The sooner the better. All the others are players in this drama. Jordan On 29 September 2015 at 16:20, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

+1

On 28-Sep-15 22:35, Steve DelBianco wrote:

...

Ed — An excellent idea. In fact, Cam Kerry and Rick Boucher could advise CCWG via email right away. Their insights could help us plan what we do in the days leading to Dublin.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>" Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 9:46 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Cruz / NTIA: Time to Get Expert Advice

Hello everybody,

Some of the unknowns facing this group going forward are as much political in nature as they are substantive or procedural. Do we take the opinion and perspective of Senator Ted Cruz seriously? Is it a threat to the transition? Is there something that we can do to be responsive to the genuine concerns of Senator Cruz? Are his concerns genuine?

What about the NTIA? The deference shown to Secretary Strickling among some of us here is almost Papal in nature. What did Larry say, how did Larry say it, what did he really mean when he said it but really didn't say it. It's a bit ridiculous. I admire Secretary Strickling. He's a fine civil servant. His published salary, though, is less than that of a first year associate from a decent law school at a mid sized corporate law firm. He is not the all mighty. Commerce and the NTIA are complex places. Larry has absolute control of neither.

I've read here today a legal analysis of the Senator's Constitutional challenge by someone I know to be neither an American nor a lawyer. I can click both boxes and I have my views but am I sure I'm right? No. It seems everyone here has an opinion as to what the NTIA will or will not accept from us. Do any of us really know? No.

Prior to the Los Angeles meeting it was suggested that we might want to hear from ICANN's lobbyists, that they could explain to us their version of political reality. We properly rejected that offer. I think we've reached the point, though, where we do need to call upon the expertise of some Washington political professionals to help guide us through this part of the process. No more guesswork by amateurs or implied threats by those with some self-interest in the matter. We're talking about who is going to run a vital part of the most powerful communications technology in human history. We need to do this right. Fortunately, we've already retained two such individuals who, if we wish, have the expertise and ability to assist us in this area.

Back in the early days of this project when we were all young, innocent and hopeful :) we retained not one but two law firms to help guide us. In retrospect that decision and two firms we chose to hire were amongst the best decisions we've made in this CCWG. I have complete faith in our lawyers and that is a rarity for me. I note that one of the specific reasons we hired Sidley was for their Washington ties and expertise. During our interviews with the firm we were able to meet two of their professionals with the greatest knowledge of DC and government operations : Cam Kerry ( http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry <http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry>) and Rick Boucher ( http://www.sidley.com/people/rick-boucher ). Both men were extremely impressive. It is time to tap their talents. We need serious advice in these areas from serious professionals.

I would respectfully ask our Chairs and the full CCWG to consider inviting either Rick or Cam to Dublin to meet with the CCWG early in the week, preferably during the initial F2F. I think it's important that everyone has a chance to question them. We need this type of policy expertise from a politically astute professional who owes a duty of care to us, no one else, and whose rolodex allows him or her to reach out to those whose decisions will most impact our work. We need to know what political reality is if we are to maximise our potential as a very special and unique group dedicated to helping create a truly open and accountable governance mechanism for this small part of the networked world.

Thanks for considering.

Best,

Ed Morris

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

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *

Time to activate this part of the team. On Monday, September 28, 2015, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

The sooner the better. All the others are players in this drama. Jordan

On 29 September 2015 at 16:20, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>> wrote:

...

+1

On 28-Sep-15 22:35, Steve DelBianco wrote:

...

Ed — An excellent idea. In fact, Cam Kerry and Rick Boucher could advise CCWG via email right away. Their insights could help us plan what we do in the days leading to Dublin.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>>> on behalf of Edward Morris Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','egmorris1@toast.net');> <mailto: egmorris1@toast.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','egmorris1@toast.net');> " Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 9:46 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Cruz / NTIA: Time to Get Expert Advice

Hello everybody,

Some of the unknowns facing this group going forward are as much political in nature as they are substantive or procedural. Do we take the opinion and perspective of Senator Ted Cruz seriously? Is it a threat to the transition? Is there something that we can do to be responsive to the genuine concerns of Senator Cruz? Are his concerns genuine?

What about the NTIA? The deference shown to Secretary Strickling among some of us here is almost Papal in nature. What did Larry say, how did Larry say it, what did he really mean when he said it but really didn't say it. It's a bit ridiculous. I admire Secretary Strickling. He's a fine civil servant. His published salary, though, is less than that of a first year associate from a decent law school at a mid sized corporate law firm. He is not the all mighty. Commerce and the NTIA are complex places. Larry has absolute control of neither.

I've read here today a legal analysis of the Senator's Constitutional challenge by someone I know to be neither an American nor a lawyer. I can click both boxes and I have my views but am I sure I'm right? No. It seems everyone here has an opinion as to what the NTIA will or will not accept from us. Do any of us really know? No.

Prior to the Los Angeles meeting it was suggested that we might want to hear from ICANN's lobbyists, that they could explain to us their version of political reality. We properly rejected that offer. I think we've reached the point, though, where we do need to call upon the expertise of some Washington political professionals to help guide us through this part of the process. No more guesswork by amateurs or implied threats by those with some self-interest in the matter. We're talking about who is going to run a vital part of the most powerful communications technology in human history. We need to do this right. Fortunately, we've already retained two such individuals who, if we wish, have the expertise and ability to assist us in this area.

Back in the early days of this project when we were all young, innocent and hopeful :) we retained not one but two law firms to help guide us. In retrospect that decision and two firms we chose to hire were amongst the best decisions we've made in this CCWG. I have complete faith in our lawyers and that is a rarity for me. I note that one of the specific reasons we hired Sidley was for their Washington ties and expertise. During our interviews with the firm we were able to meet two of their professionals with the greatest knowledge of DC and government operations : Cam Kerry ( http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry <http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry>) and Rick Boucher ( http://www.sidley.com/people/rick-boucher ). Both men were extremely impressive. It is time to tap their talents. We need serious advice in these areas from serious professionals.

