<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Dear Friends and Colleagues:</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Allow me to make a few comments. I trust that the opportunity may arise to discuss further
in Helsinki.</p>
<ol>
<li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The fact that PTI 'separability'
encounters employment policy issues is neither a surprise nor
unexpected. Abstracting from my own earlier warning about that aspect,
should counsel have spent as much time on employment law as
they did on IPR law, then we might not be in the present predicament. The
professional assets of the staff are more important than a few
domain names and trademarks.<br><br>Although we come to this from
quite different perspectives, I find myself in broad agreement with
Kurt. I defer to, and respect, his experience as a senior manager of
a Californian corporation, including the employment policy aspects that those responsibilities must have entailed.<br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Chuck asked me to specify where I
disagreed with Greg. Thus, as I see it, Greg expects that separation
is a real and current prospect in the short term. I consider that to
be false. I think that it is an asymptotic extreme case that will
never be reached.<br><br>(a) long before the ICANN & PTI model
would have 'failed' (not my word), other interests and authorities would have
intervened, definitively. </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">There is no question of any particular
sub-set of the ICANN community ever taking over the IANA functions,
nor part of them, through separation.<br><br>(b) we should all realise
that far beyond the CWG and CCWG mailing lists there is a very large
community of users who are greater than the scope of the ICANN
community and of our working groups, who would be utterly shocked if
they were ever to find that the Internet infrastructure had been
destabilised by the actions of those whose primary responsibility is
to ensure the opposite.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">(c) long ago, governments realised
that the management of the unique Internet root was critical to
their economic, political and social interests in the stability of
the global Internet.<br>Consequently, in the event of separation –
which I do not expect – I am quite sure that the Governments and
the other AC's would 'follow the root'. Thus, as I have already
pointed out, the idea that PTI would not have AC's is unrealistic.
PTI draft bylaws refer.<br><br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Jurisdiction: I think it was Phil
who asked me to explain my point of view, which is basically to take
jurisdiction off the agenda until there are viable alternatives on
the table.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Meanwhile:<br><br>(a) it is quite clear that the USA
is not yet willing to contemplate a change of jurisdiction</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">(b) most of the rest of the world
does not support the US position; thus we confront an intrinsic
element of instability in the global Internet in the long term. </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">That
which will have to be managed for the time being. As has already
been the case.<br><br>(c) I concur that there is apparently not yet
a platform of international law that would permit and welcome the
incorporation of an international multistakeholder entity such as
ICANN. That will happen, but not yet. But let's be creative; in 1996
the ICANN formula itself would not have been credible. (Thankyou,
Ira.)</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">(d) Consequently, the idea that US Jurisdiction over
ICANN should be entrenched in ICANN's 'Fundamental Bylaws' could
very well be read, world-wide, as a provocation and give rise to
reactions elsewhere that would not atall conform to the other –
more important - objectives of the Transition. No. <br><br>I trust
that these comments help to clarify my point of view. I do not
expect all of you to agree with them, and I hope that we may have an
opportunity in Helsinki to move forward on some of these
issues.<br><br>May I say, however, that whatever is the WS2 interest
in jurisdiction, the main, immediate, issue for WS2 is the transparent accountability of the representatives of the SO's and the AC's to
their own constituencies and to the ICANN community as a whole.</p>
</li></ol><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Regards</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">CW</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br></p></body></html>