Actually, businesses and corporations don't give Heritage much money because we refuse to let them set our agenda. As noted at the end of my testimony and on our website, typically we get between 85% and 90% of our annual funding from 600,000 plus individual donors. ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> __________ On May 24, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com<mailto:paul.twomey@argopacific.com>> wrote: My only comment would be - be careful about propositions from Think Tanks etc. In my experience, there is normally a commercial interest behind the think tank's words. I always think it is useful to ask - what US corporation is pushing this line? On 5/25/16 6:07 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: Halfway through watching the webcast, yet to read the written testimonies in full, this caught my attention: The Heritage Foundation's Brett Shaefer: A soft extension of the current contract for a reasonable period of time would allow the community and ICANN to take the new mechanisms for a sustained test drive to verify to the Internet community that relies on ICANN that they are working as envisioned. This would not derail the progress made by the ICG or the CCWG because the ICANN board has confirmed that virtually all of the recommended changes, including the new accountability improvements and the EC, would be adopted and implemented whether the transition proceeds or not. It would therefore be prudent to maintain U.S. oversight, or at least a means for reasserting NTIA oversight, for the next two years until the new structure proves itself and the details of Work Stream 2 are fully developed and their implications understood. The text of Brett Shaefer's 'soft extension' suggestion "to maintain U.S. oversight, or at least a means for reasserting NTIA oversight", does not sound soft enough. Nor was the posture of Steve DelBianco (52:00): ... GAC gets one vote, "but when it comes it challenging decisions that arise out of Government advice, we drew the line ... the US Government role can block Government advice. When the Board of ICANN wants to act on Government advice and the Community wishes to challenge that advice, we can't allow Governments to block our ability to challenge it, we carve them out, we exclude the Governments from having a vote... On Net, we have cabined off the Government power..." That would have impressed the US Senate, but at least a few other Governments wouldn't have liked it. Steve Delbianco's response to Heritage (57:00) was to say that it would be a slap on the face of the Community that has worked so hard, and has produced a proposal is well balanced. "The powers that the community has are extraordinary powers. We would only invoke our powers to block a budget, block a bylaw [change], or spill the Board if the Board acted in a completely inappropriate way" There is no coverage provided by the United States better than the coverage provided by the California courts, community's powers to go to courts in California, to force the Board to follow the Community's Consensus... What we have designed gives the Community, for the first time ever, the power to go to Court in California, to force the Board to follow the Community's consensus, to spill the Board, if that is our Consensus, to overturn the Budget if the Community doesn't support. That is the kind of back-stop we need, and we have it in California courts" Very powerful argument, but what is "Community" in ICANN today? What is the power dynamics? and, What does that transition proposal contain that is enough to offer hope that the Community would be well balanced post-transition? In terms of the Community's powers to go to California court, will the Community have a Reserve for legal expenses, who really gets to decide what issues merit legal action? If there are no Community funds to take any issue to Court, which participants of the Community would fund the lawsuit, and what influences would such participants exercise in the decisions to earmark or escalate an issue for legal action? In a scenario not altogether unlikely, if the "Community" is willing to spend ten times as much as the Board's available legal defense Budget, the Board would be constantly under threat of lawsuits. Even while continuing to be in the California Jurisdiction, the Accountability design requires to be one that would move ICANN governance as farther away from California Courts as possible. Could there be an Accountability design that could take ICANN governance away from lawyers (no disrespect intended) but towards a balanced and inherently just framework? Could there be a "soft enough" or "loose" oversight/observation by the NTIA at least until Workstream 2 and other Accountability processes place together such a self-contained framework for global public interest? In many ways, a soft interim role for the US Government, or a short delay would actually ensure that the transition details are gracefully accepted by the whole world. Sivasubramanian M -- Sivasubramanian M<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> -- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com<http://www.argopacific.com> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Paul, I haven't even so far heard of heritage foundation, nor have I done as much as an Internet search for Brett's profile ​. What caught my eye was the phrase "soft-extension". In my own interpretation, independent of any details that the Heritage Foundation might imply by their thinking, the phrase "soft-extension", particularly the word "soft" could point to a solution to the lingering issues such as "GAC carve out". I have a feeling that the