<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Keith,<br>
<br>
To respond to your question --<br>
<br>
Other than the unique circumstance that one contractee -- Verisign
Global Registry Service -- is, for historical reasons, one of the
Root Zone Management (RZM) partners, and, as you mention,
someone's employer, can anyone suggest a meaningful difference of
interests in the continued function of the Root Management Zone
between, say, a delegee's interests and a contractee's interests?<br>
<br>
Having worn both hats, I can't think of any.<br>
<br>
Feel free to point out something I missed, because if both ccTLDs
and gTLDs have the same interest in the continued function of the
Root Management Zone, then since this interest isn't unique to
delegees and contractees, neither are necessary to provide
oversight of that continued function.<br>
<br>
Whether there is some other interest that requires the inclusion
of delegees and/or contractees in some membership oversight scheme
is possible. Consistency and correctness of policy implemented by
the Root Zone Management (RZM) partners, as Eberhard points out
(and as I thought was common knowledge among those of us with 10+
years of involvement), is such an interest, which of course, is
not shared by contractees, which are governed solely by contract.<br>
<br>
To restate: a possible membership model need not include
duplicated interests, and the interest in the continued function
of the Root Management Zone is sufficiently general that no claim
of interest in it must promote the claimant to member status,
whatever that may be in the cloud of "membership" proposals. <br>
<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
Eugene, Oregon<br>
<br>
On 1/28/15 11:58 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95497046D5@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Eric,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">To
be clear, no one has ever said that, “…</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">only
registries can provide the necessary oversight of the Board
as it relates to the continued function of the Root Zone
Management.” Where did you get that?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In
order for any accountability structure to be meaningful and
acceptable, it should represent all members of the community
and there should be appropriate balance among all community
participants and interests.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As
an employee of a gTLD Registry and Chair of the GNSO
Registries Stakeholder Group, I can state definitively that
we have a strong interest in ICANN’s accountability to us
and to the rest of the community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
find your suggestion that registries might not have a place
in a possible cross-community membership model odd, to say
the least.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Keith<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<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>Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 28, 2015 12:51 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly
answers on membership structure<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 1/28/15 8:50 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">If
a ccTLD manager is not a member of the ccNSO, is paying no
fees to ICANN and is not bound by ccNSO policy, please
help me understand how they are impacted and why they
would care about the ICANN Board's accountability
mechanisms to its community. I fully understand why every
TLD registry cares about the IANA functions and changes to
the root zone file, but our issue of greater ICANN
Accountability is a broader discussion than the
IANA-specific concerns and accountability mechanisms
currently being addressed via the CWG Transition.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
It is not so very long ago that a (previous) Executive and
(previous) Board made changes requested by delegees of iso3166
code points conditional upon a form of agreement. The policy
pursued by that Executive and that Board were not subject to
substantive community review (notice and comment) prior to
being implemented, with the accountability issue I hope many,
not just the directly concerned, still recall.<br>
<br>
Additionally, the interests of parties (of any type) need not
encompass the union of all interests of all parties in the
mechanisms and policies relating to accountability.<br>
<br>
The pursuit of the narrow self-interest of a hypothetical
ccTLD, or gTLD, delegee or contractual party, through its
operator, should not, by itself, remove a party pursuing its
narrow self-interest from what ever may eventually be a body
of "members". Were it so, the removed would be at least some
of those the USG observed in the AOC which constitute " a
group of participants that engage in ICANN's processes to a
greater extent than Internet users generally."<br>
<br>
However, given the general awareness that the continued
function of the Root Zone Management (RZM) partners is of
fundamental importance, and the limited interest
_as_delegees_or_contractees_ in issues other than the
continued function of the Root Zone Management (RZM) partners,
it seems unnecessary to encumber the problem of
accountability-via-membership (already quite difficult if not
intractable, in my opinion) with notions that delegees and
contractees, as delegees or contractees, contribute an
interest absent but for their status as "members", whether
represented en toto, or as self-organized aggregates, or by
lottery.<br>
<br>
In simple terms, why registries-as-members at all? Does anyone
believe only registries can provide the necessary oversight of
the Board as it relates to the continued function of the Root
Zone Management?
<br>
<br>
I think that the function of the Board is general oversight of
the registries, arising from its technical coordination of
unique endpoint identifiers delegated authority, and
contractual oversight arising from its delegated contracting
authority, so the assumption that registries have a necessary
place in a hypothetical membership model is one that should be
examined carefully for self-interest and self-dealing, as well
as for necessity and utility.<br>
<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
Eugene, Oregon<o:p></o:p></p>
</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>