<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:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
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:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
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;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1392264550;
mso-list-template-ids:1195048810;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Dear Mr. Arasteh<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'>With respect, I am not suggesting deleting the GAC role, nor I am proposing anything “radical.” [I should also note that these are just my proposals and not something our group has adopted]<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'>Rather, I am proposing that we keep the system exactly as it is – with the GAC operating as an independent body that can provide consensus based advice to the Board. For that reason, I do suggest rejecting GAC authority by giving it two seats on the Board itself (which is one of the proposals addressed below). I also suggest making the current practice of consensus-based advice GAC permanent and mandatory so that we do not see GAC advice adopted by a narrow majority of States. This, too, is not radical – it is only enshrining current practice (and it is consistent with the Board’s rejection of the recent proposal to privilege GAC advice). Finally, though I did not address it directly in my note below, by accepting the idea of a member-based supervisory structure that monitors and can overrule the Board I am actually implicitly accepting a slightly enhanced role for governments. The oversight structure will include membership from every part of the ICANN community – the Advisory Committees, the Stakeholder Organizations and the GAC as well. Though that structure has not yet been defined, I expect that the GAC constituency would get a Member slot on the oversight entity and a vote – which is something more than GAC has now.<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'>I hope that helps explain my position a bit more.<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'>Warm regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Paul<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><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#C00000'>**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>509 C St. NE<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Washington, DC 20002<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'>Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>O: +1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>M: +1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9"><span style='color:#0563C1'>Link to my PGP Key</span></a><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><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 19, 2014 4:16 PM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig<br><b>Cc:</b> Steve DelBianco; ccwg-accountability2@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Area 2] Updated draft 3 for Work Area 2<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear All,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you very much for the real hard works done.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Serious objections to delete GAC Role <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Either we accept the multistakeholder Approach/ Concept or not<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If we don not accept then the whole exercise is useless.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If we accept multistakeholder approach, Governments are part of the community<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I do not understand the incoherence in the debate<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> I do not agree and in fact strongly object that the new arrangement be subject to any individual government's law such as USG.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>This is inconsistent with NTIA announcemnet<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The deletion of some of the important items has been done based on individual views and has not been yet even discussed<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I understand that there are people attepmting to further reduce the role of governmnets WHY?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>What is wrong with goverments role in the process?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Why there is such a hostility in reghard with governments ' role<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Is the Internet an noninclussive issue?<br>Where is the democratic arrangemnts in this process<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Are we just propagating slogans such as inclussive, democtartic , multistakeholder model whereby we exclude governments from the voting process.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Pls kindly do not take that radical approach<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>It is totally inacceptable<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Tks<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Kavouss participamnt AS to CCWG <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>We need to work Under the unbrella of international law <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>2014-12-19 15:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Colleagues</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><u>Control of ICANN by Community</u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>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).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>Revise reconsideration process – Delete or move to WS2. I see no evidence this is really necessary or has been a big problem thus far.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>Require Board Supermajority to reject AO advise – Keep in WS1. This insures that the community is in control<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>Independent adjudicator for disputes – This is another <b>WS0</b> requirement. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>Access to internal documents – Yes. WS2<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>Sunset of original reviews and create new ones – I think this is implicit in existing rule sets. At most WS2 if not unnecessary.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>“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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>Inspector general – Keep in WS2. A good long term plan. Should be selected by the cross-community review group.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Channels for inquiry/complaint --- Delete as redundant to creation of an IG and an independent arbiter and the retention of court jurisdiction.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Recall mechanisms – Delete as redundant to creation of the permanent cross-community oversight structure.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Engage with all governments – Delete as redundant. Governments are already represented in the GAC</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Ombudsman referall power – Delete as redundant to creation of IG</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Allow NomCoim to select Ombudsman – Delete as reduntant to selection of IG by cross-community review group.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Expand grounds to challenge ICANN decision – Delete as unnecessary given proposal to retrict ICANN strictly to limited functions.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Limits on ICANN Activities</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Require GAC consensus – Keep in WS1. Essential to preventing government capture. Consistent with NTIA requirements. Needs to be incorporated in bylaws.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maintain freedom of expression – WS2. But unnecessary if restricted function is adopted.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Prevent ICANN acting “ultra vires” – Same as non-DNS/IANA function. Merge this into earlier recommendation with sam analysis.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Term limits for ICANN Board – WS2 or delete. With a good oversight structure, Board membership limits become less necessary.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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:11.0pt'> (<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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Require supermajority to change incorporation and require cost benefit of leaving California – Delete. Inconsistent with need to maintain legal presence in US.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Incorporate as international organization – Delete.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Limit ICANN executive function to implementation of polies – I don’t understand this one. As opposed to what? Making policy?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Separate policy function from Root Zone Management – Keep as WS1. A critical structural idea that will go a long way to avoiding mission creep.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Transparency</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Transparency International audit – Duplicative of other audit requriementes. Delete</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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 …..</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Board deliberations transparent – Move to WS1 and make part of the Bylaw revision.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>SOs to have aligned transparency mechanisms – Keep in WS2</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Create a permanent cross-community review structure</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>2.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Mandate independent arbiters for dispute resolution</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>3.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Change ICANN bylaws to clearly prohibit any non-IANA management related activity</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>4.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Require a supermajority of the Board to raise fees</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>5.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Keep ICANN permanently incorporated in California.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I suspect there will be strong agreement on #1, #2 and #3. I think #4 is essential. I realize #5 may get some dispute.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Happy holidays to all,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Paul</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#C00000'>**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>509 C St. NE</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Washington, DC 20002</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Paul Rosenzweig</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Skype: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a> or paul.rosenzweig1066</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'><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></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-color:currentColor currentColor'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> 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</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>In this draft, I have merely re-arranged the accountability suggestions, into 3 sections:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>1. Mechanisms to give the community authority over the ICANN corporation<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>2. Mechanisms to prescribe or restrict actions of the ICANN corporation<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>3. Mechanisms to ensure transparency of the ICANN corporation and the broader community<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>--Steve<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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). </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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.)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Per a question from Mathieu, I propose this rationale to designate whether in work stream 1 or 2:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>How does that sound to you?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>—Steve</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Finally, add a hyperlink to the comment at the bottom of our document, so readers can find it easily.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Make sense? Now, how to divide the work?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:3.0pt;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Ideas welcome!</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>—</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Steve DelBianco</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Executive Director</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>NetChoice</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'><a href="tel:%2B1.202.420.7482" target="_blank">+1.202.420.7482</a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:#000090'>Work Area 2: Review Input from Public Comment and Categorize Items into Work Streams 1 & 2</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Deliverable: list of items that have been suggested and identify whether these belong in WS1, WS2 or both.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='color:black'>Coordinator/Rapporteur</span></b><span style='color:black'>: Steve DelBianco</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Volunteers: </span><o:p></o:p></p><ul type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Jordan Carter <o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Leon Sanchez <o:p></o:p></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Wiki Link: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/YoMQAw" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/YoMQAw</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Mailing list address: <a href="mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org" target="_blank">ccwg-accountability2@icann.org</a> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<br>Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org">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><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>