<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>
The case against aggregates (of delegees and their agents) has
been made by Eberhard. I won't repeat it. The case for merely
replicating the Bylaws entities (SOs and ACs) as "members" -- the
"least change" (or preservation of existing privileged access) --
has been made by several, overlooking Eberhard's observation --
perhaps due to casual GNSO centric assumptions.<br>
<br>
Continuing to examine basic interests in the continued function of
the Root Management Zone, after exhausting the interests of
delegees and contractees, their agents (registrars where that
model has been implemented), need not also necessarily be promoted
to "member" as there is no unique-to-delegation-databases interest
in the RMZ.<br>
<br>
Again, the continued function of the Root Management Zone is a
general interest, so no specific "member" need be created to
ensure this interest is present in some hypothetical membership
organization exercising oversight. The contracted parties within
GNSO have ordinary business interests in the fees paid and the
budgeted use, and an ordinary business interest in the
Corporation's budgets is a viable candidate for a membership
interest. <br>
<br>
The odd thing about contemplating reorganization of the
Corporation to "member" form is that we get a second bite of the
apple -- we need not simply do what Esther and Mike and Louis did
in 1998 in attempting to kluge up something that might be
sufficient -- they lost an SO (the IETF/W3C/ETSI as the PSO in the
'02 flurry of bylaws changes) and close to insolvent at several
points. We can shed some thus far uncorrected errors, e.g., the
independent existence of "business" and "access providers" as
policy originating stakeholders/constituencies in the GNSO, and
consider actors Esther and Mike and Louis overlooked yet are
present in our current discourse -- Human Rights, Cultural Rights,
Languages (to which our IDN projects accomplish in part), etc.<br>
<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
Eugene, Oregon<br>
<br>
On 1/29/15 6:36 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B9549706240@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.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.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle25
{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, I appreciate your response. My replies inline below.
Regards, 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 7:34 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>
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.<span style="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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">>>KCD:
Agreed. It’s absolutely fair to question the need for
members, especially if there are other viable alternatives
that deliver the same levels of accountability under
California not-for-profit corporate law. Again, this is a
prime example of why we need specialized legal expertise
and advice. Also agreed, as I said previously, that the
membership mechanism would be only a small (but important)
part of an overall accountability regime, and one that
would be used only in proscribed, exceptional and
last-resort circumstances.</span><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.<span style="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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">>>KCD:
I don’t think individual registries (delegees and
contractees) need to become members of ICANN. Rather, I
think their respective existing stakeholder groups could
become the statutory members, represented by
elected/appointed group Chairs. This would ensure that
individual registries who choose to keep ICANN at
arms-length are not forced into a relationship they don’t
want. Obviously more details to work through on this
front.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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.<span style="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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">>>KCD:
I didn’t suggest that Larry said anything about
membership, pro or con. I referred to NTIA’s position and
Larry’s comments to underscore that the Accountability
track is much broader than the narrow focus of the CWG on
IANA Stewardship Transition.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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.<span
style="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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">>>KCD:
Completely agree that more clarification is required. The
SO-AC-SG suggestion was just one preliminary proposal. If
there’s a way to augment it, let’s get those detailed
suggestions on the table so we can discuss and evaluate. <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thanks
Eric.</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>
<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.
</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>
<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.
</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>
<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):</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>
<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></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>
<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.”</span></em></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-style:normal"
lang="EN"> </span></em><o:p></o:p></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:</span></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-style:normal"
lang="EN"> </span></em><o:p></o:p></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></span></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-style:normal"
lang="EN"> </span></em><o:p></o:p></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><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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Hope
this helps clarify a bit.</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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regards,<br>
Keith</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 4:38 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">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>
<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>
<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>