<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>As mentioned earlier in the thread, the IETF draft is focused on protocol parameters. It does not make any suggestions for transition plans for names or numbers.</div><div><br></div><div>Alissa</div><br><div><div>On Nov 29, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Christopher Wilkinson <<a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><base href="x-msg://220/"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Good evening:<div><br></div><div>I think at this stage in proceedings there is NO 'done deal'.</div><div>CWG is preparing an hopefully - but not necessarily - unique proposal to the ICG. Nothing more.</div><div><br></div><div>In that context, some of us may have come across the recent IETF draft response to ICG (pp 19 + Annexes) at:</div><div><br></div><div><b><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-03">https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-03</a></b></div><div><br></div><div>The IETF Response is,<i> inter alia</i>, "No major changes are required" (twice).</div><div><br></div><div>Since I have no particular brief for the IETF (except that it's them that what's done it - the Internet), I offer this only as evidence that ICG will have work to do and that the current battle-royal in CWG is rather besides the point.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div><br></div><div>CW</div><div><br></div><div>On 29 Nov 2014, at 19:09, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:</div><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: inherit; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Mary,<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Appreciate your comments but I cannot make sense of some of your arguments. Specifically,<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></a></div><div style="border-style: none none none solid; border-left-width: 1.5pt; border-left-color: blue; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt; "><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1417259518803_67514"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; ">Contract Co: the jurisdictional questions as had been raised in this thread makes it less attractive as the way to go. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">MM: I’m sorry, but this doesn’t make any sense to me. There is no avoidance of jurisdictional issues. If there is no Contract Co. and ICANN controls the whole process directly, which is want Olivier and Alan want, then the jurisdiction is the United States. Decisions _<i>must</i>_ be made about jurisdiction, and the creation of a Contract Co. actually gives us more flexibility about this than the status quo. Let me also remind you that with the U.S. Congress looking over NTIA and a lame-duck Presidency, altering the jurisdiction of ICANN itself is simply not feasible at this juncture.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1417259518803_97273"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; ">Question: Is this a multi-stakeholder entity? <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">MM: The answer is simple. Yes. Contract Co. gets its instructions directly from PRT, which is multistakeholder.<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1417259518803_97275"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; "> </span></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1417259518803_97274"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; ">General acceptability by the internet community may be difficult to sell considering the heightened awareness in most governments ( ie ccTLDs) regarding the IANA relationship and the position of NTIA in representing governments in the functions.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">MM: I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the proposal before us. Contract Co is just a shell that does what the PRT tells it to do. If you are looking at it as some kind of<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1417259518803_74535"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; ">I believe a less legal formal entity operating a bottom up process would not only meet the NTIA requirements but also give the internet community the opportunity to be part of the MoU agreement with IANA functions Operator.<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1417259518803_103603"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">MM: I don’t understand this. PRT is representative of the Internet community. What is the difference between an MoU and a contract, except that an MoU is legally weaker and less separable?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1417259518803_105885"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; ">Who is the ultimate supervisor (Regulator) of this entity? - US government?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">MM: Again I do not understand where you are coming from and think that you may be fundamentally misunderstanding the proposal. The whole point of this proposal is to get the unilateral authority of the US government out of the system completely.<o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></div></blockquote></div><br></div>_______________________________________________<br>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>