<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<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]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<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"> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 28, 2015 7:34 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> accountability-cross-community@icann.org<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 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 lang="EN" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“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 lang="EN" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-style:normal"> </span></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span lang="EN" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-style:normal">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 lang="EN" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-style:normal"> </span></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span lang="EN" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-style:normal"><a 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 lang="EN" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-style:normal"> </span></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span lang="EN" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Q. What impact does this announcement have on the cooperative agreement with Verisign?</span></strong><span lang="EN" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><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 href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a 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 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 href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a 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 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 href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a 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 href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a 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>
</body>
</html>