I would respectfully ask our Chairs and the full CCWG to consider inviting either Rick or Cam to Dublin to meet with the CCWG early in the week, preferably during the initial F2F. I think it's important that everyone has a chance to question them. We need this type of policy expertise from a politically astute professional who owes a duty of care to us, no one else, and whose rolodex allows him or her to reach out to those whose decisions will most impact our work. We need to know what political reality is if we are to maximise our potential as a very special and unique group dedicated to helping create a truly open and accountable governance mechanism for this small part of the networked world.

Thanks for considering.

Best,

Ed Morris

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Jordan Carter

Chief Executive *InternetNZ*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet *

I have no objection to requesting input from Kerry and Boucher. But let's recognize that their best contacts are with the Congressional Minority and the Administration, while the request to the GAO was sent by an Republican Senator running for President, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and a congressman regarded as a thought leader on technology policy. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Sep 28, 2015, at 11:37 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Time to activate this part of the team. On Monday, September 28, 2015, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: The sooner the better. All the others are players in this drama. Jordan On 29 September 2015 at 16:20, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>> wrote: +1 On 28-Sep-15 22:35, Steve DelBianco wrote:

Ed — An excellent idea. In fact, Cam Kerry and Rick Boucher could advise CCWG via email right away. Their insights could help us plan what we do in the days leading to Dublin.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>>> on behalf of Edward Morris Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','egmorris1@toast.net');> <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','egmorris1@toast.net');>>" Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 9:46 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Cruz / NTIA: Time to Get Expert Advice

Hello everybody,

Some of the unknowns facing this group going forward are as much political in nature as they are substantive or procedural. Do we take the opinion and perspective of Senator Ted Cruz seriously? Is it a threat to the transition? Is there something that we can do to be responsive to the genuine concerns of Senator Cruz? Are his concerns genuine?

What about the NTIA? The deference shown to Secretary Strickling among some of us here is almost Papal in nature. What did Larry say, how did Larry say it, what did he really mean when he said it but really didn't say it. It's a bit ridiculous. I admire Secretary Strickling. He's a fine civil servant. His published salary, though, is less than that of a first year associate from a decent law school at a mid sized corporate law firm. He is not the all mighty. Commerce and the NTIA are complex places. Larry has absolute control of neither.

I've read here today a legal analysis of the Senator's Constitutional challenge by someone I know to be neither an American nor a lawyer. I can click both boxes and I have my views but am I sure I'm right? No. It seems everyone here has an opinion as to what the NTIA will or will not accept from us. Do any of us really know? No.

Prior to the Los Angeles meeting it was suggested that we might want to hear from ICANN's lobbyists, that they could explain to us their version of political reality. We properly rejected that offer. I think we've reached the point, though, where we do need to call upon the expertise of some Washington political professionals to help guide us through this part of the process. No more guesswork by amateurs or implied threats by those with some self-interest in the matter. We're talking about who is going to run a vital part of the most powerful communications technology in human history. We need to do this right. Fortunately, we've already retained two such individuals who, if we wish, have the expertise and ability to assist us in this area.

Back in the early days of this project when we were all young, innocent and hopeful :) we retained not one but two law firms to help guide us. In retrospect that decision and two firms we chose to hire were amongst the best decisions we've made in this CCWG. I have complete faith in our lawyers and that is a rarity for me. I note that one of the specific reasons we hired Sidley was for their Washington ties and expertise. During our interviews with the firm we were able to meet two of their professionals with the greatest knowledge of DC and government operations : Cam Kerry ( http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry <http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry>) and Rick Boucher ( http://www.sidley.com/people/rick-boucher ). Both men were extremely impressive. It is time to tap their talents. We need serious advice in these areas from serious professionals.

I would respectfully ask our Chairs and the full CCWG to consider inviting either Rick or Cam to Dublin to meet with the CCWG early in the week, preferably during the initial F2F. I think it's important that everyone has a chance to question them. We need this type of policy expertise from a politically astute professional who owes a duty of care to us, no one else, and whose rolodex allows him or her to reach out to those whose decisions will most impact our work. We need to know what political reality is if we are to maximise our potential as a very special and unique group dedicated to helping create a truly open and accountable governance mechanism for this small part of the networked world.

Thanks for considering.

Best,

Ed Morris

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz> A better world through a better Internet ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 <ATT00001.c>

We do not know the half of it with respect to planned action against this transition in Congress. Does anyone think that this issue will die if Cruz gets an answer he doesn’t like? You can bet various steps in the process have already been planned out by the RNC. Cruz just agreed to carry the water. Do we honestly think the average American is familiar enough with this area and this transition to support “giving the Internet away” ? ICANN should be considering its PR campaign to the voters on this right now and should get out ahead of numerous candidates who are going to jump on the anti-transition bandwagon, some of whom may even be Democrats. Further, we do not know what Hillary, Bernie, and Joe will each say if (and when) asked about this in upcoming Presidential debates. This is a question that could EASILY be raised in the upcoming Democratic debate. The sooner we get an approved CCWG transition plan, the sooner ICANN can begin the public education process. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0FAB7.D6FEDB10] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Raul Gutierrez Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 6:34 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Avri Doria; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Cruz / NTIA: Time to Get Expert Advice Good point Phil K street is very long...... On Sep 29, 2015 6:56 AM, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: I have no objection to requesting input from Kerry and Boucher. But let's recognize that their best contacts are with the Congressional Minority and the Administration, while the request to the GAO was sent by an Republican Senator running for President, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and a congressman regarded as a thought leader on technology policy. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Sep 28, 2015, at 11:37 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Time to activate this part of the team. On Monday, September 28, 2015, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: The sooner the better. All the others are players in this drama. Jordan On 29 September 2015 at 16:20, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: +1 On 28-Sep-15 22:35, Steve DelBianco wrote:

