<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:0cm;
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;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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-IE link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Jordan,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I understood your question and my personal interpretation is that this should be covered in the bylaws work.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Section 8 of the Sidley memo on bylaws specifically deals with the separation process. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Therefore, if (eventual) separation is contemplated by the CWG’s work, diligent legal work should include provision (via bylaw modification or otherwise) for the ICANN board to authorise such (eventual) separation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Good question.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Jonathan<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] <br><b>Sent:</b> 02 September 2015 06:45<br><b>To:</b> Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu><br><b>Cc:</b> Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Question re fiduciary duties and separation<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks all, for these comments.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>My question was on a very narrow point, around whether the ICANN Board would in fact be *able* to authorise a transfer as part of the escalation process towards a separation.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I've seen Greg's reply as the nearest to a direct answer on that, which confirms no specific advice on the point but argues it will be possible.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If that is where it stands, then I can consider myself informed - concerned, but informed.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jordan<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 2 September 2015 at 08:00, Christopher Wilkinson <<a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" target="_blank">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal>Well, Avri, precisely. As I pointed out some time ago, should matters ever reach such a pass that separation would be invoked, then the machinery proposed would not be fit for purpose.<br>Other measures, external to ICANN, IANA and this Community would have intervened long before.<br><br>Indeed, if all that CWG has achieved, in this respect, is to create some kind of moral hazard hanging over ICANN, then the last eighteen months work has been disproportionate.<br><span style='color:#888888'><br><span class=hoenzb>CW</span></span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br>On 01 Sep 2015, at 18:45, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br><br>> Hi,<br>><br>> Look at how long it took for the NTIA to have a rebid. And there is<br>> nothing in the separation function that prohibits doing a bid at a point<br>> in the process. In fact it is quite specific about a bid and the<br>> possibility the the current PTO could bid again.<br>><br>> My hope though, is that just the act of getting the machinery cranked<br>> up, would be enough of a threat to cause ICANN to try to fix any<br>> problem. But if it didn't, I predict it would take about as long as it<br>> took the NTIA, with its call for comments on how to do it &c. We also<br>> have to take into account the reactions and actions from Numbers and<br>> Protocols at the time of any separation preparation - that would take<br>> some time. I think the reference solution strikes the balance between<br>> changing over too easily and not being able to change over at all.<br>><br>> avri<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> On 31-Aug-15 22:17, Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> *From:*<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter<br>>><br>>> I keep coming back to the status quo. At the moment, the USG can<br>>> reassign the functions. We need to be careful that, given there is a<br>>> principle of separability, it isn't rendered inoperable by the CWG's<br>>> proposal through this matter.<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> Frankly, I think the current proposal comes very close to rendering<br>>> separability inoperable. While separation is theoretically possible,<br>>> it suffers from the absence of the basic notion of competitive<br>>> bidding. As one journalist (Kieren McCarthy) put it, “There are no<br>>> less than 10 steps that have to go through seven different committees.<br>>> Two of those committees have to be specially created and the process<br>>> requires super majority votes from the two main supporting<br>>> organizations not once but twice.” The process is essentially<br>>> designed to avoid change and keep it in PTI/ICANN’s hands in all but<br>>> the most exceptional circumstances – and in most of the exceptional<br>>> circumstances one could imagine a process this slow and complex would<br>>> be practically useless. The basic idea of a renewable contract has<br>>> been buried by a mound of steaming….committees and reviews. The CWG<br>>> lost sight of the basic question they should have been answering,<br>>> which is: “how can we keep the contractor honest and the process of<br>>> RZF editing maximally efficient by making the possibility of the IFO’s<br>>> replacement real?”<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> My two cents<br>>><br>>> --MM<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>>> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">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>><br>><br>> ---<br>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>> <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">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><br>_______________________________________________<br>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">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><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)<br>Email: <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank"><span style='color:#1155CC'>jordan@internetnz.net.nz</span></a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz" target="_blank">www.internetnz.nz</a> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>