<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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>What say you? Do you think that the ccNSO should be able to run a PDP that demands, say, ICANN give a lot of money to ccTLD projects, and not have that subject to question?<o:p></o:p></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'>Thanks for re-stating your question Jordan. I have pasted from a number of your previous messages.<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'>Yes, I think that the ccNSO should be able to run and conclude a PDP that “demands” whatever the cc community requires of ICANN. The same goes for the GNSO.<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 main issue is that I don’t agree with your categorisation that a PDP it is not “subject to 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'>The current process for policy development is a sound model. <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 was a hard-won, negotiated model that necessarily involves input from the rest 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'>A ccPDP includes commentary periods that allow the GNSO, At Large, governments and everyone else to contribute.<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 is also subject to clearance via the ICANN Board.<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'>We have a mechanism / system / process in place and the current Accountability work should not subvert it. It sounds awfully like a solution in search of a problem.<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>"Where a bylaws change arises from an SO PDP, has no impact on ICANN generally, and the budget impact is less than $x per year, the bylaws veto isn't available."<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>This is very dangerous territory. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The question of whether an SO PDP “has no impact on ICANN generally” is subjective and open to all sorts of debate.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Attempting to define what figure “$x per year” is even trickier. It will open up all sorts of arguments regarding community contribution, budget etc. Not a space the CCWG needs to get in to.<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'>Even with the very best intentions, if we are not careful, we risk undermining everything we have achieved so far as a 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'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>In the end, our interest as cctld managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us and our operations. That's fair. What isn't fair is creating some fantastical right to claim on others' resources.<o:p></o:p></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 don’t agree that our interest as cc managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us. That is a very protectionist position that I had hope we have moved beyond.<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'>Our interest is developing the most stable, secure and reliable model that we can all support, and bringing in to question the mechanisms we currently have in place is counter-productive (see my comments above)<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>If we as a group of ccTLDs can't come to consensus, then there isn't going to be an accountability proposal and isn't going to be a transition.<o:p></o:p></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'>At the risk of stating the obvious, at this important juncture, we need to steer clear of such dramatic categorisations. If we cant come to consensus, we all need to look critically at the options before us, negotiate further, and try to arrive at a model that works<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'>Regards,<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><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:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Paul Szyndler </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#FF8000'>|</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> General Manager, International and Government Affairs<br>.au Domain Administration Limited</span><span style='color:#1F497D'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>T: +61 2 6292 5034 </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#FF8000'>|</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> F: +61 3 8341 4112 </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#FF8000'>| </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>M: +61 402 250 389<br>E: </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</span></a></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#FF8000'>|</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> W: </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.auda.org.au/">www.auda.org.au</a> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/auda"><span style='color:black'>@auda</span></a> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#FF8000'>|</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> Blog: <a href="http://www.auda.org.au/blog/">www.auda.org.au/blog/</a> </span><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:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><br>auDA – </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Australia’s Domain Name Administrator</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#FF9900'>Important Notice</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.</span><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'><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'><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> Saturday, 10 October 2015 11:53 AM<br><b>To:</b> sdeerhake@nic.as<br><b>Cc:</b> Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'd like to repeat my question. We have to think through the specifics and work out what we need to worry about, and what isn't a worry.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>What say you? Do you think that the ccNSO should be able to run a PDP that demands, say, ICANN give a lot of money to ccTLD projects, and not have that subject to question?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I ask because getting specific about cases is the only way to rule things in or out, and to unlock any possibility of arriving at consensus.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If we as a group of ccTLDs can't come to consensus, then there isn't going to be an accountability proposal and isn't going to be a transition.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>cheers<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jordan<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>best<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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 9 October 2015 at 22:52, Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</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>Hi Stephen, all:<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>But that means answering tough questions - and the biggest tough question here is whether or not PDP processes needs some quarantine around them.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>For instance, I would support a restriction on the bylaws changes veto which said:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>"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't available."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>A PDP with limited financial impact could be usefully excluded to make that clear.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In the end, our interest as cctld managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us and our operations. That's fair. What isn't fair is creating some fantastical right to claim on others' resources.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>What say you?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Cheers<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jordan <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <<a href="mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as" target="_blank">sdeerhake@nic.as</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'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Jordan,</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I don'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.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I think the ccNSO would not like this either.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>So to me it's not a "hypothetical" 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?</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Just asking…</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Best Regards,</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>/Stephen</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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 [<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 09, 2015 4:52 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as">sdeerhake@nic.as</a><br><b>Cc:</b> Paul Szyndler <<a href="mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au">paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a>>; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>; Lisse Eberhard <<a href="mailto:directors@omadhina.net">directors@omadhina.net</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US>Important point to think through, thank you for raising it!