Hi Stephen, all:<div><br></div><div>I&#39;ve been very clear, most lately in a blog post today, that these issues need to be ironed out to consensus before a proposal goes anywhere.</div><div><br></div><div>But that means answering tough questions - and the biggest tough question here is whether or not PDP processes needs some quarantine around them.</div><div><br></div><div>For instance, I would support a restriction on the bylaws changes veto which said:</div><div><br></div><div>&quot;Where a bylaws change arises from an SO PDP, has no impact on ICANN generally, and the budget impact is less than $x per year, the bylaws veto isn&#39;t available.&quot;</div><div><br></div><div>I support that because the intent of the accountability powers is *not* to interfere in PDPs. It is to exercise community control over ICANN and its overall operations.</div><div><br></div><div>A PDP with limited financial impact could be usefully excluded to make that clear.</div><div><br></div><div>But also, to be clear, aPDP by any SO that demanded a huge call on ICANN resources should in principle be able to be vetoed.</div><div><br></div><div>In the end, our interest as cctld managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us and our operations. That&#39;s fair. What isn&#39;t fair is creating some fantastical right to claim on others&#39; resources.</div><div><br></div><div>What say you?</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div>Jordan <span></span></div><div><br>On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake &lt;<a href="mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as">sdeerhake@nic.as</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Jordan,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I don&#39;t think the GNSO would like to be in a position where the ccNSO could muster additional SO/AC support to kill off a PDP that they worked diligently on and got Board buy in for.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I think the ccNSO would not like this either.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">So to me it&#39;s not a &quot;hypothetical&quot; but rather, how does the CCWG proposal manage this, because at the end of the day, we need buy-in from the SO/AC community for the CCWG proposal to go forward, and if there is not an accommodation with respect to SO/Board approved PDPs standing as ICANN policy, not subject to being shot down by other SO/AC members, how do you realistically expect the SOs to provide consensus for the CCWG proposal put forward to the Board, and subsequently, NITA?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Just asking…<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Best Regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">/Stephen<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"> Jordan Carter [mailto:<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;jordan@internetnz.net.nz&#39;);" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 09, 2015 4:52 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;sdeerhake@nic.as&#39;);" target="_blank">sdeerhake@nic.as</a><br><b>Cc:</b> Paul Szyndler &lt;<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;paul.szyndler@auda.org.au&#39;);" target="_blank">paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a>&gt;; <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;accountability-cross-community@icann.org&#39;);" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>; Lisse Eberhard &lt;<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;directors@omadhina.net&#39;);" target="_blank">directors@omadhina.net</a>&gt;<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Important point to think through, thank you for raising it!<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">We must be clear though:  what motivation would there be for the entirety of the rest of the community to organise such a veto?<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Because these are not casual powers.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Such a situation would surely only emerge if:<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">A) the bylaws change was very resource intensive, and<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">B) the ccnso had failed to engage the rest of the community in the logic of its case.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">In the case of both of these together, why should the rest of the community not be able to say &#39;go away and think again&#39;?<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">And in all other cases, the threshold to do a veto wouldn&#39;t be met.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">The alternative would be to exempt SO PDPs from these rules. But why should that be the case if resources were affected?<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Jordan <br><br>On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake &lt;<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;sdeerhake@nic.as&#39;);" target="_blank">sdeerhake@nic.as</a>&gt; wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Greetings Paul,</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">With respect to my earlier post, you write:</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">[---START---]</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">This is not an inconceivable scenario. </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">[---END--]</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Thank you Paul for acknowledging that under the current proposal it is possible for a ccNSO PDP, adopted by the Board, to be later overturned by the Community at large.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Can I ask the CCWG members how they might think this is an acceptable situation for the ccNSO, and can I also ask, what do the CCWG members might have in mind to remedy this?  I see a difficult road ahead for ccNSO consensus for the CCWG proposal as it currently stands.