Dear Mathieu, I would like to highlight the comments Fiona, Izumi and I have done with regards to the definition document in a previous email to you and at the Frankfurt meeting: --------------- Section 3.a.i. --------------- It would be very helpful to have some clarification with regards to the terms "affected by contract", "affected by individual decisions" and "affected by policy" as they appear in the table. It is our understanding that these terms refer to decisions made by ICANN, as indicated in the introduction above the table. In this case we would like to note that (with regards to numbers): - the _directly_ affected parties are the RIRs and not the RIR communities. The RIR communities are affected indirectly. Therefore we would suggest removing "and RIR communities" from the "stakeholders" column. (Also the slides need to be updated accordingly) - RIRs are directly "affected by individual decisions" of the Board. The ICANN board does not create global RIR policies, and global RIR policies are not considered to be ICANN policies. The Board may either ratify or reject the global RIR policies as created and approved by the RIR communities, which we consider to be an "individual decision". Therefore we would suggest removing the "X" from the column under "affected by policy". --------------- Section 3.a.ii. --------------- Following the remark made above about RIR communities not being directly affected by ICANN decisions, we would suggest adding "RIR communities" to the list of indirectly- affected parties. ================= If you have any questions please let us know. Thank you very much for your good work and your attention. Athina On 13/01/15 06:51, Athina Fragkouli wrote:

Dear Mathieu,

First of all many compliments to the co-Chairs for your initiative to provide the group with this document. This is very helpful.

Please find below two comments Izumi and I have on the document:

- With regards to the list of indirectly affected parties by ICANN's decisions (section 2.a.ii) we would add "RIR communities"

- In the list of parties affecting ICANN directly (2.b.i) it is noted: "RIRs (through ASO)". As the ASO is not representing the RIRs but rather the RIRs communities, we would ask this to be modified accordingly: "RIR communities (through ASO)"

Looking forward to our call tomorrow.

Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli

On 12/01/15 18:53, Mathieu Weill wrote:

...

Dear Colleagues,

In anticipation of the call tomorrow, please find an updated version of the draft document mentioned below.

Main edits include : - alternate proposal to capture the discussion around purpose of accountability during last week's call - various comments from Kavouss - other minor edits following feedbacks received off list

Best, Mathieu PS: edits are apparent in this version

Le 05/01/2015 16:44, Mathieu Weill a écrit :

...

Dear Colleagues,

Please find attached a document drafted by the co-Chairs intended to provide baseline definitions for our work. It is designed to address some of the early questions we raised such as to whom should Icann be accountable ? What is the purpose of Icann's accountability ? or what is accountability ?

We provide the document for your reading before the meeting but I will introduce the document during our call tomorrow, and comments will be welcome during the call or after on this email thread.

We are well aware of the importance of the choice of words in the definitions and of their consequences for guiding the work of our group going forward. This document is a strawman, so feedback in the form of proposed edits will be much appreciated.

Best,

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

Dear Mathieu, all, As promised in our last call, some suggestions for text changes (re ccTLDs and other) in the strawman document: 1)Under „directly affected parties” the document mentions: ccTLD managers as far as IANA decisions are processed (and only through that aspect). Too limited in my opinion, so I suggest to change to: "ccTLD managers mainly as far as IANA decisions are concerned” To illustrate my point: if a ccTLD signs it zone, but ICANN postpones signing the root, that decision would directly influence the security of the ccTLD 2)Under „indirectly affected parties” the document does not mention ccTLDs. In my opinion it should, I suggest we just add „ccTLDs” without any examples or limitations.. Three examples to illustrate: 1) IfICANN decides to sign the rootzone, this causes pressure on a ccTLD by its stakeholders to sign its zone 2) the new gTLD program has direct influence on the local market of quite a few ccTLDs and thus on its market position 3) If ICANN, through contract, allows Verisign to raise the wholesale prices of .com domains, this influences registrars’ marketing decisions and thus influences the market position of ccTLDs that operate/compete in the same (local) market with .com 3)Under „parties affecting ICANN directly” I suggest we (at least) add: Auditors, (community) working groups, (external) review teams 4) I am missing (potential) domain name holders as parties directly/indirectly influencing ICANN. They do so for instance through their buy/sell behavior. If (almost) nobody buys new gTLDs, there will be no second round.. Regards, Roelof On 12-01-15 18:53, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

In anticipation of the call tomorrow, please find an updated version of the draft document mentioned below.

