<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Paul,</div><div>Further to the message that sent as immediate reaction to your proposal,</div><div>While I fully appreciate yours and other distinguished colleagues in CCWG for their efforts and hard works I wish to come back to your message and reply to it paragraph by paragraph</div><div>See attachement</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div><div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-12-19 22:15 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>Thank you very much for the real hard works done.</div><div>Serious objections to delete GAC Role </div><div>Either we accept the multistakeholder Approach/ Concept or not</div><div>If we don not accept then the whole exercise is useless.</div><div>If we accept multistakeholder approach, Governments are part of the community</div><div>I do not understand the incoherence in the debate</div><div> I do not agree and in fact strongly object that the new arrangement be subject to any individual government's law such as USG.</div><div>This is inconsistent with NTIA announcemnet</div><div>The deletion of some of the important items has been done based on individual views and has not been yet even discussed</div><div>I understand that there are people attepmting to further reduce the role of governmnets WHY?</div><div>What is wrong with goverments role in the process?</div><div>Why there is such a hostility in reghard with governments ' role</div><div>Is the Internet an noninclussive issue?<br>Where is the democratic arrangemnts in this process</div><div>Are we just propagating slogans such as inclussive, democtartic , multistakeholder model whereby we exclude governments from the voting process.</div><div>Pls kindly do not take that radical approach</div><div>It is totally inacceptable</div><div>Tks</div><div>Kavouss participamnt AS to CCWG </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>We need to work Under the unbrella of international law </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">2014-12-19 15:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>></span>:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div class="h5"><div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Colleagues<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">First, my congratulations to Steve for doing such an effective job of creating our working catalog. In response to the call of the chair (“</span>ACTION: review the inventory list compiled by WA2 and suggest either additions to or deletions from the list”) herewith my general thoughts on our draft paper, along with some specific things worth considering.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">First, and foremost, the list, while comprehensive now is far too large to be useful as a guide to implementation. My concern is that if we throw 50 items at the Board and NTIA they will just throw up their hands and say that there is so much here that we really can’t do any of it. If you have 50 priorities you really have none.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">As a result, I think that part of what we should be doing in the long run is focusing on the core/critical 3-5 items that are absolutely essential to ensuring accountability. In short, I think there is actually a sub-category of WS1 (call it <b>WS0</b> for want of a better term) that would be fundamental red-lines for the community. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Second, I was surprised to see, on review, that two of the items that I (at least) would think of as a <b>WS0</b> requirement are listed as WS2 – prohibitions on fee structure changes without a supermajority and keeping ICANN subject to external judicial review. I will address those both more below, but call them out here so that you can look for it. <span style="font-family:Wingdings">J</span> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">With those two introductory points, I now turn to the list of items and offer my reaction to them as part of the review requested by the Chair:<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u>Control of ICANN by Community<u></u><u></u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u>Move AOCs to the Bylaws – This is now in WS1 and is essential to complete as part of the bylaw revision package that must occur before the transition. Retain as is.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u>Create permanent cross community group review structure – This is one of the <b>WS0</b> requirements. The community should absolutely insist on this form of oversight. Of the powers listed for the new structure, I think some are more important than others. I would consider WS1 to include appointing an Affirmation review team; and approval of the budget; along with recall of the Board. Controlling review, funding, and misconduct are the essential components of the review structure. Other powers, are probably best put elsewhere (dispute resolution should be by an independent arbiter – since even the cross-community structure will be somewhat self-interested) or not appropriate (bylaw changes should be made by the Board, but on a much higher threshold than currently).<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u>Revise reconsideration process – Delete or move to WS2. I see no evidence this is really necessary or has been a big problem thus far.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u>Require Board Supermajority to reject AO advise – Keep in WS1. This insures that the community is in control<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u>Independent adjudicator for disputes – This is another <b>WS0</b> requirement. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u>Prevent revision of bylaws/mission – Agree. The best way to do this is as part of the Bylaw revision to require both AC/SO approval and a Board supermajority to change the bylaws.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u>Access to internal documents – Yes. WS2<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u>Sunset of original reviews and create new ones – I think this is implicit in existing rule sets. At most WS2 if not unnecessary.