If ICANN were incorporated in Delaware, it would be required to have members, and the whole debate of SMM vs MEM would be moot. On Friday, October 16, 2015, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:

Well, if there IS a staring contest going on between the Board and the Community to see who will blink first, it seems the Community just woke up to realise that it includes a couple of members possessing the glare of a basilisk . . .

On 16/10/15 00:25, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:

...

Colleagues

Good morning in Dublin.

The attached letter from Senators Thune and Schatz to the Chair of the ICANN Board will be of interest to many of you.

I wish you good fortune in the meetings

Regards

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key < http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...

...

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Paul, Tks for message with GM from Dub. At least there is no attachment to my mail . May you kindly resend it pls. Cheers Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 16 Oct 2015, at 07:30, william currie <willie.currie@gmail.com> wrote:

If ICANN were incorporated in Delaware, it would be required to have members, and the whole debate of SMM vs MEM would be moot.

...

On Friday, October 16, 2015, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote: Well, if there IS a staring contest going on between the Board and the Community to see who will blink first, it seems the Community just woke up to realise that it includes a couple of members possessing the glare of a basilisk . . .

...

On 16/10/15 00:25, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: Colleagues

Good morning in Dublin.

The attached letter from Senators Thune and Schatz to the Chair of the ICANN Board will be of interest to many of you.

I wish you good fortune in the meetings

Regards

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

---

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

---

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

I wish to state that I will be writing to the Senators Thune and Schatz with my assessment of the final CCWG-Accountability proposal on Enhancing ICANN's Accountability and I encourage all participant observers in the process to do likewise. I will use a basic accountability test derived from the Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability to do so. The essential issue regarding accountability is the question: who is accountable to whom, for what, by which standards and why? The accountability test of the CCWG-A final proposal will consist of the following questions: 1 Is there an accountable actor, clearly identified? 2. Is the accountable actor accountable to an accountability forum, clearly defined? 3 Is it clear for what issues the accountable actor is being held to account by the accountability forum? 4 Is it clear by what standards the accountable actor is being held to account? 5 Are there clear reasons as to why the accountable actor is being held to account in the manner specified in the proposal? Willie Currie An Advisor to the CCWG-Accountability On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:

I have forwarded to Kavouss.

On 16/10/15 07:49, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

...

Dear Paul, Tks for message with GM from Dub. At least there is no attachment to my mail . May you kindly resend it pls. Cheers Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 Oct 2015, at 07:30, william currie <willie.currie@gmail.com <mailto:willie.currie@gmail.com>> wrote:

If ICANN were incorporated in Delaware, it would be required to have

...

members, and the whole debate of SMM vs MEM would be moot.

On Friday, October 16, 2015, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:

Well, if there IS a staring contest going on between the Board and the Community to see who will blink first, it seems the Community just woke up to realise that it includes a couple of members possessing the glare of a basilisk . . .

On 16/10/15 00:25, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:

Colleagues

Good morning in Dublin.

The attached letter from Senators Thune and Schatz to the Chair of the ICANN Board will be of interest to many of you.

I wish you good fortune in the meetings

Regards

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key < http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...

...

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Good points, Malcolm. The accountability test now has these questions: 1 Is there an accountable actor, clearly identified? 2(a) Is there an accountability forum, to which the accountable actor is responsive? (b) Is the relationship between the accountable actor and the accountability forum one of holding the accountable actor to account, where the accountability forum's view is decisive? Or is the relationship merely advisory, where the accountable actor's view ultimately prevails? 3 Is it clear for what issues the accountable actor is being held to account by the accountability forum? 4 Is it clear by what standards the accountable actor is being held to account? 5 Are there clear reasons as to why the accountable actor is being held to account in the manner specified in the proposal? On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:

On 16/10/2015 09:36, william currie wrote:

...