<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US>We must be clear though: what motivation would there be for the entirety of the rest of the community to organise such a veto?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US>Because these are not casual powers.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US>Such a situation would surely only emerge if:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US>A) the bylaws change was very resource intensive, and<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US>B) the ccnso had failed to engage the rest of the community in the logic of its case.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US>In the case of both of these together, why should the rest of the community not be able to say 'go away and think again'?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US>And in all other cases, the threshold to do a veto wouldn't be met.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US>The alternative would be to exempt SO PDPs from these rules. But why should that be the case if resources were affected?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US>Jordan <br><br>On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <<a href="mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as">sdeerhake@nic.as</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Greetings Paul,</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>With respect to my earlier post, you write:</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>[---START---]</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'>With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'>Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'>This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;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><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'>This is not an inconceivable scenario. </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;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><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;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><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>[---END--]</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",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><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",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><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Regards,</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Stephen Deerhake</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>AS Domain Registry</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>GDNS LLC</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="tel:%2B1%20212%20334%203660" target="_blank">+1 212 334 3660</a></span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="tel:%2B1%20212%20656%201983" target="_blank">+1 212 656 1983</a></span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as">sdeerhake@nic.as</a></span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="mailto:sdeerhake@gdns.net">sdeerhake@gdns.net</a></span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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'> <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>Paul Szyndler<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 09, 2015 3:42 AM<br><b>To:</b> Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>; Lisse Eberhard <<a href="mailto:directors@omadhina.net">directors@omadhina.net</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'>Thanks Jordan, </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'>My questions were intentionally provocative in order to make clear my point about the need for ccTLD engagement.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'>After all, I was responding to Eberhard’s question directly.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'>I acknowledge that consensus models are under consideration. But the voting model has not been discounted.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;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><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'>With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'>Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'>This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;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><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'>This is not an inconceivable scenario. </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;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><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;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><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;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><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'>The point is that there is the <i>potential </i>for a ccNSO PDP to be vetoed by others.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;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><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;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><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'>Paul</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><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;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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 [<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Szyndler <<a href="mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au">paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> Dr Eberhard W Lisse <<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na">el@lisse.na</a>>; Lisse Eberhard <<a href="mailto:directors@omadhina.net">directors@omadhina.net</a>>; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Hi all,<span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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:<span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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?<span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather than votes.<span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto" a ccPDP?<span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested any possibility of this.<span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Agree.<span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Jordan <span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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="mailto:el@lisse.na">mailto:el@lisse.na</a>]<br>Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 3:20 PM<br>To: Paul Szyndler <<a href="mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au">paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a>><br>Cc: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">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="mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au">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: <a href="tel:%2B61%202%206292%205034" target="_blank">+61 2 6292 5034</a> | F: <a href="tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112" target="_blank">+61 3 8341 4112</a> | M: <a href="tel:%2B61%20402%20250%20389" target="_blank">+61 402 250 389</a><br>> E: <a href="mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au">paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a> <<a href="mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au">mailto: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="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto: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="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">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: <a href="tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006" target="_blank">+33 1 39 30 83 06</a><br>> <a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><br>> Twitter : @mathieuweill<br>> *****************************<br>><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" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><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" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><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" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><br><br>-- <br>Jordan Carter<br>Chief Executive, InternetNZ<span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p><a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" target="_blank">+64-21-442-649</a> | <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US><br><br>-- <br>Jordan Carter<br>Chief Executive, InternetNZ<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span lang=EN-US><a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" target="_blank">+64-21-442-649</a> | <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span lang=EN-US>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br>-- <br>Jordan Carter<br>Chief Executive, InternetNZ<o:p></o:p></p><p><a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" target="_blank">+64-21-442-649</a> | <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><o:p></o:p></p><p>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)<br>Email: <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank"><span style='color:#1155CC'>jordan@internetnz.net.nz</span></a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz" target="_blank">www.internetnz.nz</a> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>