I can say that without a doubt, I will NOT be able to do this review by that deadline. I strongly suggest that we set the distribution date as next Wednesday instead of Sunday (without changing the other time-line parameters) and allow comments until at least 23:59 UTC next Monday, and preferably a few hours later. Alan At 13/11/2015 09:40 AM, Alice Jansen wrote:

Dear all, As announced on your call #67, this is to kindly remind you that final edits on the attached draft Formal Update (circulated on 12 November) are needed by 17:00 UTC today. As indicated on the call, no line edits will be taken into account. Co-Chairs are asking for content related comments. Per the note below, any format, font and proofreading issues are being addressed by a professional writer. Thank you, Best regards Alice From: Bernard Turcotte <<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 12:04 AM To: "<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call

All,

As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.

The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist.

This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on.

We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments.

Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG

for the CCWG Co-chairs.

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

You're kidding, correct? From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 9:40 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] 17 UTC deadline for final edits Dear all, As announced on your call #67, this is to kindly remind you that final edits on the attached draft Formal Update (circulated on 12 November) are needed by 17:00 UTC today. As indicated on the call, no line edits will be taken into account. Co-Chairs are asking for content related comments. Per the note below, any format, font and proofreading issues are being addressed by a professional writer. Thank you, Best regards Alice From: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> > Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 12:04 AM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> " <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call All, As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting. The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist. This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on. We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG for the CCWG Co-chairs.

Thanks. As this will not only be seen/read by people from the ICANN community or those steeped in its details, I have tried to step back a bit and look with a more "objective view", which led me to wonder if it wouldn't be useful to clarify a bit the following points: A) The thresholds for numbers of AC/SOs required (or not) for certain actions would be clearer if the total numbers that exist now were identified at the beginning of the summary ( and of each group) as this will give a better understanding of the relative weights of those thresholds or at each section in the text the numbers are put in context e.g. 3/6 2/5 etc. (This is more repetitive of course) B) The distinctions between the cases that would be raised under independent review process vs requests for reconsideration run the same risk for non-cognoscenti I think. Perhaps a sentence or so more in each section might help to better clarify the distinctions. Have of course held my tongue on details, typos, edits etc. and think that overall it presents a very clear view Megan Sent from my iPad On 13 Nov 2015, at 11:46, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, As announced on your call #67, this is to kindly remind you that final edits on the attached draft Formal Update (circulated on 12 November) are needed by 17:00 UTC today. As indicated on the call, no line edits will be taken into account. Co-Chairs are asking for content related comments. Per the note below, any format, font and proofreading issues are being addressed by a professional writer. Thank you, Best regards Alice From: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 12:04 AM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call All, As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting. The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist. This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on. We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG for the CCWG Co-chairs. <ShortProposalUpdate-2.0.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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

On 13 Nov 2015, at 11:40, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote:

As announced on your call #67, this is to kindly remind you that final edits on the attached draft Formal Update (circulated on 12 November) are needed by 17:00 UTC today. As indicated on the call, no line edits will be taken into account. Co-Chairs are asking for content related comments. Per the note below, any format, font and proofreading issues are being addressed by a professional writer. Thank you,

Dear Alice, I just wanted to check you'd received the message copied below and understood it as responsive to this call, Kind Regards, Malcolm

On 12/11/2015 23:04, Bernard Turcotte wrote: All,

As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.

There has been a major, unacceptable change between the last revision of this document and this one. Concerning the Mission, the previous revision said, on page 30 The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to: * Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name System (DNS) - ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. - ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties (entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain names) That fairly reflected the decision recommendation from the previous draft, at least at the level of detail that appears in this document. The new revision just released removes those statements, and in their place says merely "The CCWG-Accountability is yet to reach consensus on the proposed language that is intended to address contract enforcement and regulation." (page 21) That is not correct. The existing recommendation from our previous draft Report remains intact until replaced. There has been nothing remotely like a consensus to remove it. Please revert to the previous statement. Based on Greg's most recent e-mail, of just a couple of hours ago, I think there are grounds for optimism that there WILL be a broadly based consensus to replace the previous text with his new suggestion. But if that fails, the fall-back is the existing text, not no text at all. The CCWG's existing recommendation remains until we have consensus to change it. It is essential that we follow proper process here, especially on such a crucial issue. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