The accountability test of the CCWG-A final proposal will consist of the following questions:

1 Is there an accountable actor, clearly identified?

2. Is the accountable actor accountable to an accountability forum, clearly defined?

3 Is it clear for what issues the accountable actor is being held to account by the accountability forum?

4 Is it clear by what standards the accountable actor is being held to account?

5 Are there clear reasons as to why the accountable actor is being held to account in the manner specified in the proposal?

Since you are trying to break the issue into atomic parts, I would comment that your second question contains two sub questions

a) is there an accountability forum, to which the accountability actor is responsive?

and

b) is the relationship between the accountability actor and the accountability forum one of holding the accountability actor to account, where the accountability forum's view is decisive? Or is the relationship merely advisory, where the accountability actor's view ultimately prevails?

i.e. - does the forum exist? and - does it prevail?

-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY

Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

Eberhard There are several plausible explanations -- not all of which are equally likely and which are to some degree inconsistent. Here is my best speculation: 1) The most plausible is that on the Democratic side, the Chairman had delegated most of this issue to Senator Schatz to follow. He may have more direct knowledge and/or interest and this might be a bandwidth question. Some of that is plausibly supported by the fact that the DOTCOM Act referred to in the letter is co-sponsored by Thune and Schatz and not Thune and Senator Nelson (the full committee ranking member). 2) It is possible that Nelson may disagree with the substance of the letter and/or the DOTCOM Act. Since DOTCOM has passed the Senate committee without his violent objection this might be a slight/modest disagreement -- enough to keep him off the letter but not enough to make him actively engaged in the issue. 3) The Senate is actually on recess might now. It might be as simple as the fact that Nelson was in Florida (his home state) and busy with other matters so he couldn't focus and that they realized that the letter would be better sent sooner than later, so they did not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 4) Finally, on the Republican side it may reflect that the Chairman is actively interested in the issue and has "taken" it to the full committee from his subcommittee chair. For that half of the equation, I am reasonably confident that my speculation is accurate. Cheers Paul Paul Rosenzweig Paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Costa Rica: +506 7008 3964 Our travel blog: www.paulandkatyexcellentadventure.blogspot.com My professional blog: www.paulrosenzweigesq.com Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 9:03 AM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Chairman Thune and Senator Schatz letter to Steve Crocker ahead of ICANN 54 Can someone explain to me, what it means, if anything, if the letter is signed by the Chair of the main Committee and the Ranking Member of a Subcommittee? I was expecting either the Chair and Ranking Member of the main Committee or Chair and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. Or Chair of the Committee and Chair of the Subcommittee. el On 2015-10-16 00:25 , Paul Rosenzweig wrote:

Colleagues

Good morning in Dublin.

The attached letter from Senators Thune and Schatz to the Chair of the ICANN Board will be of interest to many of you.

I wish you good fortune in the meetings

Regards

Paul [...]

I would add that the letter suggests bipartisan support for its contents.

On Oct 16, 2015, at 2:14 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com> wrote:

Eberhard

There are several plausible explanations -- not all of which are equally likely and which are to some degree inconsistent. Here is my best speculation:

1) The most plausible is that on the Democratic side, the Chairman had delegated most of this issue to Senator Schatz to follow. He may have more direct knowledge and/or interest and this might be a bandwidth question. Some of that is plausibly supported by the fact that the DOTCOM Act referred to in the letter is co-sponsored by Thune and Schatz and not Thune and Senator Nelson (the full committee ranking member).

2) It is possible that Nelson may disagree with the substance of the letter and/or the DOTCOM Act. Since DOTCOM has passed the Senate committee without his violent objection this might be a slight/modest disagreement -- enough to keep him off the letter but not enough to make him actively engaged in the issue.

3) The Senate is actually on recess might now. It might be as simple as the fact that Nelson was in Florida (his home state) and busy with other matters so he couldn't focus and that they realized that the letter would be better sent sooner than later, so they did not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

4) Finally, on the Republican side it may reflect that the Chairman is actively interested in the issue and has "taken" it to the full committee from his subcommittee chair. For that half of the equation, I am reasonably confident that my speculation is accurate.