compromises reached within the Working Groups does not imply that the whole world has agreed. What occurred to me at this moment is that it may not be necessary to assume that ICANN is in a hurry to get the transition papers signed, not necessary to assume that the next Government would be completely against the idea of transition, and in the absence of these assumptions, it is wiser to get the accountability framework on such a path that would get even the most hostile quarters to be receptive. ​Sivasubramanian M​ ​ ​ ​ On May 25, 2016 2:11 AM, "Paul Twomey" <paul.twomey@argopacific.com> wrote: My only comment would be - be careful about propositions from Think Tanks etc. In my experience, there is normally a commercial interest behind the think tank's words. I always think it is useful to ask - what US corporation is pushing this line? On 5/25/16 6:07 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: Halfway through watching the webcast, yet to read the written testimonies in full, this caught my attention: The Heritage Foundation's Brett Shaefer: *A soft extension of the current contract for a reasonable period of time would allow the community and ICANN to take the new mechanisms for a sustained test drive to verify to the Internet community that relies on ICANN that they are working as envisioned. This would not derail the progress made by the ICG or the CCWG because the ICANN board has confirmed that virtually all of the recommended changes, including the new accountability improvements and the EC, would be adopted and implemented whether the transition proceeds or not. It would therefore be prudent to maintain U.S. oversight, or at least a means for reasserting NTIA oversight, for the next two years until the new structure proves itself and the details of Work Stream 2 are fully developed and their implications understood.* The text of Brett Shaefer's 'soft extension' suggestion "*to maintain U.S. oversight, or at least a means for reasserting NTIA oversight"*, does not sound soft enough. Nor was the posture of Steve DelBianco (52:00): ... GAC gets one vote, "but when it comes it challenging decisions that arise out of Government advice, we drew the line ... the US Government role can block Government advice. When the Board of ICANN wants to act on Government advice and the Community wishes to challenge that advice, we can't allow Governments to block our ability to challenge it, we carve them out, we exclude the Governments from having a vote... On Net, we have cabined off the Government power..." That would have impressed the US Senate, but at least a few other Governments wouldn't have liked it. Steve Delbianco's response to Heritage (57:00) was to say that it would be a slap on the face of the Community that has worked so hard, and has produced a proposal is well balanced. "The powers that the community has are extraordinary powers. We would only invoke our powers to block a budget, block a bylaw [change], or spill the Board if the Board acted in a completely inappropriate way" There is no coverage provided by the United States better than the coverage provided by the California courts, community's powers to go to courts in California, to force the Board to follow the Community's Consensus... What we have designed gives the Community, for the first time ever, the power to go to Court in California, to force the Board to follow the Community's consensus, to spill the Board, if that is our Consensus, to overturn the Budget if the Community doesn't support. That is the kind of back-stop we need, and we have it in California courts" Very powerful argument, but what is "Community" in ICANN today? What is the power dynamics? and, What does that transition proposal contain that is enough to offer hope that the Community would be well balanced post-transition? In terms of the Community's powers to go to California court, will the Community have a Reserve for legal expenses, who really gets to decide what issues merit legal action? If there are no Community funds to take any issue to Court, which participants of the Community would fund the lawsuit, and what influences would such participants exercise in the decisions to earmark or escalate an issue for legal action? In a scenario not altogether unlikely, if the "Community" is willing to spend ten times as much as the Board's available legal defense Budget, the Board would be constantly under threat of lawsuits. Even while continuing to be in the California Jurisdiction, the Accountability design requires to be one that would move ICANN governance as farther away from California Courts as possible. Could there be an Accountability design that could take ICANN governance away from lawyers (no disrespect intended) but towards a balanced and inherently just framework? Could there be a "soft enough" or "loose" oversight/observation by the NTIA at least until Workstream 2 and other Accountability processes place together such a self-contained framework for global public interest? In many ways, a soft interim role for the US Government, or a short delay would actually ensure that the transition details are gracefully accepted by the whole world. Sivasubramanian M -- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Paul, who funds ArgoPacific's transition related work? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4

On 24 May 2016, at 21:23, Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com> wrote:

My only comment would be - be careful about propositions from Think Tanks etc. In my experience, there is normally a commercial interest behind the think tank's words. I always think it is useful to ask - what US corporation is pushing this line?

