<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px">My thoughts on this are aligned with Jordan, Jonathan, Malcolm, Kavouss, Matthew, James, Steve, Avri, James, and Becky.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px">Or more succinctly, "+1."</div><div class="" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><div id=":1uv" class="" tabindex="0"><img class="" src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif"></div><div id=":1uv" class="" tabindex="0">Greg</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Burr, Becky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I am puzzled by this debate, to say the least.<br>
<br>
We have developed a proposal using the bottom-up, multistakeholder<br>
process. That process required us to wrestle with a lot of perspectives<br>
and opinions, to find solutions to address concerns, and to really come to<br>
grips with what the community agreed on. The result was the single member<br>
model. It isn¹t rocket science - it¹s a structure that is in use in many<br>
settings. The concept has been thoroughly vetted by outside counsel, and<br>
ICANN¹s outside counsel has not identified a legal problem with it.<br>
<br>
What authority do we have for turning our back on the product of the<br>
multistakeholder process to embrace a different model at the 11th hour?<br>
Yes, of course we¹ve discussed the designator model, but it has not<br>
gathered the kind of support it needs to claim community support. Rumors<br>
and anticipation of a negative response from the ³top² doesn¹t provide the<br>
kind of principled basis we would need to walk away from the output of the<br>
multistakeholder process.<br>
<br>
Yes, there is work to do - so what? We¹ve all been killing ourselves for<br>
months to be true to the multistakeholder model. Unless there is a<br>
fundamental flaw in the model developed by the community - which no one<br>
has identified - we should continue to build and perfect the community<br>
supported model.<br>
<br>
We should be proud of our work, not apologetic. We should acknowledge<br>
that it is not complete - but we¹ve known that would be the case from the<br>
beginning. Let¹s stop wringing our hands about the work to be done and<br>
just get on with it.<br>
<br>
B<br>
<br>
<br>
J. Beckwith Burr<br>
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<br>
Office: <a href="tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932">+ 1.202.533.2932</a> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367">+1.202.352.6367</a> /<br>
<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a> / <a href="http://www.neustar.biz" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.neustar.biz</a><br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 9/2/15, 1:10 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>I will try to address all of the points raised.<br>
><br>
>I am my colleagues had no illusions about how my message would be<br>
>received. We are at a point where some of us feel that there are too<br>
>many rough edges to get this proposal sufficiently done to allow it<br>
>to meet what we believe are the NTIA criteria, in the time we have.<br>
>So we were looking at alternatives, and this was one that seems to<br>
>make some sense. If we are wrong and the current proposal can be put<br>
>in shape, dandy. But I think it will be a tough haul.<br>
><br>
>It is not a magic bullet, and I agree that getting closure without<br>
>going through another full comment period would be a challenge.<br>
><br>
>Regarding what does it simplify. Takeout the membership option<br>
>removes a number of critical changes. Perhaps easy for the lawyers to<br>
>draft, but a challenge to get right given the onerousness of not<br>
>getting all of the details perfect. It removes the budget and plan<br>
>veto (which I understand some consider mandatory) and that eliminates<br>
>a large chuck of work. At the same time, it preserves most of the<br>
>CMSM structure that we have fleshed out (but still need to specify<br>
>processes in detail as we have heard from advisors and Board members.<br>
><br>
>I do not believe that CWG requirements are an issue. The IANA budget<br>
>will be protected by Bylaw and that can still be done, including the<br>
>community control over it.<br>
><br>
>The overall message I was trying to send is that after careful<br>
>analysis of the 2nd draft proposal, I and we find a lot of problems<br>
>that need to be addressed and are not at all convinced that we see<br>
>how it can be done by Dublin. I felt I had an obligation to raise the<br>
>issue publicly, regardless of the scorn from some.<br>
><br>
>As I already implied, if we are the only ones with concerns, then<br>
>let's keep going forward with what we have, and hope that At-Large is<br>
>crying wolf (see<br>
</div></div>><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki</a><br>
>_Cry-5FWolf&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDm<br>
>rxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kAchimQJKvlCHF6LPNxEvOmFpEfGLpHAa7WuLH3Lyj0&s=1QINYlb0<br>
>Cyx5rZXGuvsf4kTZwbvYSs1BfZUJ97LFUZo&e= for the<br>
<div><div class="h5">>cultural reference).<br>
><br>
>Alan<br>
><br>
>At 01/09/2015 10:26 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
>>The At-Large group advising on Accountability and IANA matters met<br>
>>today (as we have been twice weekly for the last while). It is<br>
>>becoming increasingly clearer that the CMSM model still has a LOT of<br>
>>rough edges that need to be finalized prior to putting forward our<br>
>>proposal as the accountability part of the IANA transition, and my<br>
>>recollection is that in Buenos Aires we were told in no uncertain<br>
>>terms that the proposal needed to be complete and fully<br>
>>implementable prior to being accepted by the NTIA and if necessary,<br>
>>Congress. I fear that the current plan will not meet that target.<br>
>><br>
>>So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time,<br>
>>I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the<br>
>>transition.<br>
>><br>
>>The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of<br>
>>what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole<br>
>>Designator (CMSD).<br>
>><br>
>>Following the Buenos Aires meeting, and prior to the CMSM model<br>
>>being introduced, many in the CCWG were willing to consider the<br>
>>Empowered Designator model, and this is a variant that uses the<br>
>>simplified CMSx structure but with the lighter-weight designator<br>
>>mechanism which will be significantly easier to set up. It also<br>
>>addresses the concerns of some with moving to a Membership model for<br>
>>ICANN.<br>
>><br>
>>I am sending this on my own, but with the knowledge that the concept<br>
>>had a lot of support in my community.<br>
>><br>
>>Alan<br>
><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</div></div>><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_</a><br>
>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU<br>
>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kAchimQJKvlCHF6LPNxEvO<br>
>mFpEfGLpHAa7WuLH3Lyj0&s=2Y-_rYGI4RDYkj-hU3DNhIh2u7pp9UsELserlE4sLvk&e=<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>