Ed — An excellent idea. In fact, Cam Kerry and Rick Boucher could advise CCWG via email right away. Their insights could help us plan what we do in the days leading to Dublin.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%0b>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto:egmorris1@toast.net%20%3cmailto:egmorris1@toast.net%3e>" Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 9:46 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Cruz / NTIA: Time to Get Expert Advice

Hello everybody,

Some of the unknowns facing this group going forward are as much political in nature as they are substantive or procedural. Do we take the opinion and perspective of Senator Ted Cruz seriously? Is it a threat to the transition? Is there something that we can do to be responsive to the genuine concerns of Senator Cruz? Are his concerns genuine?

What about the NTIA? The deference shown to Secretary Strickling among some of us here is almost Papal in nature. What did Larry say, how did Larry say it, what did he really mean when he said it but really didn't say it. It's a bit ridiculous. I admire Secretary Strickling. He's a fine civil servant. His published salary, though, is less than that of a first year associate from a decent law school at a mid sized corporate law firm. He is not the all mighty. Commerce and the NTIA are complex places. Larry has absolute control of neither.

I've read here today a legal analysis of the Senator's Constitutional challenge by someone I know to be neither an American nor a lawyer. I can click both boxes and I have my views but am I sure I'm right? No. It seems everyone here has an opinion as to what the NTIA will or will not accept from us. Do any of us really know? No.

Prior to the Los Angeles meeting it was suggested that we might want to hear from ICANN's lobbyists, that they could explain to us their version of political reality. We properly rejected that offer. I think we've reached the point, though, where we do need to call upon the expertise of some Washington political professionals to help guide us through this part of the process. No more guesswork by amateurs or implied threats by those with some self-interest in the matter. We're talking about who is going to run a vital part of the most powerful communications technology in human history. We need to do this right. Fortunately, we've already retained two such individuals who, if we wish, have the expertise and ability to assist us in this area.

Back in the early days of this project when we were all young, innocent and hopeful :) we retained not one but two law firms to help guide us. In retrospect that decision and two firms we chose to hire were amongst the best decisions we've made in this CCWG. I have complete faith in our lawyers and that is a rarity for me. I note that one of the specific reasons we hired Sidley was for their Washington ties and expertise. During our interviews with the firm we were able to meet two of their professionals with the greatest knowledge of DC and government operations : Cam Kerry ( http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry <http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry>) and Rick Boucher ( http://www.sidley.com/people/rick-boucher ). Both men were extremely impressive. It is time to tap their talents. We need serious advice in these areas from serious professionals.

I would respectfully ask our Chairs and the full CCWG to consider inviting either Rick or Cam to Dublin to meet with the CCWG early in the week, preferably during the initial F2F. I think it's important that everyone has a chance to question them. We need this type of policy expertise from a politically astute professional who owes a duty of care to us, no one else, and whose rolodex allows him or her to reach out to those whose decisions will most impact our work. We need to know what political reality is if we are to maximise our potential as a very special and unique group dedicated to helping create a truly open and accountable governance mechanism for this small part of the networked world.

Thanks for considering.

Best,

Ed Morris

_______________________________________________ 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

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118<tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz> A better world through a better Internet ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 <ATT00001.c> _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

Hello Anne,

...

The sooner we get an approved CCWG transition plan, the sooner ICANN can begin the public education process.

The best chance of getting this through the US Government process – will be when we reach a document that we can all live with. In my experience whenever ICANN has created a policy that some in the community don’t like - then they try to fire up congress with congressional hearings etc. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

Hi Mathieu, Thomas, Leon, Could we add this to AOB on tonite's call ? Thanks Ed for the idea. This link is worth reading http://www.thedomains.com/2015/09/29/sen-cruz-asks-the-gao-to-determine-whet her-obama-has-the-power-to-give-away-the-internet/ Personally I think it would be a good idea to invite Kerry and Boucher to Dublin to meet with/ present to the CCWG- if not before. Regards, Phil From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: 29 September 2015 14:53 To: Greg Shatan; Jordan Carter Cc: Avri Doria; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Cruz / NTIA: Time to Get Expert Advice Absolutely agree. On 28/09/2015 23:36, Greg Shatan wrote: Time to activate this part of the team. On Monday, September 28, 2015, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: The sooner the better. All the others are players in this drama. Jordan On 29 September 2015 at 16:20, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');> > wrote: +1 On 28-Sep-15 22:35, Steve DelBianco wrote:

Ed - An excellent idea. In fact, Cam Kerry and Rick Boucher could advise CCWG via email right away. Their insights could help us plan what we do in the days leading to Dublin.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.o rg');> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.o rg');> >> on behalf of Edward Morris Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','egmorris1@toast.net');> <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>"

Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 9:46 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Cruz / NTIA: Time to Get Expert Advice

Hello everybody,

Some of the unknowns facing this group going forward are as much political in nature as they are substantive or procedural. Do we take the opinion and perspective of Senator Ted Cruz seriously? Is it a threat to the transition? Is there something that we can do to be responsive to the genuine concerns of Senator Cruz? Are his concerns genuine?

