<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Guru,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1. I’m not able to comment on any hypothetical approaches rather than
looking forward to the incoming substantial proposals.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">2. I’m in
agreement that all possible options have to be taken into consideration
diligently.</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">3. In order
to achieve a common consensus based proposal there is obviously extensive
communication needed between the 3 lines already throughout this process and not
after the different proposals have been submitted to the ICG. I’m hoping that
your hypotheses are still hypotheses.<BR><BR>Best
regards<BR><BR>Wolf-Ulrich<BR><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=gurcharya@gmail.com
href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com">Guru Acharya</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:53 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de
href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de">WUKnoben</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=cgomes@verisign.com
href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">Gomes, Chuck</A> ; <A
title=seeburn.k@gmail.com href="mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com">Krishna Seeburn</A>
; <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 dir=ltr>What do you mean when you say that all three proposals have to be
treated in the same way?
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Hypothetically, consider that the current proposals of the numbers (AOC+SLA
with NRO) and protocol (MOU with IETF) community are their final proposal to the
ICG. Also consider that Option (i) mentioned in this mail is the final proposal
of the names community to the ICG.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I believe that all three proposals can co-exist as the new entity suggested
in Option (i) will only have oversight over the IANA that relates to the names
community - assuming we can structurally separate the IANA of the three
communities. Do you think that such structural separation of the three IANAs is
feasible?</DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:34 AM, WUKnoben <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de"
target=_blank>wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV lang=EN-US dir=ltr vlink="purple" link="blue">
<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><B>From:</B> <A title=cgomes@verisign.com
href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target=_blank>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"
target=_blank>Krishna Seeburn</A> ; <A title=gurcharya@gmail.com
href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com" target=_blank>Guru Acharya</A> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=h5>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=cwg-stewardship@icann.org
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"
target=_blank>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></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV>
<DIV class=h5>
<DIV>
<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.<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'><U></U><U></U></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>Chuck<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'><U></U><U></U></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"'> <A
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"
target=_blank>cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</A> [mailto:<A
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"
target=_blank>cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</A>] <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> <A
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"
target=_blank>cwg-stewardship@icann.org</A><BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two
communities<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Thanks for those acharya.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </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.
<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </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.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </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.
<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </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.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>My 2 cents<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR><I>Kris Seeburn</I><U></U><U></U></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>skype: kris_seeburn30<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Linkedin:<A href="http://mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn"
target=_blank>mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn</A><U></U><U></U></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"
target=_blank>gurcharya@gmail.com</A>> wrote:<U></U><U></U></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?<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </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.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><A
href="http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1"
target=_blank>www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1</A><U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </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.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><A
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00"
target=_blank>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00</A><U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </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.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </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?<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </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.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Therefore, it is essential to
either<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </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/"
target=_blank>http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana-transition-the-meissen-proposal/</A><U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Option (ii): expect ICANN to
self-regulate<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </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.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </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.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </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.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </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.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option
available with the names community.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Regards,<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Acharya<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </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"
target=_blank>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</A><BR><A
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship"
target=_blank>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</A><U></U><U></U></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<HR>
<SPAN>_______________________________________________<BR>CWG-Stewardship
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org"
target=_blank>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</A><BR><A
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship"
target=_blank>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</A><BR></SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>