<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
In this model, that question is left up to each of the operational
communities and the way in which they pick their representatives to
the Community Board. As you know there are varied opinions on the
degree to which the G and C registries are the only relevant
customers. Personally I tend toward a multistakeholder customer
view, but the model does not predicate a particular mix and those of
us who worked on it probably have different points of view on this.
You say <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>It seems that ccTLD and gTLD
registries are captured under the ICANN community.</span></blockquote>
<br>
I tend to see them as part of the ICANN community. Not captured by
it.<br>
<br>
<br>
In terms of the CSC, the Registries have already achieved the
majority voice as was requested - it was my understanding that
Registries would be more sharing with the rest of us when it came to
the MRT or MRT like bodies. In terms of the MRT, the mainstream
discussion is ongoing: Registries vs. Multistakeholder. This model
lists one possible way of distributing the community board. In this
form, it allows for 3-5 votes per operational community according
to their own multistakeholder decision - though they can field a
bigger group of participants if necessary and have normalized
representation. How we in ICANN decide to split those votes is up
to us. There are modes that are multistakeholder (5 votes
distributed across the SOs and ACs, perhaps with some rotation) or
we could have a mode where there were only 3 votes (1 to each
registry type and one to the rest of us). In some sense it is a
continuation of the MRT disagreement over the degree of the
multistakeholder participation in the Community Board
representatives for ICANN. Of course we could also expand the
Community Board to 7 from each operation community, but that seems
like too large a Community Board to me. But not necessarily to
others. What is important in the model for accountability checks
and balances to work is parity among the operational communities.
How each of them parses their votes, and in our case how ICANN does
it, is up to us and not determined in the model.<br>
<br>
Our goal was to make a simpler model and to find a path toward
resolution on the inside/outside dichotomy. Solving the balance
between Registries as 'direct' customers, and a distributed
multistakeholder model, remains on our plate. We offer one way to
think about it, but it is not a structural element of the model or
of any of the configurations.<br>
<br>
It is also important to remember that this Board has very little to
do with the SLAs themselves and is more about budget, continuity and
exceptions processing. <br>
<br>
One additonal point, this model, in all of the configurations,
requires the creation of specific SLA for the G&C Registry
operations. Determining those would most probably be primarily a
Registry affair and would be monitored by the Registry dominant CSC.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18-Feb-15 21:55, Donna Austin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:35B1B5D6EF50FA4584F57D3B7393C0B123EA6EDA@MELEX01"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Hi Avri</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I’m interested to know how the
primary ‘naming’ customers of the IANA services are
recognised under your model. It seems that ccTLD and gTLD
registries are captured under the ICANN community. Could you
elaborate on the role or voice of the customer under your
proposed model.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thanks,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Donna</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>D</span></b><b><span>ONNA AUSTIN</span></b><span><br>
</span><span>Policy and Industry Affairs Manager</span><b><span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>ARI REGISTRY SERVICES</span></b><span><br>
</span><span>Melbourne</span><span>
</span><b><span>|</span></b><span>
</span><span>Los Angeles
</span><span><br>
</span><b><span>P</span></b><span>
</span><span>+1 310 890 9655<br>
</span><b><span>P</span></b><span>
</span><span>+61 3 9866 3710<br>
</span><b><span>E</span></b><b><span>
</span></b><span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com"><span>donna.austin@ariservices.com</span></a></span><u><span><br>
</span></u><b><span>W</span></b><b><span>
</span></b><span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ariservices.com/"><span>www.ariservices.com</span></a></span><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span>Follow us on
</span></i><span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://twitter.com/ARIservices"><i><span>Twitter</span></i></a></span><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span>The information contained in
this communication is intended for the named recipients
only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally
privileged and confidential information and if you are
not an intended recipient you must not use, copy,
distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you
have received this communication in error, please delete
all copies from your system and notify us immediately.</span></i><span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
lang="EN-US"> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf
Of </b>Avri Doria<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, 19 February 2015 6:09 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the
Integrated model.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<br>
<br>
As mentioned in an earlier email, Matthew Shears, Brenden
Kuerbis and I have been working on a model that attempts to
integrate solutions to some of the various sets of concerns by
those favoring internal models and those preferring external
models while trying to make the model simpler and more
accountable to the IANA ecosystem and the wider community.
During Singapore week we spoke to as many as we could about
this model and have received, and worked through, a number of
comments on the open drive draft document, which we announced
on the list.<br>
<br>
The working draft, which is still a work in progress and
remains open for comment can be found at:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5YZCU/edit?usp=sharing">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5YZCU/edit?usp=sharing</a><br>
<br>
I have attached a pdf version of a snapshot draft of the doc
as of today.<br>
<br>
We would like to be able to present this at the next RFP3
meeting. Or anywhere else that is appropriate.<br>
<br>
We are also working on drafts to document the means by which
this model responds to NTIA requirements, but we will able to
speak those on list and during the meeting.<br>
<br>
In the draft we present three possible configurations for the
model. The authors believe that Shared Service Arrangement
(page 6) is the preferred configuration, as it offers the most
accountability for the least amount of change or complexity.
We would also be interested to see how these models fare under
the stress testing - we have not done that in any focused way
yet, though we have kept those tests in mind.
<br>
<br>
It should be noted that this model would require a minimal
amount of accommodation by the Protocols and Number
communities, but believe that this accommodation while not
disturbing their current model in any significant way would
make IANA more accountable to them as well.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>