<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>I understand Sivasubramanian. I suspect in these sort of
things, nothing is perfect. But rarely do the stars pretty much
align - and when they do, I think it is best to act then. Just
a personal view.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/25/16 7:23 AM, Sivasubramanian M
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHyAo0G_2BBFqZWh1OR9OWAx-_hqY+Bj232dQ_dE1E-w=c01EQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Dear Paul,</p>
<p dir="ltr">I haven't even so far heard of heritage foundation,
nor have I done as much as an Internet search for Brett's
profile</p>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline">.
What caught my eye was the phrase "soft-extension". In my own
interpretation, independent of any details that the Heritage
Foundation might imply by their thinking, the phrase
"soft-extension", particularly the word "soft" could point to
a solution to the lingering issues such as "GAC carve out". I
have a feeling that the compromises reached within the Working
Groups does not imply that the whole world has agreed. What
occurred to me at this moment is that it may not be necessary
to assume that ICANN is in a hurry to get the transition
papers signed, not necessary to assume that the next
Government would be completely against the idea of transition,
and in the absence of these assumptions, it is wiser to get
the accountability framework on such a path that would get
even the most hostile quarters to be receptive.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline">Sivasubramanian
M</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On May 25, 2016 2:11 AM, "Paul Twomey"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.twomey@argopacific.com" target="_blank">paul.twomey@argopacific.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>My only comment would be - be careful about
propositions from Think Tanks etc. In my experience,
there is normally a commercial interest behind the think
tank's words. I always think it is useful to ask - what
US corporation is pushing this line?<br>
</p>
<div> <br>
<div>On 5/25/16 6:07 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Halfway
through watching the webcast, yet to read the
written testimonies in full, this caught my
attention:</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">The
Heritage Foundation's Brett Shaefer: <i>A soft
extension of the current contract for a
reasonable period of time would allow the
community and ICANN to take the new mechanisms
for a sustained test drive to verify to the
Internet community that relies on ICANN that
they are working as envisioned. This would not
derail the progress made by the ICG or the CCWG
because the ICANN board has confirmed that
virtually all of the recommended changes,
including the new accountability improvements
and the EC, would be adopted and implemented
whether the transition proceeds or not. It would
therefore be prudent to maintain U.S. oversight,
or at least a means for reasserting NTIA
oversight, for the next two years until the new
structure proves itself and the details of Work
Stream 2 are fully developed and their
implications understood.</i></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">The
text of Brett Shaefer's 'soft extension'
suggestion "<i>to maintain U.S. oversight, or at
least a means for reasserting NTIA oversight"</i>,
does not sound soft enough.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Nor
was the posture of Steve DelBianco (52:00): ...
GAC gets one vote, "but when it comes it
challenging decisions that arise out of Government
advice, we drew the line ... the US Government
role can block Government advice. When the Board
of ICANN wants to act on Government advice and the
Community wishes to challenge that advice, we
can't allow Governments to block our ability to
challenge it, we carve them out, we exclude the
Governments from having a vote... On Net, we have
cabined off the Government power..." That would
have impressed the US Senate, but at least a few
other Governments wouldn't have liked it. </div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Steve
Delbianco's response to Heritage (57:00) was to
say that it would be a slap on the face of the
Community that has worked so hard, and has
produced a proposal is well balanced. "The powers
that the community has are extraordinary powers.
We would only invoke our powers to block a budget,
block a bylaw [change], or spill the Board if the
Board acted in a completely inappropriate way"
There is no coverage provided by the United States
better than the coverage provided by the
California courts, community's powers to go to
courts in California, to force the Board to follow
the Community's Consensus... What we have designed
gives the Community, for the first time ever, the
power to go to Court in California, to force the
Board to follow the Community's consensus, to
spill the Board, if that is our Consensus, to
overturn the Budget if the Community doesn't
support. That is the kind of back-stop we need,
and we have it in California courts"</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Very
powerful argument, but what is "Community" in
ICANN today? What is the power dynamics? and, What
does that transition proposal contain that is
enough to offer hope that the Community would be
well balanced post-transition? In terms of the
Community's powers to go to California court, will
the Community have a Reserve for legal expenses,
who really gets to decide what issues merit legal
action? If there are no Community funds to take
any issue to Court, which participants of the
Community would fund the lawsuit, and what
influences would such participants exercise in the
decisions to earmark or escalate an issue for
legal action? In a scenario not altogether
unlikely, if the "Community" is willing to spend
ten times as much as the Board's available legal
defense Budget, the Board would be constantly
under threat of lawsuits. </div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Even
while continuing to be in the California
Jurisdiction, the Accountability design requires
to be one that would move ICANN governance as
farther away from California Courts as possible.
Could there be an Accountability design that could
take ICANN governance away from lawyers (no
disrespect intended) but towards a balanced and
inherently just framework? Could there be a "soft
enough" or "loose" oversight/observation by the
NTIA at least until Workstream 2 and other
Accountability processes place together such a
self-contained framework for global public
interest?</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">In
many ways, a soft interim role for the US
Government, or a short delay would actually ensure
that the transition details are gracefully
accepted by the whole world.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Sivasubramanian
M</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"> </div>
-- <br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy"
target="_blank">Sivasubramanian M</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#888888"> <br>
<pre cols="72">--
Dr Paul Twomey
Managing Director
Argo P@cific
US Cell: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B1%20310%20279%202366" value="+13102792366" target="_blank">+1 310 279 2366</a>
Aust M: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B61%20416%20238%20501" value="+61416238501" target="_blank">+61 416 238 501</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.argopacific.com" target="_blank">www.argopacific.com</a></pre>
</font></div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dr Paul Twomey
Managing Director
Argo P@cific
US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
Aust M: +61 416 238 501
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.argopacific.com">www.argopacific.com</a></pre>
</body>
</html>