9:31 AM *To:* Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Brett
Pls DO NOT make any interpretation of my message.
I just informed of the growing concerns tabled
That is all
Regards
Ksvousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2016, at 15:17, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Kavouss,
So that means that over 130 governments declined to join or support that statement in whole or in part?
Thanks,
Brett
------------------------------
*Brett* *Schaefer*
* Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy* The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 8:26 AM *To:* Thomas Rickert *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Dear Thomas,
After the Minority Statement posted by Olga as a Member of CCWG who is eligible to make such statement ,10 more GAC directly or indirectly joined joined / supported that statement.This is an important development of the serious concerns tabled in regard with ST18, threshold for the GAC advice rejection by Board and more importantly Carve-Out concept.
There would therefore a need to reflect in the Report the existence of such serious concerns and the increasing supports for the concerns raised by Olga.
Some other GAC governments who are not Member of CCWG could probably join to the concerns tabled by Olga.
That eventual evolution could also be mentioned in the report to inform other chartering organisation when they receive the REPORT
TKS
KAVOUSD
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:09, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear CCWG-Accountability,
We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date.
*The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents. *
The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated.
*12 Feb* — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki ( https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view.
*15 Feb* — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal.
*17 Feb*— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
*To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained.*
*18 Feb at 17:00 UTC *– Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report.
*19 Feb *– Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval.
Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> call this past Tuesday:
*25 Feb* – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG.
*By 9 Mar* at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider).
*10 Mar* – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA.
Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than *18 February at 17:00 UTC *to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February.
If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist.
Sincerely,
Mathieu, León and Thomas
CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
------------------------------ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
Dear colleagues, On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:09:18PM +0100, Thomas Rickert wrote:
The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> for your final review.
I've reviewed the documents in respect of previous comments, and found that the requested corrections were made, save one. Staff, thank you for catching all that. The one change that is still not quite all there is the "protocols and parameters" bit. For instance, I found it on p 37 and p 39 of the main report. I think just searching for "protocols and parameters" in all the documents may turn up some other examples -- I have not checked them all, but given these two there may well be more. The "and" should go away. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Hi Andrew, Apologies for the delayed response. Wanted to confirm that we (staff) are proofreading the drafts to correct this error. Thank you, grace On 2/19/16, 6:33 PM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Andrew Sullivan" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:09:18PM +0100, Thomas Rickert wrote:
The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw> for your final review.
I've reviewed the documents in respect of previous comments, and found that the requested corrections were made, save one. Staff, thank you for catching all that.
The one change that is still not quite all there is the "protocols and parameters" bit. For instance, I found it on p 37 and p 39 of the main report. I think just searching for "protocols and parameters" in all the documents may turn up some other examples -- I have not checked them all, but given these two there may well be more. The "and" should go away.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrew Sullivan -
Chartier, Mike S -
Grace Abuhamad -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Schaefer, Brett -
Thomas Rickert