<div dir="ltr">Hi all, and Chris:<div><br></div><div>Our position is set out with great clarity on this matter in our response to this group's call for comment in December. I reattach that in case it is useful. In particular the sections on key principles and on community stewardship are of relevance.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I may not be framing my question in a manner that makes sense, so let me try again below.</div><div><br></div><div>First, though, the whole work of this CWG in preparing its proposal which it consulted on in December was an understanding of the importance of a distributed model for the stewardship of the DNS. That is the status quo. </div><div><br></div><div>That's what we have today, with the various roles and responsibilities of NTIA, ICANN and Verisign.</div><div><br></div><div>That's what we support.</div><div><br></div><div>That's what the primary model the CWG has proposed will deliver.</div><div><br></div><div>Those of you who are advocating for an internal-to-ICANN solution are the people who are up-ending the status quo. It is that set of changes that creates risks to the stability and security of the DNS. And yet, the undertone in comments of those against the CWG's model is that it is the other way around - that preserving the current distributed stewardship approach creates risks. </div><div><br></div><div>I think the case for the status quo and for preserving it - distributed stewardship - is the orthodox position. Wrapping everything into ICANN is the novel proposition.</div><div><br></div><div>The onus is on those proposing such a radical change to say why it is better than today. That is the case that I haven't seen made, and I have read the document your team prepared and released recently, and I have read the earlier material too.</div><div><br></div><div>It just seems to be a variant of "trust us, we can do it." I keep looking for more than that. </div><div><br></div><div>That's what I am trying to understand. I apologise if I haven't made that clear, and apologise even more if this remains unclear!</div><div><br></div><div>As we can observe on this list there is a thorough effort going on in developing the detail of the specific questions you ask me, and I think that process will lead to a workable outcome. That is why I am focusing my time and attention on the accountability list.</div><div><br></div><div>cordialement, and see you in Singapore,</div><div><br></div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 30 January 2015 at 11:25, Chris Disspain <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank">ceo@auda.org.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="font-family:'Verdana';font-size:13px;color:rgb(102,102,102)"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"></div></div></div></blockquote><div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">It would still be very useful, even at what seems to be quite a late point, for those advocating an internal solution to set out the counter-case…</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Jordan,</div><div><br></div><div>auDA is an advocate of an internal solution. Paul Szyndler will happily provide you (ASAP) with details of our views and why we hold them as well as an explanation of why our proposed alternative models provide a high level of comfort about ‘pulling’ the rights.</div><div><br></div><div>May I ask you to explain in detail Internet NZ’s position please? I have seen a number of emails from you suggesting that you believe in an external to ICANN model ‘as a matter of principle’ but (and I acknowledge that I may have missed them) have seen nothing that explains why you believe that or that addresses how you think such a model contributes to the security, stability and resilience of the DNS. </div><div><br></div><div>Further, as you have admirably demonstrated with some of your comments on our proposed alternative models (and I have always acknowledged) the devil is in the details so perhaps you could also address how you would envisage contract co being set up, who the shareholder/members would be, what checks and balances would be in place to ensure that it could not act outside the will of the IANA customers or be used for ‘political’ purposes by holding the ICANN community to ransom over some issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with IANA? </div>
<br><div><span class="">
<p><br></p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p><br></p>
<p>Chris Disspain<span> </span><span>|</span><span> </span>Chief Executive Officer</p>
<p>.au Domain Administration Ltd</p>
<p>T: <span><a href="tel:%2B61%203%208341%204111" value="+61383414111" target="_blank">+61 3 8341 4111</a></span><span> </span><span>|</span><span> </span>F: <span><a href="tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112" value="+61383414112" target="_blank">+61 3 8341 4112</a></span></p>
<p><span>E:</span><span> <a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank"><span>ceo@auda.org.au</span></a> </span><span>|</span><span> </span><span>W:</span><span> <a href="http://www.auda.org.au/" target="_blank"><span>www.auda.org.au</span></a></span><span> </span></p>
</span><p>auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator</p><span class="">
<p><br></p>
<p><span><b>Important Notice</b></span><span><b> </b></span><b>- </b>This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.</p>
</span></div>
<br><div><div><div class="h5"><div>On 30 Jan 2015, at 09:06 , Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>> wrote:</div><br></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr">Hi all,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 29 January 2015 at 18:57, Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div><br></div><div><snip> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>However, we can too easily be bogged down in details. In this case, the devil may not be in the details. Instead, I think the issue is at a higher level -- oversight, control and accountability -- and at an even higher level -- trust (not "trusts"...). I think concerns about the trust model arise less from the details and more from a great deal of concern about ICANN being the "rightsholder" in relation to being the IANA Functions Operator, rather than being granted that right by a third-party rightsholder (now, NTIA; potentially in future, Contract Co.) who can "pull" those rights per the contract. These concerns may not abate merely because these rights are being held "in trust" for the beneficiaries (the "community" or some variation). These fundamental concerns relate to both ICANN as the IANA Functions Operator and ICANN generally, </div><div><br></div><div>What we need to resolve, if an internal-to-ICANN solution is to fly, is whether there are methods of oversight, accountability and separability that ICANN can and will adopt that will sufficiently alleviate these deeply held concerns. If not, then we need the best available solution where the right to act as IANA Functions Operator is held outside ICANN,</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this is the most eloquent statement yet of the nature of the concerns I have about any internal solution.</div><div><br></div><div>It would still be very useful, even at what seems to be quite a late point, for those advocating an internal solution to set out the counter-case...</div><div><br></div><div>cheers</div><div>Jordan</div><div> </div></div>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br><a href="tel:04%20495%202118" value="+6444952118" target="_blank">04 495 2118</a> (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64 21 442 649</a> (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.</i><br><br></div></div>
</div></div></div></div><span class="">
_______________________________________________<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></blockquote></div><br></span></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.</i><br><br></div></div>
</div>