<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">Olivier, everything affects everyone, in some way or another. But the strength and directness of the effects vary greatly. Do you deny that IANA performance affects
registry operators more directly, and more materially, than it affects anyone else? If it is appropriate for the CSC to be registry-led, why is it not also appropriate for a separation process to have strong direct customer participation? Chuck is not even
demanding majority on this entity, just stronger than proposed. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<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"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Another issue you may not be attuned to is the possibility of political games being played. Though I agree that the IFR needs to be rooted in the broader MS ICANN
community, I also recognize that the broader the representation on a committee is, the easier it is for its agenda to stray into areas not directly related to IANA performance.
<a name="_MailEndCompose"><o:p></o:p></a></span></p>
<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"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></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"><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>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 18, 2015 10:44 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck; Seun Ojedeji<br>
<b>Cc:</b> avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Dear Chuck,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 18/05/2015 14:29, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I did not say that IFRT should be largely composed of ccTLD and gTLD registries. I simply said that the IFRT composition should have stronger participation of
ccTLD and gTLD registries than is proposed currently. If the IFRT is doing a separation review, it is more important than ever for there to be strong direct customer participation. I fully agree that IFRT must be M-S.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I cringe at this. If the decision for separation is to be decided by the IRFT then it will need to be accepted by all SOs & ACs & the group needs to be multistakeholder.<br>
The CSC is already Registry-led, and quite rightly so. Separation does not solely affect direct customers. It is such a large step, it affects everyone.<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>