<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>
If a "members" mechanism is proposed as a (possibly quite small)
part of an overall attempt to improve accountability related to a
still conditional transition, then we can, as Alan proposed, and I
suppose ALAC proposes, simply promote SOs and ACs to "members", or
we can ask what "members" are necessary and why.<br>
<br>
So yes, I'm considering one notion of "member" -- one implicit in
your note to Eberhard -- the assumption that registry operators,
or rather, the delegees and contractees -- must be members.<br>
<br>
Larry's remarks are not relevant to the idea, casually floated by
several here, that the necessary means to replace the NTIA as a
nominal source of oversight is reorganization to a membership
form. You'll notice in your excerpt Larry didn't choose to mention
any specific mechanism, reorganization to a membership form in
particular, as a means to address the example questions he did
choose to cite.<br>
<br>
Membership could stand some clarification, it doesn't necessarily
mean replication of the existing bylaws entities as members -- as
this would simply promote the promoted and exclude the excluded,
which is unlikely to substantively improve accountability should,
in addition to a reorganization, a transition actually takes
place.<br>
<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
Eugene, Oregon<br>
<br>
P.S. Yes, I mentioned Verisign's RZM role as an exception to the
general question, a "unique circumstance".<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 1/28/15 2:49 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95497053DD@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{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-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thanks
Eric.<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
think you may be looking at this question far too narrowly.
<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
charter and focus of the Accountability CCWG is not specific
to the IANA Functions and/or the Root Zone Management
responsibilities…that’s the immediate responsibility of the
CWG Transition. We are primarily focused on replacing the
backstop role currently provided by NTIA, if and when they
determine the community has identified and recommended the
requisite (and acceptable) accountability reforms, structure
and mechanisms. The two tracks will necessarily come
together prior to transition, of course.
<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">If
there’s any question about this, I encourage you to read
NTIA’s latest official statement, in remarks by Larry
Strickling on Tuesday in DC (excerpt below):<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-state-net-conference-1272015">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-state-net-conference-1272015</a><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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""
lang="EN">“The second process is addressing how to enhance
ICANN’s accountability to the global Internet community in
the absence of the contractual relationship with NTIA.
Stakeholders are working through the Enhancing <em><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">ICANN
Accountability Cross Community Working Group</span></em>
(<em><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">CCWG
- Accountability). Early reports indicate the CCWG is
making significant progress on an agreement on the
definition of the problem, a list of “stress tests”, and
the specific short term issues that need to be addressed
prior to the transition.
</span></em>As we have consistently stated, it is critical
that this group conduct “stress testing” of proposed
solutions to safeguard against future contingencies such as
attempts to influence or take over ICANN – be it the Board,
staff or any stakeholder group--that are not currently
possible given its contract with NTIA. We also encourage
this group to address questions such as how to remove or
replace board members should stakeholders lose confidence in
them and how to incorporate and improve current
accountability tools like the reviews called for by the <em><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Affirmation
of Commitments.”<o:p></o:p></span></em></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-style:normal"
lang="EN"><o:p> </o:p></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-style:normal"
lang="EN">Also, since Verisign’s RZM role was mentioned, I
point you to NTIA’s March 18, 2014 FAQ on the topic:<o:p></o:p></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-style:normal"
lang="EN"><o:p> </o:p></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-style:normal"
lang="EN"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ</a><o:p></o:p></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-style:normal"
lang="EN"><o:p> </o:p></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""
lang="EN">Q. What impact does this announcement have on
the cooperative agreement with Verisign?</span></strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""
lang="EN"><br>
<br>
A. Aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably
intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement (i.e.,
authoritative root zone file management), which would
require that NTIA coordinate a related and parallel
transition in these responsibilities.</span><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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">Hope
this helps clarify a bit.<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regards,<br>
Keith<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 4:38 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">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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Eric,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">To
be clear, no one has ever said that, “…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?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Keith</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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</span><o:p></o:p></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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><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><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>