[...]

I totally disagree with the Heritage Foundation's opposition to the transition and am frankly disappointed in them. However, I think Paul Twomey's attempt to insinuate a commercial interest behind their position pollutes the dialogue. Either _name_ a specific donor whose interests you think they are pursuing, and provide evidence of that connection, or shut up about it and focus on the merits of their argumentation. And it's particularly ironic to see a commercial consultancy firm making this accusation, because Paul's firm is, by definition, "for hire" in a way that Heritage is not. My personal view is that Heritage's position is motivated more by a misguided conservative/nationalist ideology than by any specific corporate donor in this case. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Twomey Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 4:24 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Full Hearing on 24 May 2016 My only comment would be - be careful about propositions from Think Tanks etc. In my experience, there is normally a commercial interest behind the think tank's words. I always think it is useful to ask - what US corporation is pushing this line? On 5/25/16 6:07 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: Halfway through watching the webcast, yet to read the written testimonies in full, this caught my attention: The Heritage Foundation's Brett Shaefer: A soft extension of the current contract for a reasonable period of time would allow the community and ICANN to take the new mechanisms for a sustained test drive to verify to the Internet community that relies on ICANN that they are working as envisioned. This would not derail the progress made by the ICG or the CCWG because the ICANN board has confirmed that virtually all of the recommended changes, including the new accountability improvements and the EC, would be adopted and implemented whether the transition proceeds or not. It would therefore be prudent to maintain U.S. oversight, or at least a means for reasserting NTIA oversight, for the next two years until the new structure proves itself and the details of Work Stream 2 are fully developed and their implications understood. The text of Brett Shaefer's 'soft extension' suggestion "to maintain U.S. oversight, or at least a means for reasserting NTIA oversight", does not sound soft enough. Nor was the posture of Steve DelBianco (52:00): ... GAC gets one vote, "but when it comes it challenging decisions that arise out of Government advice, we drew the line ... the US Government role can block Government advice. When the Board of ICANN wants to act on Government advice and the Community wishes to challenge that advice, we can't allow Governments to block our ability to challenge it, we carve them out, we exclude the Governments from having a vote... On Net, we have cabined off the Government power..." That would have impressed the US Senate, but at least a few other Governments wouldn't have liked it. Steve Delbianco's response to Heritage (57:00) was to say that it would be a slap on the face of the Community that has worked so hard, and has produced a proposal is well balanced. "The powers that the community has are extraordinary powers. We would only invoke our powers to block a budget, block a bylaw [change], or spill the Board if the Board acted in a completely inappropriate way" There is no coverage provided by the United States better than the coverage provided by the California courts, community's powers to go to courts in California, to force the Board to follow the Community's Consensus... What we have designed gives the Community, for the first time ever, the power to go to Court in California, to force the Board to follow the Community's consensus, to spill the Board, if that is our Consensus, to overturn the Budget if the Community doesn't support. That is the kind of back-stop we need, and we have it in California courts" Very powerful argument, but what is "Community" in ICANN today? What is the power dynamics? and, What does that transition proposal contain that is enough to offer hope that the Community would be well balanced post-transition? In terms of the Community's powers to go to California court, will the Community have a Reserve for legal expenses, who really gets to decide what issues merit legal action? If there are no Community funds to take any issue to Court, which participants of the Community would fund the lawsuit, and what influences would such participants exercise in the decisions to earmark or escalate an issue for legal action? In a scenario not altogether unlikely, if the "Community" is willing to spend ten times as much as the Board's available legal defense Budget, the Board would be constantly under threat of lawsuits. Even while continuing to be in the California Jurisdiction, the Accountability design requires to be one that would move ICANN governance as farther away from California Courts as possible. Could there be an Accountability design that could take ICANN governance away from lawyers (no disrespect intended) but towards a balanced and inherently just framework? Could there be a "soft enough" or "loose" oversight/observation by the NTIA at least until Workstream 2 and other Accountability processes place together such a self-contained framework for global public interest? In many ways, a soft interim role for the US Government, or a short delay would actually ensure that the transition details are gracefully accepted by the whole world. Sivasubramanian M -- Sivasubramanian M<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com<http://www.argopacific.com>