What about the NTIA? The deference shown to Secretary Strickling among some of us here is almost Papal in nature. What did Larry say, how did Larry say it, what did he really mean when he said it but really didn't say it. It's a bit ridiculous. I admire Secretary Strickling. He's a fine civil servant. His published salary, though, is less than that of a first year associate from a decent law school at a mid sized corporate law firm. He is not the all mighty. Commerce and the NTIA are complex places. Larry has absolute control of neither.

I've read here today a legal analysis of the Senator's Constitutional challenge by someone I know to be neither an American nor a lawyer. I can click both boxes and I have my views but am I sure I'm right? No. It seems everyone here has an opinion as to what the NTIA will or will not accept from us. Do any of us really know? No.

Prior to the Los Angeles meeting it was suggested that we might want to hear from ICANN's lobbyists, that they could explain to us their version of political reality. We properly rejected that offer. I think we've reached the point, though, where we do need to call upon the expertise of some Washington political professionals to help guide us through this part of the process. No more guesswork by amateurs or implied threats by those with some self-interest in the matter. We're talking about who is going to run a vital part of the most powerful communications technology in human history. We need to do this right. Fortunately, we've already retained two such individuals who, if we wish, have the expertise and ability to assist us in this area.

Back in the early days of this project when we were all young, innocent and hopeful :) we retained not one but two law firms to help guide us. In retrospect that decision and two firms we chose to hire were amongst the best decisions we've made in this CCWG. I have complete faith in our lawyers and that is a rarity for me. I note that one of the specific reasons we hired Sidley was for their Washington ties and expertise. During our interviews with the firm we were able to meet two of their professionals with the greatest knowledge of DC and government operations : Cam Kerry ( http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry

<http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry>) and Rick Boucher ( http://www.sidley.com/people/rick-boucher ). Both men were extremely impressive. It is time to tap their talents. We need serious advice in these areas from serious professionals.

I would respectfully ask our Chairs and the full CCWG to consider inviting either Rick or Cam to Dublin to meet with the CCWG early in the week, preferably during the initial F2F. I think it's important that everyone has a chance to question them. We need this type of policy expertise from a politically astute professional who owes a duty of care to us, no one else, and whose rolodex allows him or her to reach out to those whose decisions will most impact our work. We need to know what political reality is if we are to maximise our potential as a very special and unique group dedicated to helping create a truly open and accountable governance mechanism for this small part of the networked world.

Thanks for considering.

Best,

Ed Morris

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 _____ <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> Description: Image removed by sender. Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

How is this relevant? Is there any correlation between one’s (published) salary and closeness to (being the) almighty?

"His published salary, though, is less than that of a first year associate from a decent law school at a mid sized corporate law firm. He is >not the all mighty."

Cheers, Roelof From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: dinsdag 29 september 2015 04:35 To: "egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Cruz / NTIA: Time to Get Expert Advice Ed — An excellent idea. In fact, Cam Kerry and Rick Boucher could advise CCWG via email right away. Their insights could help us plan what we do in the days leading to Dublin. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>" Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 9:46 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Cruz / NTIA: Time to Get Expert Advice Hello everybody, Some of the unknowns facing this group going forward are as much political in nature as they are substantive or procedural. Do we take the opinion and perspective of Senator Ted Cruz seriously? Is it a threat to the transition? Is there something that we can do to be responsive to the genuine concerns of Senator Cruz? Are his concerns genuine? What about the NTIA? The deference shown to Secretary Strickling among some of us here is almost Papal in nature. What did Larry say, how did Larry say it, what did he really mean when he said it but really didn't say it. It's a bit ridiculous. I admire Secretary Strickling. He's a fine civil servant. His published salary, though, is less than that of a first year associate from a decent law school at a mid sized corporate law firm. He is not the all mighty. Commerce and the NTIA are complex places. Larry has absolute control of neither. I've read here today a legal analysis of the Senator's Constitutional challenge by someone I know to be neither an American nor a lawyer. I can click both boxes and I have my views but am I sure I'm right? No. It seems everyone here has an opinion as to what the NTIA will or will not accept from us. Do any of us really know? No. Prior to the Los Angeles meeting it was suggested that we might want to hear from ICANN's lobbyists, that they could explain to us their version of political reality. We properly rejected that offer. I think we've reached the point, though, where we do need to call upon the expertise of some Washington political professionals to help guide us through this part of the process. No more guesswork by amateurs or implied threats by those with some self-interest in the matter. We're talking about who is going to run a vital part of the most powerful communications technology in human history. We need to do this right. Fortunately, we've already retained two such individuals who, if we wish, have the expertise and ability to assist us in this area. Back in the early days of this project when we were all young, innocent and hopeful :) we retained not one but two law firms to help guide us. In retrospect that decision and two firms we chose to hire were amongst the best decisions we've made in this CCWG. I have complete faith in our lawyers and that is a rarity for me. I note that one of the specific reasons we hired Sidley was for their Washington ties and expertise. During our interviews with the firm we were able to meet two of their professionals with the greatest knowledge of DC and government operations : Cam Kerry ( http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry) and Rick Boucher ( http://www.sidley.com/people/rick-boucher ). Both men were extremely impressive. It is time to tap their talents. We need serious advice in these areas from serious professionals. I would respectfully ask our Chairs and the full CCWG to consider inviting either Rick or Cam to Dublin to meet with the CCWG early in the week, preferably during the initial F2F. I think it's important that everyone has a chance to question them. We need this type of policy expertise from a politically astute professional who owes a duty of care to us, no one else, and whose rolodex allows him or her to reach out to those whose decisions will most impact our work. We need to know what political reality is if we are to maximise our potential as a very special and unique group dedicated to helping create a truly open and accountable governance mechanism for this small part of the networked world. Thanks for considering. Best, Ed Morris

In U.S. politics, it's not how much you make before 'office,' but rather, how much you make after that is the best barometer. Cheers, Ken On Sep 29, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: One should point out that before entering government, Larry was a partner at a very large and highly-regarded corporate law firm after having gone to one of the top law schools. So, the comparison may not be apt. Using paychecks as a measure of power, authority and wisdom, especially when comparing the public and private sector, is an "apples and oranges" game. Obama's salary is less than Fadi's. For that matter, Strickling's salary and Obama's are also less than that of the chief stagehand at Carnegie Hall. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: How is this relevant? Is there any correlation between one’s (published) salary and closeness to (being the) almighty?

