<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
    Hi,<br>
    <br>
    And that presupposes that the CSG-Stewardship WG won't stick with
    the principle of separability in its recommended solution. <br>
    <br>
    If it does stick with separability then a contractual relationship
    remains as an ongoing leverage point. In terms of CWG-Stewardship
    work, Contract Co holding the contract, still appears to be quite
    active as a proposal.<br>
    <br>
    Perhaps we need to look at the WS1 list in terms of the binary
    discriminant: is there an ongoing contractual relationship with an
    eternal entity or not.  I expect the WS1 list will vary based on
    which of these is being considered.<br>
    <br>
    avri<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 28-Dec-14 22:57, Jonathan Zuck
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:DM2PR0801MB0747D216B8FDA21B416E72F3BA510@DM2PR0801MB0747.namprd08.prod.outlook.com"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
      <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
        medium)">
      <div class="WordSection1">
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span>Of course, in so much as the
            transition represents a loss of leverage, WS1 needs to
            sufficiently replace it. It’s not really about the IANA
            transition itself so much as the elimination of the
            contractual relationship. I agree with Alan that we need to
            be disciplined about what to include in WS1 to ensure that
            we come away with the leverage to accomplish WS2.</span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
        <div>
          <div>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
                <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
                [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
                <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alan Greenberg<br>
                <b>Sent:</b> Sunday, December 28, 2014 9:35 PM<br>
                <b>To:</b> Steve DelBianco; Accountability CCWG<br>
                <b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-Accountability]
                CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1</span></p>
          </div>
        </div>
        <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
        <p class="MsoNormal">I am somewhat troubled by all of the items
          in WS1 where I do not see the direct link to the IANA
          transition (even if the IANA transition was directly to ICANN
          without the intervening Contract Co.)<br>
          <br>
          Note I am not saying that they might not be perfectly valid
          and desirable accountability mechanism, just that I do not see
          the direct link, and thus perhaps greatly increasing our work
          to be done to allow transition.<br>
          <br>
          I do understand that it may be easier to get some of these
          accepted if done in association with WS1, but if we make our
          WS1 task too all-inclusive, it may not get done at all.<br>
          <br>
          Alan<br>
          <br>
          At 28/12/2014 07:53 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:<br>
          <br>
        </p>
        <blockquote>
          <p class="MsoNormal">Hope all of you are enjoying the
            holidays.  Work Team 2 has added several ideas and requests
            that arrived after 21-Dec.  Draft v5.1 is attached,
            reflecting these changes:</p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">
            CWG requests: IANA Stewardship CWG co-chairs Jonathan
            Robinson and Lise Fuhr requested 3 new accountability items
            in Category 1, Work Stream 1.   These 3 items are flagged as
            <span>CWG</span> (in red and bold)</p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">
            David Johnson: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed a
            contract between ICANN and Registries &amp; Registrars, with
            Registrants as 3rd party beneficiaries. Contract lets ICANN
            impose rules on others only when supported by consensus of
            affected parties.  Disputes go to independent arbitration
            panel that could issue binding decisions.  In a discussion
            with David, we thought the contract could work alongside the
            Member structure, not instead of it.<br>
            <br>
          </p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">
            Izumi Okutani and Athina Fragkouli noted support for four
            accountability items, but would place them in Work Stream 2
            and suggested some wording changes.</p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">
            <span>Malcolm Hutty requested an item be moved to Work
              Stream 1: "Ensure that the ICANN Board can be held to its
              Bylaws, with effective remedy if breach found by
              independent adjudicator.â€</span><span></span><span>    
              Seun Ojedeji requested an alternative: â€œfound by the
              community"</span></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">
            Daniel Castro of ITIF and Wisdom Donkor requested Open Data
            transparency rules, in Category 3, Work Stream 2.</p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">
            Guru Achayra: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed an
            Accountability Contract between ICANN and â€˜Contract Co.’
            to replace the Affirmation of Commitments</p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">
            Carlos Gutiérrez: requested 4 new prescribed actions in
            Category 3, Work Stream 2</p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">Apologies if I have missed other
            suggestions.  Look forward to discussing on our next call.<br>
            <br>
            —<br>
            &lt;<br>
            Steve DelBianco<br>
            Executive Director<br>
            NetChoice<br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.netchoice.org/">http://www.NetChoice.org</a>
            and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="http://blog.netchoice.org/">
              http://blog.netchoice.org</a><br>
            +1.202.420.7482<br>
            <br>
            <br>
            <br>
            <br>
            _______________________________________________<br>
            Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
          </p>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>