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Stephen Deerhake</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">AS Domain Registry</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">GDNS LLC</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">+1 212 334 3660</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">+1 212 656 1983</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><a>sdeerhake@nic.as</a></span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><a>sdeerhake@gdns.net</a></span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"> <a>accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a>accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Szyndler<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 09, 2015 3:42 AM<br><b>To:</b> Jordan Carter &lt;<a>jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>&gt;<br><b>Cc:</b> <a>accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>; Lisse Eberhard &lt;<a>directors@omadhina.net</a>&gt;<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels</span><u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Thanks Jordan, </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">My questions were intentionally provocative in order to make clear my point about the need for ccTLD engagement.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">After all, I was responding to Eberhard’s question directly.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I acknowledge that consensus models are under consideration. But the voting model has not been discounted.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">As long as it is “on the table”, it is valid for me to use it as an example of an issue ccTLDs should be aware of.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">This is not an inconceivable scenario. </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">The mechanisms of how it would be blocked, the distribution of voting rights and the likelihood of it occurring do not much matter in this case.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">The point is that there is the <i>potential </i>for a ccNSO PDP to be vetoed by others.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">The only alternative is to excise policy development processes from the currently-proposed accountability model, but would that defeat the purpose of the whole exercise?</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">This is just one example of the many strings that need to be brought together and addressed before we all agree on a new model for accountability for a post-NTIA ICANN.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Paul</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"> Jordan Carter [<a>mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Szyndler &lt;<a>paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a>&gt;<br><b>Cc:</b> Dr Eberhard W Lisse &lt;<a>el@lisse.na</a>&gt;; Lisse Eberhard &lt;<a>directors@omadhina.net</a>&gt;; <a>accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Hi all,</span><u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">A comment or two re Paul&#39;s note below;<br><br>On Friday, 9 October 2015, Paul Szyndler &lt;<a>paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a>&gt; wrote:</span><u></u><u></u></p><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Eberhard,<br><br>I have long appreciated your vehement and unflinching commitment to the<br>independence and autonomy of ccTLDs.<br>However, as cc managers, we constantly face the challenge of balancing this<br>independence against the need for engagement with the broader stakeholder<br>community.<br><br>I believe that the CCWG is one process we need to engage in.<br>As cc managers, are we happy for &quot;the rest&quot; of the community to arrive at a<br>solution for the future stewardship of ICANN (which includes a place for the<br>ccNSO) without contributing to that process?<br><br>In whatever membership model the community may arrive at, we ultimately get<br>down to the unsavoury detail of votes and voting mechanisms.<br>Are you happy with a 5 of 29 voting structure?</span><u></u><u></u></p></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather than votes.</span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to &quot;veto&quot; a ccPDP?</span><u></u><u></u></p></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested any possibility of this.</span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">What is your novel interpretation of the ccwg&#39;s proposal that leads you to this curious conclusion? If you are going to assert the conclusion, I think it would be helpful to share the basis for it - mainly so that we can fix it so such a problem does not occur.</span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Irrespective of whether you answer &quot;yes&quot;, &quot;no&quot; or &quot;I don’t care&quot;, I believe<br>that these issues are of sufficient significance to warrant our collective<br>attention.<br><br>At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or Accountability<br>processes that threatens the existing internal roles or responsibilities of<br>ccTLD managers.<br>However, I believe we need to be engaged in the broader ecosystem because<br>these potential changes will have an effect on how each of us can influence<br>our environment in the future.</span><u></u><u></u></p></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Agree.</span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Jordan </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"><br>Perhaps I could turn your question back to you.<br>I note that you have devoted considerable time, effort and intellectual<br>capacity to the CCWG.<br>Assuming that the CCWG report doesn’t affect ccTLDs directly, what is it<br>about this process that has warranted your dedicated engagement?<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Paul<br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;el@lisse.na&#39;);" target="_blank">mailto:el@lisse.na</a>]<br>Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 3:20 PM<br>To: Paul Szyndler &lt;<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;paul.szyndler@auda.org.au&#39;);" target="_blank">paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a>&gt;<br>Cc: <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;accountability-cross-community@icann.org&#39;);" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>; Lisse Eberhard<br>&lt;<a>directors@omadhina.NET</a>&gt;<br>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels<br><br>Paul,<br><br>what is in the CCWG report that affects ccTLDs, directly?<br><br>el<br><br>--<br>Sent from Dr Lisse&#39;s iPad mini<br><br>&gt; On 9 Oct 2015, at 03:08, Paul Szyndler &lt;<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;paul.szyndler@auda.org.au&#39;);" target="_blank">paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Thank you for this Mathieu,<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Although this is an appropriately short and high-level document, it<br>&gt; still conveys a very strong message.