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u>“Human rights” v. “public interest” – Delete. As we have seen on the list, the definition of both terms is horribly contested. Making the change part of the discussion of the transition will stop the transition in its tracks<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u>Local courts to hear complaints – Delete. This is just a bad recommendation that would subject ICANN to review by 190+ different legal systems. As I said at the top, I think that one such system is required … but not a multiplicity.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u>Inspector general – Keep in WS2. A good long term plan. Should be selected by the cross-community review group.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Channels for inquiry/complaint --- Delete as redundant to creation of an IG and an independent arbiter and the retention of court jurisdiction.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Recall mechanisms – Delete as redundant to creation of the permanent cross-community oversight structure.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Engage with all governments – Delete as redundant. Governments are already represented in the GAC<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">GAC to get 2-4 voting members – Delete. Inconsistent with the conditions of NTIA transition to avoid governmental control. Inconsistent with community rejection of GAC proposal Board review proposal.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Ombudsman referall power – Delete as redundant to creation of IG<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Allow NomCoim to select Ombudsman – Delete as reduntant to selection of IG by cross-community review group.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Expand grounds to challenge ICANN decision – Delete as unnecessary given proposal to retrict ICANN strictly to limited functions.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11pt">Limits on ICANN Activities</span></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Require GAC consensus – Keep in WS1. Essential to preventing government capture. Consistent with NTIA requirements. Needs to be incorporated in bylaws.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Prevent ICANN from doing non-DNS/IANA functions – Keep in WS1, if not <b>WS0</b>. Almost all problems with ICANN accountability can be traced to concerns about the exercise of non-IANA functions (e.g. specification 11 requirements in the gTLD contracts). If ICANN is appropriately restricted to the function it needs to do through bylaw amendment, the prospect of mission creep goes away.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Maintain freedom of expression – WS2. But unnecessary if restricted function is adopted.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Prevent ICANN acting “ultra vires” – Same as non-DNS/IANA function. Merge this into earlier recommendation with sam analysis.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Registry and Registrar agreements be equitable/non-discriminatory – Should be stated as the principle on which agreements are made and subject to independent review if allegedly breached. Statement of the principle is WS1 as is commitment to creating review mechanism. Actual mechanism itself is WS2.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Supermajority to change fee structure. This is currently WS2. I am surprised that the community thinks so. To my mind the greatest risk in the ICANN transition is not the risk to free expression. Rather it is the creation of an unregulated monopoly controlling a scarce resource (the domain names). I would have thought that the community would be deeply concerned about the creation of excess profits that ICANN could devote to other purposes (e.g. the proposal to fund broadband expansion) that would allow it to, in effect, buy support and create independence. For me, this is a <b>WS0</b> requirement or at a minimum a WS1 part of the bylaw revision. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Term limits for ICANN Board – WS2 or delete. With a good oversight structure, Board membership limits become less necessary.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">ICANN to remain subject to US law – Currently WS2. I think it should be <b>WS0</b>. In this I am supported by no less an authority than the CEO Mr. Chehade. Yesterday in a small meeting he said that one of the reasons that the US should not oppose the ICANN transition is that it would always be subject to legal jurisdiction in California. This is the ultimate backstop against a rogue ICANN. Without some guarantee of external legal mechanisms to control we run the risk of ICANN becoming FIFA-like – an unaccountable international body. We do not want a situation where </span>worldwide bodies like FIFA or ICANN are not beholden to any set of laws or codes other than their own.<span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-size:11pt">Some may suggest that US law is not the appropriate backdrop. Fair enough – but then what is the alternative? Some might suggest the Swiss, but the reality is that </span>organizations that are based in Switzerland (including the International Olympic Committee and FIFA), are not really subject to control.: “The Swiss government has no interest in being involved in things like this. Switzerland attracts all these sports bodies but doesn’t oversee any of it. These things seem to be related.”<span style="font-size:11pt"> (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/sports/soccer/fifa-investigator-michael-j-garcias-resignation-ended-an-uneasy-marriage.html?_r=0" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/sports/soccer/fifa-investigator-michael-j-garcias-resignation-ended-an-uneasy-marriage.html?_r=0</a>). In short we need a locale that is committed to the rule of law; dedicated to freedom of expression; is transparent; and open to all. That describes the US legal system pretty well – and it may also describe the one in London.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Require supermajority to change incorporation and require cost benefit of leaving California – Delete. Inconsistent with need to maintain legal presence in US.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Incorporate as international organization – Delete.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Limit ICANN executive function to implementation of polies – I don’t understand this one. As opposed to what? Making policy?