Cheers Paul

Paul Rosenzweig Paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Costa Rica: +506 7008 3964 Our travel blog: www.paulandkatyexcellentadventure.blogspot.com My professional blog: www.paulrosenzweigesq.com Link to my PGP Key

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 9:03 AM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Chairman Thune and Senator Schatz letter to Steve Crocker ahead of ICANN 54

Can someone explain to me, what it means, if anything, if the letter is signed by the Chair of the main Committee and the Ranking Member of a Subcommittee?

I was expecting either the Chair and Ranking Member of the main Committee or Chair and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee.

Or Chair of the Committee and Chair of the Subcommittee.

el

...

On 2015-10-16 00:25 , Paul Rosenzweig wrote: Colleagues

Good morning in Dublin.

The attached letter from Senators Thune and Schatz to the Chair of the ICANN Board will be of interest to many of you.

I wish you good fortune in the meetings

Regards

Paul [...]

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Oh absolutely ... Schatz could not have signed if Nelson (and/or the Minority Leader Reid) were violently opposed. They may be positive, neutral or even perhaps slightly negative, but his signature suggests a good bipartisan agreement (as in the House, where DOTCOM has passed with wide bipartisan support) P Paul Rosenzweig Paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Costa Rica: +506 7008 3964 Our travel blog: www.paulandkatyexcellentadventure.blogspot.com My professional blog: www.paulrosenzweigesq.com Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 9:37 AM To: Salaets, Ken <ksalaets@itic.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Chairman Thune and Senator Schatz letter to Steve Crocker ahead of ICANN 54 Agreed that was also my reading. -jg On 16/10/2015, 2:32 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Salaets, Ken" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of ksalaets@itic.org> wrote:

I would add that the letter suggests bipartisan support for its contents.

...

On Oct 16, 2015, at 2:14 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com> wrote:

Eberhard

There are several plausible explanations -- not all of which are equally likely and which are to some degree inconsistent. Here is my best speculation:

1) The most plausible is that on the Democratic side, the Chairman had delegated most of this issue to Senator Schatz to follow. He may have more direct knowledge and/or interest and this might be a bandwidth question. Some of that is plausibly supported by the fact that the DOTCOM Act referred to in the letter is co-sponsored by Thune and Schatz and not Thune and Senator Nelson (the full committee ranking member).

2) It is possible that Nelson may disagree with the substance of the letter and/or the DOTCOM Act. Since DOTCOM has passed the Senate committee without his violent objection this might be a slight/modest disagreement -- enough to keep him off the letter but not enough to make him actively engaged in the issue.

3) The Senate is actually on recess might now. It might be as simple as the fact that Nelson was in Florida (his home state) and busy with other matters so he couldn't focus and that they realized that the letter would be better sent sooner than later, so they did not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

4) Finally, on the Republican side it may reflect that the Chairman is actively interested in the issue and has "taken" it to the full committee from his subcommittee chair. For that half of the equation, I am reasonably confident that my speculation is accurate.

Cheers Paul

Paul Rosenzweig Paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Costa Rica: +506 7008 3964 Our travel blog: www.paulandkatyexcellentadventure.blogspot.com My professional blog: www.paulrosenzweigesq.com Link to my PGP Key

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 9:03 AM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Chairman Thune and Senator Schatz letter to Steve Crocker ahead of ICANN 54

Can someone explain to me, what it means, if anything, if the letter is signed by the Chair of the main Committee and the Ranking Member of a Subcommittee?

I was expecting either the Chair and Ranking Member of the main Committee or Chair and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee.

Or Chair of the Committee and Chair of the Subcommittee.

el

...

On 2015-10-16 00:25 , Paul Rosenzweig wrote: Colleagues

Good morning in Dublin.

The attached letter from Senators Thune and Schatz to the Chair of the ICANN Board will be of interest to many of you.

I wish you good fortune in the meetings

Regards

Paul [...]

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

---

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community