"His published salary, though, is less than that of a first year associate from a decent law school at a mid sized corporate law firm. He is >not the all mighty."

Cheers, Roelof From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: dinsdag 29 september 2015 04:35 To: "egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Cruz / NTIA: Time to Get Expert Advice Ed — An excellent idea. In fact, Cam Kerry and Rick Boucher could advise CCWG via email right away. Their insights could help us plan what we do in the days leading to Dublin. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>" Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 9:46 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Cruz / NTIA: Time to Get Expert Advice Hello everybody, Some of the unknowns facing this group going forward are as much political in nature as they are substantive or procedural. Do we take the opinion and perspective of Senator Ted Cruz seriously? Is it a threat to the transition? Is there something that we can do to be responsive to the genuine concerns of Senator Cruz? Are his concerns genuine? What about the NTIA? The deference shown to Secretary Strickling among some of us here is almost Papal in nature. What did Larry say, how did Larry say it, what did he really mean when he said it but really didn't say it. It's a bit ridiculous. I admire Secretary Strickling. He's a fine civil servant. His published salary, though, is less than that of a first year associate from a decent law school at a mid sized corporate law firm. He is not the all mighty. Commerce and the NTIA are complex places. Larry has absolute control of neither. I've read here today a legal analysis of the Senator's Constitutional challenge by someone I know to be neither an American nor a lawyer. I can click both boxes and I have my views but am I sure I'm right? No. It seems everyone here has an opinion as to what the NTIA will or will not accept from us. Do any of us really know? No. Prior to the Los Angeles meeting it was suggested that we might want to hear from ICANN's lobbyists, that they could explain to us their version of political reality. We properly rejected that offer. I think we've reached the point, though, where we do need to call upon the expertise of some Washington political professionals to help guide us through this part of the process. No more guesswork by amateurs or implied threats by those with some self-interest in the matter. We're talking about who is going to run a vital part of the most powerful communications technology in human history. We need to do this right. Fortunately, we've already retained two such individuals who, if we wish, have the expertise and ability to assist us in this area. Back in the early days of this project when we were all young, innocent and hopeful :) we retained not one but two law firms to help guide us. In retrospect that decision and two firms we chose to hire were amongst the best decisions we've made in this CCWG. I have complete faith in our lawyers and that is a rarity for me. I note that one of the specific reasons we hired Sidley was for their Washington ties and expertise. During our interviews with the firm we were able to meet two of their professionals with the greatest knowledge of DC and government operations : Cam Kerry ( http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry) and Rick Boucher ( http://www.sidley.com/people/rick-boucher ). Both men were extremely impressive. It is time to tap their talents. We need serious advice in these areas from serious professionals. I would respectfully ask our Chairs and the full CCWG to consider inviting either Rick or Cam to Dublin to meet with the CCWG early in the week, preferably during the initial F2F. I think it's important that everyone has a chance to question them. We need this type of policy expertise from a politically astute professional who owes a duty of care to us, no one else, and whose rolodex allows him or her to reach out to those whose decisions will most impact our work. We need to know what political reality is if we are to maximise our potential as a very special and unique group dedicated to helping create a truly open and accountable governance mechanism for this small part of the networked world. Thanks for considering. Best, Ed Morris _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

I agree with Parminder. I oppose indulging in the flawed process of guessing whether the US congress will accept or reject the proposal especially since such guessing is unrelated to the 4 principles already established by NTIA for the transition. The suggestion to take such advice into consideration essentially means that the CCWG would be molding the proposal to the liking of the US congress in excess of the 4 principles. If the CCWG prefers to build a proposal in that manner, then it should be clearly stated as a principle of the CCWG. I suggest the following text for the principle: "The CCWG will attempt to guess the preferences of the US Congress and present them to the world as the will of the global multistakeholder community." Alternatively, the decision should be solely on the merits and demerits of the MEM and CMSM models. The CWG (Stewardship) made exactly the same mistake when it junked the Contract Co model in favour of the Internal/Hybrid Variant. In that group as well, knowledgable people advised that the Contract Co model would never fly with the US Congress; and the fear mongers built on that fear. No body wants a year of effort to go to waste - effectively chilling substantive discussions on merit and presenting mere guesses as the will of the global multistakeholder community. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:01 PM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:

It is odd that advice about political reality is being sought from legal advisers who I think were there, as the name will indicate, for legal advice. Not only are lawyers not (necessarily) the best political advisers - in any case in this area opinions are what you mostly get from anyone whomsoever - it is dangerous to mix political advice with legal advice with regard to people specially retained to provide legal advice in a process. In fact the latter need to clearly know that they should only dispense legal advice and keep it fully free from political facts or opinions... Asking them for political advice is to as they say in Hindi 'strike one's own foot with the axe'.

In this regard, I am surprised and find it, excuse me to say, almost scandalous that the group seem to be officially interested in knowing and understand the 'political reality' in Washington.... That is none of its business. And then, if it is indeed so politically inclined, has it ever tried to understand the political reality of the whole world and how US hegemony is not only resisted by detested all across, something which is being preserved in the proposed models by not touching the question of jurisdiction, whereas it is not at all foreclosed as per the ToR of the group.... When dealing with the rest of the world how is it that this group becomes completely technicalist and politically blindfolded? If like trying to learn about the political reality in Washington, if the group is in fact interested in learning the global political reality I can help in assembling an appropriate group that can advice on that.

