<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;}
/* 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:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
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><!--[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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<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"><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" style="margin-left:4.8pt"><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>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I would say that this has already been demonstrated in the making up of the ICG and the current CWG, both of which include non ICANN participants from the global multistakeholder community.<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: Hello Olivier. Both the ICG and this CWG have been empowered by an external entity – the NTIA. It was the NTIA that kicked off
the process by signaling its willingness to let go. It was NTIA that told ICANN to convene but not control the process. It was the NTIA that set the parameters and basic criteria a transition proposal had to meet. It is the NTIA, and the US government more
broadly, that will ultimately determine whether the proposals we develop will be implemented. To look at these processes as outgrowths of processes internal to ICANN is to be fundamentally out of touch with what is going on here. As Jordan Carter pointed out
in a message a few minutes ago, given the concessions we had to wring out of ICANN to make these processes as independent as they are, it is evident that these examples you hold up would have been very different had they been internal to ICANN.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:#1F497D">S</span>imilarly, I would point out that a totally independent MRT that does not make use of ICANN's existing structures as a convenor would be missing a coordinated Governmental
involvement. Indeed, only ICANN has the ability to make use of its members to relate back to the GAC and for the GAC to express points. A totally independent MRT would have individual governments speaking. Of course, individual governments were able to speak
outside of ICANN at, say ITU meetings or at NetMundial - but they were not restricted to a handful of seats for the whole world.<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: The MRT _<i>will</i>_ make use of ICANN’s institutionalized representational structures. No one who has thought seriously about
the composition of the MRT has proposed anything different from that. The GNSO SGs will be putting people on to the MRT, so will the ccNSO, so will the GAC, so will SSAC, so will ALAC. So will entities outside of ICANN. But it will be independent of ICANN
legally, which as Greg explained is essential. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: As a sideline, I am a bit disturbed by the special emphasis you are placing on governmental involvement. Outside of their jurisdiction,
Governments’ only claim to involvement in ICANN is as one of many voices in the policy development process. I do hope you, and all ALAC members, understand that the IANA functions contractor is not a policy making institution, nor is it supposed to be a vehicle
for circumventing or vetoing policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: When it comes to the IANA functions, we do not need governments “speaking,” collectively or individually, about implementation.
We need them in their role as ccTLD administrators, in which case they are just another IANA customer. Insofar as they are indirectly affected by the IANA functions, they are just another internet user stakeholder group – no different from or more important
than noncommercial organizations or business users. There is no legitimate reason to afford governments a special collective voice in the MRT. Even in the terms of the Tunis Agenda, a document written by and for governments, IANA qualifies as “day to day technical
and operational matters” and thus as something to be left to the private sector.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">At this stage, I could use exactly the same wording about the current CWG first draft, replacing "other than to be 'internal-to-ICANN" with "other than to be separable from ICANN".<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: The rationale for separability has been explained countless times. It is an accountability measure, a way of giving the community
the most meaningful form of redress in case the functions are abused or not performed well. Moreover, the IANA functions have always been under a contractual relationship. The burden of proof is on those who would say IANA functions should be perpetually locked
in to one corporation. And I completely agree with Greg on this question: we hear your discomfort with Contract Co but we have no idea what positive value you are seeking to advance by opposing it, other than to keep everything within ICANN.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Clearly we have some work ahead of us to make either proposal, or a mix, workable.<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">There will be and can be no mix; either ICANN owns IANA or it is contracted. I think there is work to be done on this plan, but have seen no serious challenges to its inherent workability.
On the other hand, the workability of an internal to ICANN option is lying in a heap of rubble at the bottom of Greg’s last message.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>