<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=utf-8">
<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;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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 lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">seem that the proposal attempts to practically create a new operator order than ICANN (re: PTI)
<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: But the PTI is just ICANN’s current IANA department, is it not?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">being the operator and turns ICANN to a "policy only" organisation. That seem like a major change in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) mission and purpose.<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: Not really, because the current IANA contract requires a significant level of separation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">How will this work with ccTLDs who for instance are practically engaging with ICANN just because it is the IANA operator?
<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: It should make them very happy, because they can deal with IANA directly and independently and not through the medium of ICANN’s
gTLD policy making morass<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">how about existing gTLD contracts which were signed with the intent of ICANN being the operator?<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: If IANA is a subsidiary of ICANN this is not an issue; if it is not the modifications required are minor as long as IANA is contractually
bound to implement legitimately passed ICANN policies. IANA is an ancillary aspect of the registry agreement; it is referenced only once regarding emergency transition and in the final convenants where ICANN agrees to implement RZF changes within 7 days of
request. I don’t see how that would be difficult to transfer that obligation to an SLA negotiated with the new IANA.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Looking at the proposal, how do we achieve accountability of the "community board"? i mean why should one be comfortable that the "community board" will be more accountable than the current ICANN board?
<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: That’s easy. In part, because it is directly accountable to IANA customers. And also because (I think) the functions contract
could be transferred to someone else. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>