<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=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 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;
color:black;}
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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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><!--[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 bgcolor="white" 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">I can’t agree with Olivier and Fouad.
<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">Olivier, help me to understand why the directly affected parties shouldn’t have the primary responsibility for operations they are the direct users of and that
their own operations depend on. To me your claim that this constitutes a “conflict of interest” is almost self-contradictory and self-refuting – it is a confluence of interest, not a conflict – but perhaps I am missing something. Please explain.<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">What I suspect is happening is that both of you are confusing policy development functions of ICANN with the operational and technical functions of IANA, and
applying inappropriate mental models drawn from the former to the latter. In policy development we want “</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">openness, diversity, inclusiveness and the user perspective.” </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span style="color:windowtext">In
the DNS IANA functions the users are the registries, it’s an intermediate good, it’s all about implementation, so we want efficiency, security and direct accountability to the primary users, not some playground for different stakeholders to voice their opinions.</span></span><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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I do agree with Alan there should be safeguards to prevent the operational and technical functions from being managed in ways that undermine or subvert policy
that is made in the MS process. It would be useful to discuss institutional safeguards – including antitrust law – to prevent those kinds of things. But throwing an infinite number of “stakeholders” into looking over the shoulders of those making root zone
file modifications accomplishes nothing useful from a public interest perspective, while raising all kinds of risks and inefficiencies. If Alan can recognize the danger that IANA contractors or implementations might compromise the policy process, I hope that
he can also recognize the danger that politicized ‘multstakeholdered’ oversight of the technical operations could be abused to circumvent or veto the policies developed by the MS process.
<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">--MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:51 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hello all,<br>
<br>
irrespective of whether an "Oversight Council" is a desirable thing or not (I have not yet made up my mind about this, only having very basic information about it), I see a serious conflict of Interest where only the directly affected parties oversee operations
that concern them directly. <br>
There was much discussion about the GAC having seats. Although I have not asked them, I am pretty much sure that end users, as affected parties, would need a number of seats too.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 29/10/2014 14:33, Burr, Becky wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’d envisioned the “Oversight Council” to be elected by registries (ccs and gs) organized in some fashion outside of the ICANN umbrella – so the IANA Oversight Inc. or other association we were talking about the other day. It seems to
me that the duties and authority of the Council would be determined by the membership of the organization (I.e., the registries) – so these questions would be resolved as part of structuring Oversight, Inc. Let’s not create yet another separate mechanism.
Instead, figure out a way for the views of all stakeholders with respect to major decisions can be collected by Oversight, Inc. and taken into account in the process of developing major proposals. <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"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">J. Beckwith Burr</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#068658">Neustar, Inc. /</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#068658">Office</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">: + 1.202.533.2932 </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#068658"> Mobile</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">:
+1.202.352.6367 </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#068658">/ </span><a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:purple">becky.burr@neustar.biz</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#068658"> /
</span><a href="http://www.neustar.biz"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">www.neustar.biz</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<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">Guru Acharya <</span><a href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">gurcharya@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 9:35 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Allan MacGillivray <</span><a href="mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">allan.macgillivray@cira.ca</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Becky Burr <</span><a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">becky.burr@neustar.biz</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>, "</span><a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">"
<</span><a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>, "Lindeberg, Elise" <</span><a href="mailto:elise.lindeberg@npt.no"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">elise.lindeberg@npt.no</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Postulates emerging from Allan's remarks:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Oversight Council will monitor compliance with day to day technical SLA type requirements.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Even though the final contracting authority of changing the IANA operator will rest with the Oversight Council:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">1) There will be a "separate mechanism" for recommending any major decision to the Oversight Council, including change of IANA operator<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2) The Oversight Council will be bound to accept/implement the decision of the "separate mechanism". <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3) That "separate mechanism" will necessarily involve the views of the GAC.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">4) That "separate mechanism" will be at an arms length from ICANN so that the ICANN board can not interfere since ICANN is the present IANA operator.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">How do we intend to codify these characteristics of the "separate mechanism" so that the GAC can be assured that they will be consulted in case of change of the IANA operator? Maybe as part of a MOU between the Oversight Council and GAC+ALAC+GNSO+CCSNO?<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>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Allan MacGillivray <<a href="mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca" target="_blank">allan.macgillivray@cira.ca</a>> wrote:<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-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA">I see the “oversight council” as being a body that deals with IANA compliance with day-to-day SLA-type responsibilities e.g. the current performance metric that
80% of root zone file and WHOIS database change requests be completed within 21 days. I would not expect that governments (other than those that are ccTLD operators) would have much interest in this. However, were there to be major review of these functions,
such as that which the NTIA initiated in 2011 with its NOI, or to change the operator, then I would expect that the responsibility for conducting such a review would not fall on the ‘oversight council’ alone and that in whatever mechanism that would be established,
there could be a role for governments.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">From:</span></b><a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">
[mailto:</span><a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Guru Acharya<br>
<b>Sent:</b> October-29-14 8:32 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Becky Burr<br>
<b>Cc:</b> </span><a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">; Lindeberg, Elise<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities</span><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA">Becky. I agree with your initial assessment that the "oversight council" would focus on "technical and operational issues" (as opposed to policy issues); and
therefore GAC participation in the council will not be required even though GAC participation at an equal footing will not be inconsistent with the multi-stakeholder model. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA">However, I think GAC participation in the council might be essential in the scenario where the oversight council decides to change the IANA operator in the future.
If the council decides to contract a different operator (different from ICANN) in the future, would it not lead to various policy issues such as jurisdiction of the new IANA operator, financing of the new IANA operator etc - where the insight of the GAC may
be beneficial?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA">Therefore I think GAC should be a part of the oversight council.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA">Guru<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA">On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Burr, Becky <</span><a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-CA">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</span></a><span lang="EN-CA">>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thanks Elise, very helpful. I was thinking that the “oversight counsel” would focus on technical and
operational issues as opposed to policy issues ... But policy for IANA would remain in existing ICANN processes. Could you help me understand which technical/operational IANA services might raise “public interest” concerns? I agree with you that having some
GAC reps on a Oversight Counsel would not be inconsistent with the Strickling view, but I am curious about why GAC might want to participate in that kind of counsel. </span><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>