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Operate under rule of law in jurisdications that support redress – Delete. Generally covered by independent arbiter idea. Particularized special request of copyright holders that is outside scope.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">One third Board on ICANN full time – Delete. Barely disguised effort to enable governments to place members on the Board as full time government employees. Inconsistent with NTIA requirements and with bottom-up community system of review.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Separate policy function from Root Zone Management – Keep as WS1. A critical structural idea that will go a long way to avoiding mission creep.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11pt">Transparency</span></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Transparency International audit – Duplicative of other audit requriementes. Delete<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Limit ability to deny transparency requrests/create mechanism akin to FOIA – This is clearly a commitment that needs to be in WS1. Implementation can be in WS2<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Annual audits – WS2 for implementation but WS1 for commitment. Should be both for transparency (see earlier suggestion) and also forensic financial audit. Follow the money …..<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Board deliberations transparent – Move to WS1 and make part of the Bylaw revision.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">SOs to have aligned transparency mechanisms – Keep in WS2<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">I apologize for the length of this note, but I wanted to be comprehensive. If I could summarize my most important point it would be that there are <b>five</b> critical <b>WS0</b> items that should be our focus. You may disagree with which these are, but I really do think that the best approach is to narrow down our focus to be more effective. My five are:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>1.<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Create a permanent cross-community review structure<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>2.<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Mandate independent arbiters for dispute resolution<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>3.<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Change ICANN bylaws to clearly prohibit any non-IANA management related activity<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>4.<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Require a supermajority of the Board to raise fees<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>5.<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Keep ICANN permanently incorporated in California.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">I suspect there will be strong agreement on #1, #2 and #3. I think #4 is essential. I realize #5 may get some dispute.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Happy holidays to all,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Paul<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:rgb(192,0,0);font-size:11pt">**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***<u></u><u></u></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-size:11pt">509 C St. NE<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-size:11pt">Washington, DC 20002<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-size:11pt">Paul Rosenzweig<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-size:11pt"><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-size:11pt">O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" target="_blank" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-size:11pt">M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" target="_blank" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-size:11pt">Skype: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" target="_blank" value="+12027381739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a> or paul.rosenzweig1066<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-size:11pt"><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9" target="_blank">Link to my PGP Key</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> Steve DelBianco [mailto:<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org" target="_blank">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, December 14, 2014 5:05 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org" target="_blank">ccwg-accountability2@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [Area 2] Updated draft 3 for Work Area 2<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">In this draft, I have merely re-arranged the accountability suggestions, into 3 sections:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><blockquote style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:30pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal">1. Mechanisms to give the community authority over the ICANN corporation<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">2. Mechanisms to prescribe or restrict actions of the ICANN corporation<u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div><blockquote style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:30pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal">3. Mechanisms to ensure transparency of the ICANN corporation and the broader community<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal">I presume staff will post this version to our Wiki so that all CCWG colleagues can review before our call on Tuesday. Both a pdf and Word doc are attached.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">--Steve<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><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On 12/12/14, 8:30 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org" target="_blank">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Thanks to Malcolm Hutty for his edits today. And thanks to Marika Konings for sharing a <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/nCbxAg" target="_blank">staff summary</a> of accountability proposals taken from the public comment period. This made our job much easier.