<br>&gt; Not only is the work of the CWG and CCWG supported, but the process<br>&gt; that was undertaken is justified and endorsed at some length.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; It is interesting that this consensus has been reached as, in my<br>&gt; observation, few ccTLD colleagues (with notable exceptions including<br>&gt; yourself,  Roelof, Jordan etc) have been very actively involved in the<br>&gt; ongoing work.<br>&gt; I can only imagine that the views of many Governments are also only in<br>&gt; their nascent stage. This is certainly the case with mine.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; So it is important that we fully understand the CENTR / HLIG position<br>&gt; because it will carry considerable weight in the cc and GAC<br>&gt; communities, where many may not have followed the work closely nor<br>&gt; taken a definitive position.<br>&gt; Is this core group of European stakeholders unconditionally endorsing<br>&gt; the CWG, CCWG and their expected outputs?<br>&gt; Or rather, is the position an endorsement of what has been done so far<br>&gt; (and how it has been done), with a more open-ended position on what<br>&gt; may happen over the coming months?<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Regards,<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Paul<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs<br>&gt; .au Domain Administration Limited<br>&gt; T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389<br>&gt; E: <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;paul.szyndler@auda.org.au&#39;);" target="_blank">paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a> &lt;<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;paul.szyndler@auda.org.au&#39;);" target="_blank">mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a>&gt;  | W:<br>&gt; <a href="http://www.auda.org.au" target="_blank">www.auda.org.au</a> &lt;<a href="http://www.auda.org.au/" target="_blank">http://www.auda.org.au/</a>&gt;<br>&gt; Twitter: @auda &lt;<a href="http://twitter.com/auda" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/auda</a>&gt;  | Blog:<br>&gt; <a href="http://www.auda.org.au/blog/" target="_blank">www.auda.org.au/blog/</a> &lt;<a href="http://www.auda.org.au/blog/" target="_blank">http://www.auda.org.au/blog/</a>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt; auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Important Notice<br>&gt;<br>&gt; This email may contain information which is confidential and/or<br>&gt; subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named<br>&gt; addressee only.<br>&gt; If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or<br>&gt; copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by<br>&gt; mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt; -----Original Message-----<br>&gt; From: <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org&#39;);" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>&gt; [<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org&#39;);" target="_blank">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of<br>&gt; Mathieu Weill<br>&gt; Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 1:39 AM<br>&gt; To: <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;accountability-cross-community@icann.org&#39;);" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>&gt; Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Dear colleagues,<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am<br>&gt; attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint<br>&gt; session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made<br>&gt; of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship<br>&gt; transition.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now<br>&gt; online :<br>&gt; <a href="https://t.co/EuolALNkgV" target="_blank">https://t.co/EuolALNkgV</a><br>&gt;<br>&gt; You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free<br>&gt; to<br>&gt; re-use) :<br>&gt; <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability</a><br>&gt; +Upd<br>&gt; ate<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt; As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we<br>&gt; prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play,<br>&gt; and what remains to be done.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Best,<br>&gt;<br>&gt; --<br>&gt; *****************************<br>&gt; Mathieu WEILL<br>&gt; AFNIC - directeur général<br>&gt; Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06<br>&gt; <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;mathieu.weill@afnic.fr&#39;);" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><br>&gt; Twitter : @mathieuweill<br>&gt; *****************************<br>&gt;<br>&gt; _______________________________________________<br>&gt; Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>&gt; <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org&#39;);" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>&gt; <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>&gt; _______________________________________________<br>&gt; Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>&gt; <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org&#39;);" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>&gt; <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org&#39;);" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><u></u><u></u></p></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"><br><br>-- <br>Jordan Carter<br>Chief Executive, InternetNZ</span><u></u><u></u></p><p><span lang="EN-AU">+64-21-442-649 | <a>jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a></span><u></u><u></u></p><p><span lang="EN-AU">Sent on the run, apologies for brevity</span><u></u><u></u></p></div></div></blockquote></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br><br>-- <br>Jordan Carter<br>Chief Executive, InternetNZ<u></u><u></u></p><p>+64-21-442-649 | <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;jordan@internetnz.net.nz&#39;);" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><u></u><u></u></p><p>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<u></u><u></u></p></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br>Jordan Carter<br>Chief Executive, InternetNZ<p>+64-21-442-649 | <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><p>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<br></p></p>