<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" 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"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<STYLE><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US dir=ltr link=blue vLink=purple>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>+1</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">and btw the
reference line quotes “Names Community <STRONG>vs</STRONG> the other two
communities”.</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">There is
nothing “versus” between these 3 lines. They have to be treated in the same way
regarding the outcome of a <U>common</U> proposal.<BR><BR>Best
regards<BR><BR>Wolf-Ulrich<BR></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=cgomes@verisign.com
href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">Gomes, Chuck</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:43 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=seeburn.k@gmail.com
href="mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com">Krishna Seeburn</A> ; <A
title=gurcharya@gmail.com href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com">Guru Acharya</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=cwg-stewardship@icann.org
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two
communities</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>Forgive
me for being slow but it is not obvious to me that option 1 makes sense, i.e.,
‘</SPAN>create a new legal entity<SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>’.
I see it as one option, but before we decide it is the best option we should
explore as many options as possible. Even if we eliminate the other
options mentioned below, we should not assume that we have considered all
possible options.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>Chuck<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Krishna Seeburn<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 15, 2014
5:30 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Guru Acharya<BR><B>Cc:</B>
cwg-stewardship@icann.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names
Community vs the other two communities<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Thanks for those acharya.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>IETF and the RIRs were already working in that direction from
the very start and even before the official formal announcement from icann /
ntia. These were already talks and were well ahead of anything.
<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>The option 1 makes sense and in fact i am wondering how much
more talks we will have before we can decide on what is more than
obvious.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>The names community however have a different but more
challenging approach. As much as we are technical but we have a different impact
on the community. Our challenges are way different for sure.
<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>But good thinking .., perhaps yes a good way forward. But a
consensus in way forward is what matters and we all need to agree and that is
the bigger challenge. In whatever we come up with we will need a mid platform to
agree with everyone to some point.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>My 2 cents<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR><I>Kris Seeburn</I><o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>skype: kris_seeburn30<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P
class=MsoNormal>Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn<o:p></o:p></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><BR>On Oct 16, 2014, at 1:10 AM,
Guru Acharya <<A
href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com">gurcharya@gmail.com</A>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>How the names community approach will differ from the
approach adopted by the numbers community and protocols
community?<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its
proposal. According to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. It
proposes to replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and
Affirmation of Commitment (AOC) between NRO and ICANN.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><A
href="http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1">www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1</A><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that
no structural changes are required as a result of the transition. The MOU
between ICANN and the IETF community will continue to govern the existing
relationship. Again, IANA will continue to reside in
ICANN.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><A
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00</A><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol
community appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS Oversight
Entity to replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely contracts between existing
entities will be updated to replace NTIA oversight.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a
contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO be expected
to replace NTIA oversight?<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names
community because the names community resides within ICANN, which is also the
IANA operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are essentially subsets of ICANN,
and therefore a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and
GNSO/CCNSO can not be expected to replace NTIA oversight.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Therefore, it is essential to either<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a
contractual oversight relationship with ICANN. This would be similar to <A
href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana-transition-the-meissen-proposal/">http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana-transition-the-meissen-proposal/</A><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Option (ii): expect ICANN to
self-regulate<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO
and GNSO that is structurally independent of ICANN and require that new entity
to enter into a contractual oversight agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) with
ICANN.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not
acceptable because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced accountability
process.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the
CCNSO and GNSO are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural separation of
these two communities from ICANN will be in-feasible.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7
can be discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will continue
to reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals of the protocols and
numbers community.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available
with the names community.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Regards,<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Acharya<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt">
<DIV>
<P
class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<BR>CWG-Stewardship
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</A><BR><A
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</A><o:p></o:p></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>CWG-Stewardship mailing
list<BR>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<BR>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>