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">That staff document had about 250 ideas. I skipped those focusing on IANA functions since that is out of our CCWG scope. I skipped items that were just comments on current accountability. About 100 of the items were consolidated into the second draft of our deliverable (attached). <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Our current draft list is very manageable, at under 2 pages. Mathieu suggests we eventually add tags so that related items can be grouped together (e.g., “Checks and Balances”, “Review”, Redress”, etc.)<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Per a question from Mathieu, I propose this rationale to designate whether in work stream 1 or 2:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><blockquote style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:30pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> Work Stream 1 is designated for accountability enhancements that must be in-place or firmly committed before IANA transition occurs. All other items are Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">How does that sound to you?<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Please review and comment over the weekend, so we can send to our colleagues on Monday morning. Feel free to add accountability mechanisms that were suggested earlier this year, even if outside of ICANN’s public comment forum.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">As I noted earlier, we are tasked now just to give a starting point of accountability enhancement suggestions. Our entire CCWG will surely develop more enhancements over the course of our work.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">—Steve<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On 12/12/14, 5:08 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org" target="_blank">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Thanks for volunteering to help with Work Area 2: to Review Input from Public Comment and Categorize Items into Work Streams 1 & 2.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Our deliverable (by Monday) is a list of items that have been suggested, and identify whether these belong in WS1 or WS2.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">As our rapporteur, I drafted a format that might be useful to our working group colleagues. And I filled-in about a page of items to show how this format could work. (attached)<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">There are around 70 comments in the two comment periods we need to examine. Not every comment includes suggested accountability mechanisms. The process I recommend is:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><blockquote style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:30pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">First, scan the comment and for any accountability suggestion,and see if there’s already a similar item in the list/table. If so, add the comment source under the Source column (Google, BC, etc.) If not in the list yet, add the row and the source.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Second, Indicate whether this accountability item should be required before the IANA contract is relinquished (WS1). If it can wait until after transition, it goes into Work Stream 2 (WS2)<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Finally, add a hyperlink to the comment at the bottom of our document, so readers can find it easily.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Make sense? Now, how to divide the work?<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I suggest that Paul Rosenzweig, Jordan Carter, and I go thru the 53 submissions in the <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14/" target="_blank">Public comments on enhancing ICANN Accountability</a>, 7-May thru 30-Jul, 2014.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:3pt"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Could we have a few others volunteer to go thru the second set of comments? There are 21 submissions in the <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06sep14/index.html#00014" target="_blank">Public comments on enhancing ICANN Accountability</a>, 6-Sep thru 13-Oct, 2014<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Ideas welcome!<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">—<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Steve DelBianco<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Executive Director<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">NetChoice<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="http://www.netchoice.org/" target="_blank">http://www.NetChoice.org</a> and <a href="http://blog.netchoice.org/" target="_blank">http://blog.netchoice.org</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="tel:%2B1.202.420.7482" target="_blank" value="+12024207482">+1.202.420.7482</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On 12/11/14, 5:11 AM, "Grace Abuhamad" <<a href="mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org" target="_blank">grace.abuhamad@icann.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:rgb(0,0,144);font-size:14pt">Work Area 2: Review Input from Public Comment and Categorize Items into Work Streams 1 & 2</span></b><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Deliverable: list of items that have been suggested and identify whether these belong in WS1, WS2 or both.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">Coordinator/Rapporteur</span></b><span style="color:black">: Steve DelBianco<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Volunteers: <u></u><u></u></span></p><ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0in"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black">Jordan Carter <u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black">Leon Sanchez <u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Wiki Link: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/YoMQAw" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/YoMQAw</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Mailing list address: <a href="mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org" target="_blank">ccwg-accountability2@icann.org</a> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Public Archives: <a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/</a> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org" target="_blank">Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>