<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 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-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.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle25
{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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:773743035;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-890489156 134807567 134807577 134807579 134807567 134807577 134807579 134807567 134807577 134807579;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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="color:#1F497D">Thanks Martin. Your proposed edits look very good and helpful to me. Regarding the table in paragraph 233, I will let others respond to what was agreed to but I personally do not have any problem with what
you understood.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 02, 2015 5:44 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck; jonathan.robinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Thanks Chuck, that’s helpful in that it does provide a way of addressing my concerns.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">As a starter for 10 (and based on the document Grace sent out last night), I would suggest the following:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Paragraph 106, add to the end:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">“However, the review mandate is strictly limited to evaluation against the SOW and does not include any policy or contracting issues that are not part of the IANA functions
operation contract. In particular it does not include issues related to policy development and adoption processes, or evaluation or contract enforcement measures between contracted TLDs and ICANN.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Paragraph 111, add to end:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">“As for the periodic review, the special IANA Functions Review is limited to the operation of the IANA functions operation and does not include policy development and adoption
process or the relationship between ICANN and its contracted TLDs.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Paragraph 226 (Annex F), second bullet, add to end:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">“Note, this does not include any review of policy developed or adopted through agreed processes or on ICANN’s relationship with contracted TLDs.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Paragraph 226, final bullet, between “improvements” and “suggested by” insert:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">“(where relevant to the mandate of the IFR)”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Paragraph 233 table: I thought that at the last call we agreed to there being two ccNSO and three RySG-appointed members.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Paragraph 233bis (new paragraph under the table):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">In any case where a recommendation focuses on a service specific to gTLDs or to ccTLDs, or where the processes are different between the two, the final recommendation should
not be decided in the face of opposition from that community’s members. Solely gTLD issues must not be decided in opposition to GNSO members and solely ccTLD issues (or issues which are handled differently for ccTLDs) must not be decided in opposition to
ccTLD members of the IFRT.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">I hope this helps and would welcome thoughts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Gomes, Chuck [<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">mailto:cgomes@verisign.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 01 June 2015 21:50<br>
<b>To:</b> Martin Boyle; <a href="mailto:jonathan.robinson@afilias.info">jonathan.robinson@afilias.info</a>;
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Martin,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I don’t see anything in your concerns that I disagree with so if there are places where we tighten up the language, I hope you will provide suggestions for clearer language.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Martin Boyle [<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk">mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 01, 2015 11:44 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck; <a href="mailto:jonathan.robinson@afilias.info">jonathan.robinson@afilias.info</a>;
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Chuck,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Jonathan & I had a discussion this morning about the implications of my e-mail. In essence my concerns focus on two clear issues:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">GNSO-appointed members intervening on issues relevant to ccTLDs or ccTLD-appointed members intervening on gTLD issues. (This is clear out of line with the principles and criteria document
– annex C of the 2<sup>nd</sup> draft proposal – in particular under 7.ii, 8.ii and 8.iii.)
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Policy issues becoming criteria in any of the review processes other than a failure of the IANA functions operator abiding by agreed policy. (This is covered in the principles and criteria
document under 5.iii, independence of policy from IANA and 7.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">In the first case, a large GNSO-nominated membership of the review team would outnumber those who know about the issues affecting ccTLDs: I am concerned that this could lead to reviews being based
on performance against gTLD processes, ignoring or misinterpreting ccTLD issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">The second is more subjective. Given that the GNSO is essentially a policy-development organisation, I am concerned that heavy GNSO membership will lead to re-running issues that should be dealt
with at the ICANN level. I would not want to see the PTI (or a successor organisation) being judged on issues where it does not have a role and cannot (or should not) have an influence. Independence of policy from IANA also means that the assessment of the
performance of the IANA functions operator also needs to be independent of policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">In our discussion Jonathan & I wondered whether we could include clear statements in the terms of reference for the IFR on these points.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Hope this helps identify a practical way forward.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Martin <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Gomes, Chuck [<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">mailto:cgomes@verisign.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 01 June 2015 14:15<br>
<b>To:</b> Martin Boyle; <a href="mailto:jonathan.robinson@afilias.info">jonathan.robinson@afilias.info</a>;
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Martin,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I have no argument at all with your conclusion that “</span><span lang="EN-GB">we – gs and cs – have at least equal interest in the provision of a well-run IANA functions operator.</span><span style="color:#1F497D">”
I think one cause of any imbalances that may be perceived has to do with the fact that gTLD registries are just a subset of the GNSO while the ccNSO only involves ccTLD registries, albeit not all of them. That said, I personally support efforts to achieve
as much balance as possible between c’s and g’s.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Martin Boyle<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 01, 2015 3:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:jonathan.robinson@afilias.info">jonathan.robinson@afilias.info</a>;
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Jonathan,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">In one of Friday’s calls I noted the imbalance between GNSO and ccNSO (and wider ccTLD) engagement in the various entities the model is putting in place. You responded that the GNSO is not an homogenous organisation.
I let the discussion drop, not because I was happy with the response, but because I was getting no traction in the discussion and did not want to delay it any further.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">However, I would like to at least put on the record why I think the current imbalance is wrong and gives too much say to a GNSO-skewed view of the IANA.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">I’m sure that the traditional balance in favour of the gTLD-centric view of the universe works fine in an ICANN setting, given that most of this is about policy-making and relatively little of this implicates ccTLDs.
This is the main reason for the disproportionate funding of ICANN’s costs between the GNSO and ccNSO: simply put, ccTLDs use considerably less of ICANN’s resources.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">However, for the IANA, without exact figures to hand, I would expect the balance in use between ccTLDs and gTLDs of the IANA services to be much more equal and most ccTLDs recognise the need for fair funding of the IANA
functions operation. Certainly I’d say we – gs and cs – have at least equal interest in the provision of a well-run IANA functions operator.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">But a serious alarm went up for me a few weeks ago when I had an extended exchange on list with Chuck and Milton about ICANN instructions to IANA. (For many of you, this must have seemed like an esoteric discussion.
I’d say it was symptomatic of a fundamental issue that we are failing to address.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The gTLD view of life (in this case) was all about ICANN giving instructions to the IANA functions operator. That is certainly not the case for ccTLDs, but I got a lot of abuse for pointing this out. It only was resolved
when the ICANN (ccNSO-focussed) secretariat was asked to clarify. In a post transition world, I’m not sure how easy it we will be able to draw on this experience and knowledge to back up a point.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">That is my fundamental concern about the imbalance between the ccNSO and GNSO. Especially a concern as the constituent parts of the GNSO are heavily policy focussed. It will be so easy for the GNSO representatives in
various discussions to focus on gTLD issues (ignoring that ccTLD delegations and redelegations are actually usually well outside an ICANNic framework) and misshape the discussion accordingly.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">I’m not sure that the current proposed imbalance will be sustainable in the long term unless it is very clear that different needs are respected. (In the same way, in the ccTLD world, we need to be very cautious about
not applying inappropriate blanket rules.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Simply ignoring the significant number of ccTLD comments about the imbalance might be an easy solution, but it is not a good compromise.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">I hope that this helps colleagues understand my very real concerns about our direction of travel.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>