Main edits include : - alternate proposal to capture the discussion around purpose of accountability during last week's call - various comments from Kavouss - other minor edits following feedbacks received off list

Best, Mathieu PS: edits are apparent in this version

Le 05/01/2015 16:44, Mathieu Weill a écrit :

...

Dear Colleagues,

Please find attached a document drafted by the co-Chairs intended to provide baseline definitions for our work. It is designed to address some of the early questions we raised such as to whom should Icann be accountable ? What is the purpose of Icann's accountability ? or what is accountability ?

We provide the document for your reading before the meeting but I will introduce the document during our call tomorrow, and comments will be welcome during the call or after on this email thread.

We are well aware of the importance of the choice of words in the definitions and of their consequences for guiding the work of our group going forward. This document is a strawman, so feedback in the form of proposed edits will be much appreciated.

Best,

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

Good changes/additions in my opinion, Mathieu, the document is really shaping up. cheers, Roelof On 16-01-15 21:50, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

Attached is the latest version of the definitions and scoping document.

Main edits and points for discussion in Frankfurt are : - transfer of most affected parties into directly affected parties, and flagging whether they are affected through contracts, individual decisions and/or policy (as to outcome of our call #6) - refinement of definition of review mechanisms vs redress mechanisms, following discussion on WA1 mailing list - small edit regarding purpose of accountability

Please also note that the proposed definitions of "independence" have not yet been discussed.

The document is also available through the Frankfurt meeting agenda on the wiki (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414991).

See you all in Frankfurt

Best Mathieu

Le 12/01/2015 18:53, Mathieu Weill a écrit :

...

Dear Colleagues,

In anticipation of the call tomorrow, please find an updated version of the draft document mentioned below.

Main edits include : - alternate proposal to capture the discussion around purpose of accountability during last week's call - various comments from Kavouss - other minor edits following feedbacks received off list

Best, Mathieu PS: edits are apparent in this version

Le 05/01/2015 16:44, Mathieu Weill a écrit :

...

Dear Colleagues,

Please find attached a document drafted by the co-Chairs intended to provide baseline definitions for our work. It is designed to address some of the early questions we raised such as to whom should Icann be accountable ? What is the purpose of Icann's accountability ? or what is accountability ?

We provide the document for your reading before the meeting but I will introduce the document during our call tomorrow, and comments will be welcome during the call or after on this email thread.

We are well aware of the importance of the choice of words in the definitions and of their consequences for guiding the work of our group going forward. This document is a strawman, so feedback in the form of proposed edits will be much appreciated.

Best,

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

Dear colleagues, The ISP are mentioned in the document as directly affected parties, because of their function in address allocation. The important impact of ICANN on ISP through Name policies should also be mentioned: the technical impact of the new gTLD strategy and policies (ie: name collision or universal acceptance) should be highlighted. Best regards, Olivier Muron -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Mathieu Weill Envoyé : vendredi, janvier 16, 2015 21:51 À : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Accountability Definitions and scoping Dear Colleagues, Attached is the latest version of the definitions and scoping document. Main edits and points for discussion in Frankfurt are : - transfer of most affected parties into directly affected parties, and flagging whether they are affected through contracts, individual decisions and/or policy (as to outcome of our call #6) - refinement of definition of review mechanisms vs redress mechanisms, following discussion on WA1 mailing list - small edit regarding purpose of accountability Please also note that the proposed definitions of "independence" have not yet been discussed. The document is also available through the Frankfurt meeting agenda on the wiki (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414991). See you all in Frankfurt Best Mathieu Le 12/01/2015 18:53, Mathieu Weill a écrit :

Dear Colleagues,

In anticipation of the call tomorrow, please find an updated version of the draft document mentioned below.

Main edits include : - alternate proposal to capture the discussion around purpose of accountability during last week's call - various comments from Kavouss - other minor edits following feedbacks received off list

Best, Mathieu PS: edits are apparent in this version

Le 05/01/2015 16:44, Mathieu Weill a écrit :

...

Dear Colleagues,

Please find attached a document drafted by the co-Chairs intended to provide baseline definitions for our work. It is designed to address some of the early questions we raised such as to whom should Icann be accountable ? What is the purpose of Icann's accountability ? or what is accountability ?

We provide the document for your reading before the meeting but I will introduce the document during our call tomorrow, and comments will be welcome during the call or after on this email thread.

We are well aware of the importance of the choice of words in the definitions and of their consequences for guiding the work of our group going forward. This document is a strawman, so feedback in the form of proposed edits will be much appreciated.

Best,

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.