Anyway, coming to what IMHO is the highly problematic propensity that I see here of seeking to tune into the political reality in Washington, this group must understand that it is supposed to represent global public interest, to which alone it has to be accountable, and therefore be tuned to (of which it unfortunately has done a pretty bad job). And make a proposal within the known and published terms of reference or conditions under which it was set up, where nowhere I see mentioned the condition of keeping tuned to political realities in Washington. It has to make a proposal that it thinks (1) best serves global public interest and (2) contravenes none of the conditions that were expressly and openly communicated when the group was set. Catering to any other consideration, including and especially of Washington's sensitivity, is completely illegitimate. (Wonder why no lawyer tells the group that simple fact.) The fact that this kind of a thing can get openly discussed by an empowered group which is mandated with the extremely important political task of deciding the oversight of the technical functions related to, and here I quote Edward's email, "the most powerful communication technology in human history' itself shows that this process has been (deliberately?) constituted in a manner that while accomplishing a political function is rather politically blind or at least insensitive. It does not accept and internalise the political nature of its task and the ethos and methods therefore that go with public civic roles and duties. It still likes to treat the task largely in private law and corporate governance frameworks, a task which in fact is clearly of public governance and of politics.

While at it I may make another point which is relatively independent. It is a pity how Board's resistance to the group's accountability proposal is now becoming a kind of a strawman that completely distracts from all the problems with the CCWG's current proposal itself. It has succeeded in giving it a kind of heroic halo which, even if I go by the numerous critiques in the public comments, it simply does not deserve.

Hope, this is taken fully as a political comment which it is supposed to be and not personally by anyone (just think of a congressional/ parliamentary debate!)... Thanks, parminder

On Tuesday 29 September 2015 07:16 AM, Edward Morris wrote:

Hello everybody,

Some of the unknowns facing this group going forward are as much political in nature as they are substantive or procedural. Do we take the opinion and perspective of Senator Ted Cruz seriously? Is it a threat to the transition? Is there something that we can do to be responsive to the genuine concerns of Senator Cruz? Are his concerns genuine?

What about the NTIA? The deference shown to Secretary Strickling among some of us here is almost Papal in nature. What did Larry say, how did Larry say it, what did he really mean when he said it but really didn't say it. It's a bit ridiculous. I admire Secretary Strickling. He's a fine civil servant. His published salary, though, is less than that of a first year associate from a decent law school at a mid sized corporate law firm. He is not the all mighty. Commerce and the NTIA are complex places. Larry has absolute control of neither.

I've read here today a legal analysis of the Senator's Constitutional challenge by someone I know to be neither an American nor a lawyer. I can click both boxes and I have my views but am I sure I'm right? No. It seems everyone here has an opinion as to what the NTIA will or will not accept from us. Do any of us really know? No.

Prior to the Los Angeles meeting it was suggested that we might want to hear from ICANN's lobbyists, that they could explain to us their version of political reality. We properly rejected that offer. I think we've reached the point, though, where we do need to call upon the expertise of some Washington political professionals to help guide us through this part of the process. No more guesswork by amateurs or implied threats by those with some self-interest in the matter. We're talking about who is going to run a vital part of the most powerful communications technology in human history. We need to do this right. Fortunately, we've already retained two such individuals who, if we wish, have the expertise and ability to assist us in this area.

Back in the early days of this project when we were all young, innocent and hopeful :) we retained not one but two law firms to help guide us. In retrospect that decision and two firms we chose to hire were amongst the best decisions we've made in this CCWG. I have complete faith in our lawyers and that is a rarity for me. I note that one of the specific reasons we hired Sidley was for their Washington ties and expertise. During our interviews with the firm we were able to meet two of their professionals with the greatest knowledge of DC and government operations : Cam Kerry ( http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry) and Rick Boucher ( http://www.sidley.com/people/rick-boucher ). Both men were extremely impressive. It is time to tap their talents. We need serious advice in these areas from serious professionals.

I would respectfully ask our Chairs and the full CCWG to consider inviting either Rick or Cam to Dublin to meet with the CCWG early in the week, preferably during the initial F2F. I think it's important that everyone has a chance to question them. We need this type of policy expertise from a politically astute professional who owes a duty of care to us, no one else, and whose rolodex allows him or her to reach out to those whose decisions will most impact our work. We need to know what political reality is if we are to maximise our potential as a very special and unique group dedicated to helping create a truly open and accountable governance mechanism for this small part of the networked world.

Thanks for considering.

Best,

Ed Morris

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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

Agree fully with Avri, and Ed's suggestion. It is important to feel the pulse of the hill, but that need not be the CCWG's driving consideration. It is commendable that this group has not lost its bearings on accountability principles despite the noise surrounding the proposal's "acceptability" to the NTIA/USG. What's acceptable or who's electable are pretty subjective notions, as the rest of the world is finding out from this US prez campaign :) Arun On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

While I agree with you in part that we should not be considering only the issues related to the US government as we do have a global mandate including other Governments - especially those in the GAC, we also have to realize that at this point, ICANN is still within the oversight of NTIA and they are within the oversight of the US congress &c. The US Congress and our election silly season is, for better or worse, a gauntlet through which this process has to navigate.

avri

On 29-Sep-15 04:32, Guru Acharya wrote:

...

