<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=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
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;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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 lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Thanks Jordan, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>My questions were intentionally provocative in order to make clear my point about the need for ccTLD engagement.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>After all, I was responding to Eberhard’s question directly.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I acknowledge that consensus models are under consideration. But the voting model has not been discounted.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>This is not an inconceivable scenario. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The point is that there is the <i>potential </i>for a ccNSO PDP to be vetoed by others.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>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?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au><br><b>Cc:</b> Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hi all,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>A comment or two re Paul's note below;<br><br>On Friday, 9 October 2015, Paul Szyndler <<a href="mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au">paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal>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 "the rest" 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?<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather than votes.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal>Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto" a ccPDP?<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested any possibility of this.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>What is your novel interpretation of the ccwg'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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal>Irrespective of whether you answer "yes", "no" or "I don’t care", 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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Agree.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jordan <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><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 [mailto:<a href="javascript:;">el@lisse.na</a>]<br>Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 3:20 PM<br>To: Paul Szyndler <<a href="javascript:;">paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a>><br>Cc: <a href="javascript:;">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>; Lisse Eberhard<br><<a href="mailto:directors@omadhina.NET">directors@omadhina.NET</a>><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's iPad mini<br><br>> On 9 Oct 2015, at 03:08, Paul Szyndler <<a href="javascript:;">paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> Thank you for this Mathieu,<br>><br>> Although this is an appropriately short and high-level document, it<br>> still conveys a very strong message.<br>> Not only is the work of the CWG and CCWG supported, but the process<br>> that was undertaken is justified and endorsed at some length.<br>><br>> It is interesting that this consensus has been reached as, in my<br>> observation, few ccTLD colleagues (with notable exceptions including<br>> yourself, Roelof, Jordan etc) have been very actively involved in the<br>> ongoing work.<br>> I can only imagine that the views of many Governments are also only in<br>> their nascent stage. This is certainly the case with mine.<br>><br>> So it is important that we fully understand the CENTR / HLIG position<br>> because it will carry considerable weight in the cc and GAC<br>> communities, where many may not have followed the work closely nor<br>> taken a definitive position.<br>> Is this core group of European stakeholders unconditionally endorsing<br>> the CWG, CCWG and their expected outputs?<br>> Or rather, is the position an endorsement of what has been done so far<br>> (and how it has been done), with a more open-ended position on what<br>> may happen over the coming months?<br>><br>> Regards,<br>><br>> Paul<br>><br>> Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs<br>> .au Domain Administration Limited<br>> T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389<br>> E: <a href="javascript:;">paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a> <mailto:<a href="javascript:;">paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a>> | W:<br>> <a href="http://www.auda.org.au" target="_blank">www.auda.org.au</a> <<a href="http://www.auda.org.au/" target="_blank">http://www.auda.org.au/</a>><br>> Twitter: @auda <<a href="http://twitter.com/auda" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/auda</a>> | Blog:<br>> <a href="http://www.auda.org.au/blog/" target="_blank">www.auda.org.au/blog/</a> <<a href="http://www.auda.org.au/blog/" target="_blank">http://www.auda.org.au/blog/</a>><br>><br>><br>> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator<br>><br>> Important Notice<br>><br>> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or<br>> subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named<br>> addressee only.<br>> If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or<br>> copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by<br>> mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.<br>><br>><br>><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: <a href="javascript:;">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>> [mailto:<a href="javascript:;">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of<br>> Mathieu Weill<br>> Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 1:39 AM<br>> To: <a href="javascript:;">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels<br>><br>> Dear colleagues,<br>><br>> Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am<br>> attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint<br>> session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made<br>> of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship<br>> transition.<br>><br>> The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now<br>> online :<br>> <a href="https://t.co/EuolALNkgV" target="_blank">https://t.co/EuolALNkgV</a><br>><br>> You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free<br>> to<br>> re-use) :<br>> <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability</a><br>> +Upd<br>> ate<br>><br>><br>> As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we<br>> prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play,<br>> and what remains to be done.<br>><br>> Best,<br>><br>> --<br>> *****************************<br>> Mathieu WEILL<br>> AFNIC - directeur général<br>> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06<br>> <a href="javascript:;">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><br>> Twitter : @mathieuweill<br>> *****************************<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>> <a href="javascript:;">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><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>> <a href="javascript:;">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><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="javascript:;">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><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br>-- <br>Jordan Carter<br>Chief Executive, InternetNZ<o:p></o:p></p><p>+64-21-442-649 | <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><o:p></o:p></p><p>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>