I have reviewed the latest draft (on my phone while sitting at the airport in Joao Pessoa) and find it to be a substantial improvement over the previous version. I think it is informative, accurate and I see no significant substantive issues or errors that should prevent its publication. I do have one clarifying question. On page 21, under Recommendation #5, Mission bullet #2, the language says, "Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root server system. In this role, ICANN's mission is to be provided by the root server operators." What do we mean by the word "provided" in this context? Are we waiting for language from the RSSAC, or do we mean "performed by" the root server operators. Or something different? Apologies but our intent is not clear to me. Thanks to all who have worked on this important document. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Nov 13, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, As announced on your call #67, this is to kindly remind you that final edits on the attached draft Formal Update (circulated on 12 November) are needed by 17:00 UTC today. As indicated on the call, no line edits will be taken into account. Co-Chairs are asking for content related comments. Per the note below, any format, font and proofreading issues are being addressed by a professional writer. Thank you, Best regards Alice From: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 12:04 AM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call All, As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting. The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist. This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on. We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG for the CCWG Co-chairs. <ShortProposalUpdate-2.0.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

All, First, an apology for getting confused on the draft during the chat last night. Second, this draft is much clearer, tighter, and captures the scope of the effort much better. Well done. I do have a couple of questions/comments: · p. 4 – “An additional new power that gives the community a say in decisions about the IANA Functions Reviews and any separation of the IANA Names Functions.” I thought separation included Numbers and Protocol Parameters as well? Or is this assumed based on the different contractual arrangement between IETF, RIRs, and ICANN for these matters? · On the Engagement, Escalation, and Enforcement process, Note 2 says “the Board is required to put implementation of the contested · resolution on hold until the escalation process is completed. The purpose of this is to avoid requiring ICANN to undo things (if the rejection is approved), which could be potentially very difficult to undo.” This makes sense, but does this also apply to the enforcement process? It is not clear to me. If necessary, court proceedings can be lengthy. · P. 15 – Is the intent of bullet two to skip the Community Forum process unless 3 SOs or ACs support having one? It currently states: “3 SOs or ACs have to support holding a Community Forum. If the threshold is not met the process moves to approving using the Power to approve Changes to the Fundamental Bylaw.” · P. 16 – FN 3, the Board must approve separation? · P. 18 – FN 4 is missing · P. 22 – Clarify, “Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, IF ANY, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw.” · P. 27 – Should Section 8 specify that ICANN will remain headquartered in California, not just the U.S., considering that California law was used to inform CCWG recommendations. In addition, I don’t see specific mention of establishing an independent appeals process for DIDP decisions, which was to be included in WS1. Am I just missing it? Is it in the RFR section? If so, it should explicitly state that the appeals would encompass to DIDP denials. I will note, however, that this is not an independent process. Finally, I was glad to see the reference to thresholds on p. 9. I think the Nov. 30 draft should flesh out this issue based on differing numbers of participating SOs and ACs and that the CCWG should seek confirmation of participation of the SOs and ACs in the “empowered Community” (acknowledging that this is not a commitment of support or endorsement of the final CCWG proposal) between now and Nov. 30. 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 Alice Jansen Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 9:40 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] 17 UTC deadline for final edits Dear all, As announced on your call #67, this is to kindly remind you that final edits on the attached draft Formal Update (circulated on 12 November) are needed by 17:00 UTC today. As indicated on the call, no line edits will be taken into account. Co-Chairs are asking for content related comments. Per the note below, any format, font and proofreading issues are being addressed by a professional writer. Thank you, Best regards Alice From: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 12:04 AM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call All, As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting. The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist. This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on. We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG for the CCWG Co-chairs.

Greetings esteemed co-chairs. Do I understand correctly that the CCWG members have been given all of 9 hours, from the scheduled completion time of Call #67 at 08.00h UTC, until 17.00h UTC today, to provide coments on the document now titled "A Formal Update on the CCWG-Accountability's Progress During and After ICANN54 in Dublin" ("ShortProposalUpdate-2.0.pdf")? Can you please clarify this on the list? Thank you. Regards, Stephen Deerhake From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 9:40 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] 17 UTC deadline for final edits Dear all, As announced on your call #67, this is to kindly remind you that final edits on the attached draft Formal Update (circulated on 12 November) are needed by 17:00 UTC today. As indicated on the call, no line edits will be taken into account. Co-Chairs are asking for content related comments. Per the note below, any format, font and proofreading issues are being addressed by a professional writer. Thank you, Best regards Alice From: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> > Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 12:04 AM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> " <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call All, As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting. The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist. This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on. We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG for the CCWG Co-chairs.