I agree with Parminder. I oppose indulging in the flawed process of guessing whether the US congress will accept or reject the proposal especially since such guessing is unrelated to the 4 principles already established by NTIA for the transition. The suggestion to take such advice into consideration essentially means that the CCWG would be molding the proposal to the liking of the US congress in excess of the 4 principles. If the CCWG prefers to build a proposal in that manner, then it should be clearly stated as a principle of the CCWG.

I suggest the following text for the principle: "The CCWG will attempt to guess the preferences of the US Congress and present them to the world as the will of the global multistakeholder community."

Alternatively, the decision should be solely on the merits and demerits of the MEM and CMSM models.

The CWG (Stewardship) made exactly the same mistake when it junked the Contract Co model in favour of the Internal/Hybrid Variant. In that group as well, knowledgable people advised that the Contract Co model would never fly with the US Congress; and the fear mongers built on that fear. No body wants a year of effort to go to waste - effectively chilling substantive discussions on merit and presenting mere guesses as the will of the global multistakeholder community.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:01 PM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net <mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>> wrote:

It is odd that advice about political reality is being sought from legal advisers who I think were there, as the name will indicate, for legal advice. Not only are lawyers not (necessarily) the best political advisers - in any case in this area opinions are what you mostly get from anyone whomsoever - it is dangerous to mix political advice with legal advice with regard to people specially retained to provide legal advice in a process. In fact the latter need to clearly know that they should only dispense legal advice and keep it fully free from political facts or opinions... Asking them for political advice is to as they say in Hindi 'strike one's own foot with the axe'.

In this regard, I am surprised and find it, excuse me to say, almost scandalous that the group seem to be officially interested in knowing and understand the 'political reality' in Washington.... That is none of its business. And then, if it is indeed so politically inclined, has it ever tried to understand the political reality of the whole world and how US hegemony is not only resisted by detested all across, something which is being preserved in the proposed models by not touching the question of jurisdiction, whereas it is not at all foreclosed as per the ToR of the group.... When dealing with the rest of the world how is it that this group becomes completely technicalist and politically blindfolded? If like trying to learn about the political reality in Washington, if the group is in fact interested in learning the global political reality I can help in assembling an appropriate group that can advice on that.

Anyway, coming to what IMHO is the highly problematic propensity that I see here of seeking to tune into the political reality in Washington, this group must understand that it is supposed to represent global public interest, to which alone it has to be accountable, and therefore be tuned to (of which it unfortunately has done a pretty bad job). And make a proposal within the known and published terms of reference or conditions under which it was set up, where nowhere I see mentioned the condition of keeping tuned to political realities in Washington. It has to make a proposal that it thinks (1) best serves global public interest and (2) contravenes none of the conditions that were expressly and openly communicated when the group was set. Catering to any other consideration, including and especially of Washington's sensitivity, is completely illegitimate. (Wonder why no lawyer tells the group that simple fact.) The fact that this kind of a thing can get openly discussed by an empowered group which is mandated with the extremely important political task of deciding the oversight of the technical functions related to, and here I quote Edward's email, "the most powerful communication technology in human history' itself shows that this process has been (deliberately?) constituted in a manner that while accomplishing a political function is rather politically blind or at least insensitive. It does not accept and internalise the political nature of its task and the ethos and methods therefore that go with public civic roles and duties. It still likes to treat the task largely in private law and corporate governance frameworks, a task which in fact is clearly of public governance and of politics.

While at it I may make another point which is relatively independent. It is a pity how Board's resistance to the group's accountability proposal is now becoming a kind of a strawman that completely distracts from all the problems with the CCWG's current proposal itself. It has succeeded in giving it a kind of heroic halo which, even if I go by the numerous critiques in the public comments, it simply does not deserve.

Hope, this is taken fully as a political comment which it is supposed to be and not personally by anyone (just think of a congressional/ parliamentary debate!)... Thanks, parminder

On Tuesday 29 September 2015 07:16 AM, Edward Morris wrote:

...

Hello everybody,

Some of the unknowns facing this group going forward are as much political in nature as they are substantive or procedural. Do we take the opinion and perspective of Senator Ted Cruz seriously? Is it a threat to the transition? Is there something that we can do to be responsive to the genuine concerns of Senator Cruz? Are his concerns genuine?

What about the NTIA? The deference shown to Secretary Strickling among some of us here is almost Papal in nature. What did Larry say, how did Larry say it, what did he really mean when he said it but really didn't say it. It's a bit ridiculous. I admire Secretary Strickling. He's a fine civil servant. His published salary, though, is less than that of a first year associate from a decent law school at a mid sized corporate law firm. He is not the all mighty. Commerce and the NTIA are complex places. Larry has absolute control of neither.

I've read here today a legal analysis of the Senator's Constitutional challenge by someone I know to be neither an American nor a lawyer. I can click both boxes and I have my views but am I sure I'm right? No. It seems everyone here has an opinion as to what the NTIA will or will not accept from us. Do any of us really know? No.

Prior to the Los Angeles meeting it was suggested that we might want to hear from ICANN's lobbyists, that they could explain to us their version of political reality. We properly rejected that offer. I think we've reached the point, though, where we do need to call upon the expertise of some Washington political professionals to help guide us through this part of the process. No more guesswork by amateurs or implied threats by those with some self-interest in the matter. We're talking about who is going to run a vital part of the most powerful communications technology in human history. We need to do this right. Fortunately, we've already retained two such individuals who, if we wish, have the expertise and ability to assist us in this area.

Back in the early days of this project when we were all young, innocent and hopeful :) we retained not one but two law firms to help guide us. In retrospect that decision and two firms we chose to hire were amongst the best decisions we've made in this CCWG. I have complete faith in our lawyers and that is a rarity for me. I note that one of the specific reasons we hired Sidley was for their Washington ties and expertise. During our interviews with the firm we were able to meet two of their professionals with the greatest knowledge of DC and government operations : Cam Kerry ( http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry) and Rick Boucher ( http://www.sidley.com/people/rick-boucher ). Both men were extremely impressive. It is time to tap their talents. We need serious advice in these areas from serious professionals.

