<div dir="ltr">AG: And a few more...<br><div><br>I just want to add a few points to Milton's response, since he
(thankfully) said much of what I would have said (and more besides).<br clear="all"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><br></p></div></div></div></div></div>
<br>On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Milton L Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="14a37f646e00755a_14a36b09e36ccfb1__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></a></p>
<div style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<div style="border-style:solid none none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:4.8pt"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext"> <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>Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<br>
<br>
</span></p>
</div>
</div><span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">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:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div>GSS: The ICG is definitely not "internal-to-ICANN." Here is #3 of the ICG's FAQs:</div><div><br></div><div> <span style="font-family:Lato,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:1.31rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Is the </span><abbr title="IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group" style="font-family:Lato,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:1.31rem;font-weight:inherit;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted">ICG</abbr><span style="font-family:Lato,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:1.31rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51)"> </span><span style="font-family:Lato,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:1.31rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51)">part of</span><span style="font-family:Lato,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:1.31rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51)"> </span><abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" style="font-family:Lato,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:1.31rem;font-weight:inherit;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted">ICANN</abbr><span style="font-family:Lato,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:1.31rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51)">?</span></div><div><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">No. The</span><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> </span><abbr title="IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group" style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:inherit;direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted">ICG</abbr><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> </span><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">is
an independent coordination group that has been established as a result
of a broad community consultation and in response to the</span><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> </span><abbr title="US National Telecommunications and Information Agency" style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:inherit;direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted">NTIA</abbr><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">'s announcement. The</span><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> </span><abbr title="IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group" style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:inherit;direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted">ICG</abbr><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> </span><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">is conducting its work in an open, transparent and independent manner. The</span><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> </span><abbr title="IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Gro
up" style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:inherit;direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted">ICG</abbr><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> </span><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">will be providing its report to the community broadly. Moreover, the</span><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> </span><abbr title="IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group" style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:inherit;direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted">ICG</abbr><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> </span><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">has issued a</span><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-09-09-en" style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,136,204);text-decoration:none;background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent" target="_blank">Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a suitable neutral and independent contractor to perform its secretariat function</a><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">. The role of the secretariat is strictly limited to the functions that support the</span><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> </span><abbr title="IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group" style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:inherit;direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted">ICG</abbr><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">, and will report exclusively to the</span><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> </span><abbr title="IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group" style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:inherit;direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted">ICG</abbr><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">, its Chair or Vice-Chair(s).<br><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4rem;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">AG: Greg, no one said the ICG was internal to ICANN. Olivier's comment was in reply to your statement about the MRT (which Milton deleted in adding his message). You had said the that the MRT would be internal to ICANN (your presumption) and this could not include other non-ICANN stakeholders. Olivier was pointing out that the MRT could be patterened after the ICG (outside of ICANN and with other stakeholders.<br></span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US"><div><div style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">
</span></p><span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">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:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div>GSS:
As stated above, the ICG is not part of ICANN, yet it makes use of
ICANN's structures (including the GAC), so your statement doesn't hold
water. The MRT can be set up in a similar fashion. <br><br></div><div>AG: Yes indeed. In both the current proposal and in what the ALAC envisions. BUt what is the incentive for ICANN doing this in a wolrd where the IAIA function has been removed from ICANN. Will ICANN want to do this, and more to the point, would you TRUST ICANN to organize the MRT if you no longer had faith in ICANN?<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US"><div><div style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US"><div><div style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p><span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">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".</p></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div>GSS:
This is a false equivalency. You are comparing a five-line
three-sentence paragraph -- about which nothing is known other than
those few words -- with an entire section in the proposal which has been
worked out and debated and amplified and clarified through hours of
meetings and phone calls and hundreds of emails. </div><span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.
</span></p>
<span>Clearly we have some work ahead of us to make either proposal, or a mix, workable.<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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></div></div>