I would respectfully ask our Chairs and the full CCWG to consider inviting either Rick or Cam to Dublin to meet with the CCWG early in the week, preferably during the initial F2F. I think it's important that everyone has a chance to question them. We need this type of policy expertise from a politically astute professional who owes a duty of care to us, no one else, and whose rolodex allows him or her to reach out to those whose decisions will most impact our work. We need to know what political reality is if we are to maximise our potential as a very special and unique group dedicated to helping create a truly open and accountable governance mechanism for this small part of the networked world.

Thanks for considering.

Best,

Ed Morris

_______________________________________________ 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 <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

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

-- - @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org> National Law University, New Delhi Ph: +91-9871943272

Hi everyone, I just want to clarify that my request for professional political advice is in no way caused by a desire to constrain or in any way affect our policy preferences. In fact, quite the opposite. Political analysis has already been introduced into our discussion by Ira in his Los Angeles address and by many others who have opined what the NTIA may or may not accept. I sense these concerns may already be affecting our policy direction, or at least there is a desire by some that they do. I'd like to hear from professionals who have an explicit duty to the CCWG in these matters, rather than our sources to date. I should note that Cam Kerry is a former head of the Department of Commerce. The expertise and professional judgement of someone with his experience and ties is certainly something I believe would be of great value as we chart our path forward. Kind Regards, Ed Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 29, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:

...

On 29/09/2015 14:13, Arun Sukumar wrote: Agree fully with Avri, and Ed's suggestion. It is important to feel the pulse of the hill, but that need not be the CCWG's driving consideration.

It is commendable that this group has not lost its bearings on accountability principles despite the noise surrounding the proposal's "acceptability" to the NTIA/USG.

What's acceptable or who's electable are pretty subjective notions, as the rest of the world is finding out from this US prez campaign :)

I agree with Arun and others.

Getting professional public affairs advice on likely reactions to our proposal (and to the Board's) certainly sounds like a good idea. But we should be careful not to mislead ourselves with it.

What are we actually planning to ask? Would Congress support our proposal? Would they prefer it? Would they dislike it sufficiently to pass legislation to block it?

These are very different questions to each other.

Moreover, any advice, no matter how well informed, is only a guess based on the current situation. That naturally devalues our ability (or others' ability) to influence the outcome. So if we were to effectively outsource our decision-making to professional political advice of what is "achievable", that wouldn't be only an improper dereliction of duty, it would also be foolish.

For this reason, while I am happy for us to go ahead with this project, I think we should concentrate less on trying to second-guess others and more on winning support for our own work.

Kieren's recent suggestion is an excellent starting point for a checklist, and it isn't even entirely new: I believe Thomas has already made a start on a more legible explanation of our proposal.

This is where we should focus our efforts: on building support for our proposal, not on assembling excuses for abandoning it.

-- 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

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

We should also draw on all the expertise we have within this group on "government relations," both US and internationally. On the US side, a number of our members and participants have considerable experience with and wisdom on the ways of Washington. It is in no way a slight to the international stage to recognize that the USG has a unique relationship to the transition. Greg On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:09 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Hi all,

I trust that any competent political advisor would also consider from an objective point of view the international implications at stake.

best regards

Jorge Cancio

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

...

Am 29.09.2015 um 17:07 schrieb Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>:

Hi everyone,

I just want to clarify that my request for professional political advice is in no way caused by a desire to constrain or in any way affect our policy preferences. In fact, quite the opposite. Political analysis has already been introduced into our discussion by Ira in his Los Angeles address and by many others who have opined what the NTIA may or may not accept. I sense these concerns may already be affecting our policy direction, or at least there is a desire by some that they do. I'd like to hear from professionals who have an explicit duty to the CCWG in these matters, rather than our sources to date. I should note that Cam Kerry is a former head of the Department of Commerce. The expertise and professional judgement of someone with his experience and ties is certainly something I believe would be of great value as we chart our path forward.

Kind Regards,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

...

On Sep 29, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:

...

On 29/09/2015 14:13, Arun Sukumar wrote: Agree fully with Avri, and Ed's suggestion. It is important to feel the pulse of the hill, but that need not be the CCWG's driving consideration.

It is commendable that this group has not lost its bearings on accountability principles despite the noise surrounding the proposal's "acceptability" to the NTIA/USG.

What's acceptable or who's electable are pretty subjective notions, as the rest of the world is finding out from this US prez campaign :)

I agree with Arun and others.

Getting professional public affairs advice on likely reactions to our proposal (and to the Board's) certainly sounds like a good idea. But we should be careful not to mislead ourselves with it.

What are we actually planning to ask? Would Congress support our proposal? Would they prefer it? Would they dislike it sufficiently to pass legislation to block it?

These are very different questions to each other.

Moreover, any advice, no matter how well informed, is only a guess based on the current situation. That naturally devalues our ability (or others' ability) to influence the outcome. So if we were to effectively outsource our decision-making to professional political advice of what is "achievable", that wouldn't be only an improper dereliction of duty, it would also be foolish.

For this reason, while I am happy for us to go ahead with this project, I think we should concentrate less on trying to second-guess others and more on winning support for our own work.

Kieren's recent suggestion is an excellent starting point for a checklist, and it isn't even entirely new: I believe Thomas has already made a start on a more legible explanation of our proposal.

This is where we should focus our efforts: on building support for our proposal, not on assembling excuses for abandoning it.

-- 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

_______________________________________________ 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