On 08/10/2015 15:53, Phil Corwin wrote:

Thanks. Very clear and important statement.

Indeed. I hope it will be duly taken into account in our deliberations.

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

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 10:39 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Dear colleagues,

Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship transition.

The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now online : https://t.co/EuolALNkgV

You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free to re-use) : https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability+Updat...

As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play, and what remains to be done.

Best,

-- 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

Thanks, Steve. I want to clarify why I think the Board is acting in bad faith. The Board have a particular position as the highest decision-making body in the ICANN ecosystem and as such have the status of being the Accountable Actor - the "who" in the accountability chain: "who is accountable to whom, for what, by which standardss, and why?" When it comes to the process of developing a new accountability mechanism for ICANN, they have to negotiate a conflict of interest, namely, that they are the subject of the accountability process and therefore have an interest in the outcome that may be self-serving to their current position in the ICANN ecosystem. So when they acted to intervene in the multistakeholder process (whether in their minds they thought they were acting in good faith, i.e. making their views and counterproposal known) they could not override this conflict of interest and have compounded it. As I have observed the CCWG-A in action, I have been impressed by the delicate and respectful way that members of different SOs and ACs have conducted themselves in working through the complex options available, compromising where necessary to achieve a fragile consensus position in the the second draft proposal. This was the bottom up multistakeholder in action. What the Board did was to use their power to destroy this consensus. And in doing so it was not possible to distinguish whether they were acting in their own (conflicted) interest or for the public interest. One has to read their action against the playbook of the powerful, one of whose classic techniques is "divide and rule" and as far as I can see they have driven a wedge into the CCWG-A. Ironically, if the Community Accountability Mechanism were currently in place, this would constitute grounds to activate the community power to spill the whole Board. Willie On Thursday, October 8, 2015, william currie <willie.currie@gmail.com> wrote:

I endorse the CENTR and European Commission statement and encourage the CCWG-A not to lose heart at the eleventh hour.

Only a form of membership in ICANN can replace the NTIA accountability function. And it seems that only the GAC and the GNSO have the consistency and coherence to prevent the dilution attempts by the Board. At Large and ASO have wavered their way through the process. And are likely to go with a compromise. It is not clear what incentives NTIA is operating under and whether they have been supportive of the Board's intervention or not.

If I were to assess the position of South Africa and the Africa Group, they are waiting for the current multi-stakeholder process to collapse as now seems very likely. In the context of ICANN's botched dotAfrica process, African governments do not have any confidence in ICANN as a trustworthy or competent institution. They are much more persuaded by the intergovernmental logic of the ITU, where they are treated with respect. It is patently obvious to Africans involved in internet governance that the Board is effecting an anti-democratic manoevre to dilute the introduction of basic accountabilities. If they succeed they will have made a mockery of the bottom-up multi-stakeholder process. In any constitutional change, the task is to make a best effort to make the best decisions and not to try and use the uncertainty of the future to second-guess those decisions as the Board is attempting to do. I must say that I believe the Board is acting in bad faith and should be removed.

I call on the GAC and the GNSO to resist this attempt by the Board to railroad the CCWG-A into a false compromise. It is better that there be no consensus at Dublin than for GNSO and GAC to support a "solution" that will only reinforce African and international perception that ICANN is a dangerously flawed institution that should under no circumstances by entrusted with the IANA function.

Willie Currie An Advisor to CCWG-Accountability

On Thursday, October 8, 2015, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@vlaw-dc.com');>> wrote:

...

Thanks. Very clear and important statement.

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

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 10:39 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Dear colleagues,

Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship transition.

The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now online : https://t.co/EuolALNkgV

You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free to re-use) :

https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability+Updat...

As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play, and what remains to be done.

Best,

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

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

----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Hi, I found Willie's statement to be quite understandable and a welcome statement at this time. As a group we have been criticized by some outside our group for the rough and tumble of our ways of talking to each other. I have not escaped the criticism for my own writing at times. Perhaps it would be good to leave writing advice to English teachers. avri On 09-Oct-15 03:35, Nigel Roberts wrote:

Willie

This is wholly unreadable.

I literally have no idea whether I disagree or disagree since I didn't get past the second sentence of this stream-of-consciouness epistle before my brain disconnected involuntarily.

Might I venture to recommend the following aide-écriture?

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resources/writing/grammar/grammar-guides/par...

Regards

On 09/10/15 08:06, william currie wrote:

...

Thanks, Steve.

I want to clarify why I think the Board is acting in bad faith. The Board have a particular position as the highest decision-making body in the ICANN ecosystem and as such have the status of being the Accountable Actor - the "who" in the accountability chain: "who is accountable to whom, for what, by which standardss, and why?" When it comes to the process of developing a new accountability mechanism for ICANN, they have to negotiate a conflict of interest, namely, that they are the subject of the accountability process and therefore have an interest in the outcome that may be self-serving to their current position in the ICANN ecosystem. So when they acted to intervene in the multistakeholder process (whether in their minds they thought they were acting in good faith, i.e. making their views and counterproposal known) they could not override this conflict of interest and have compounded it. As I have observed the CCWG-A in action, I have been impressed by the delicate and respectful way that members of different SOs and ACs have conducted themselves in working through the complex options available, compromising where necessary to achieve a fragile consensus position in the the second draft proposal. This was the bottom up multistakeholder in action. What the Board did was to use their power to destroy this consensus. And in doing so it was not possible to distinguish whether they were acting in their own (conflicted) interest or for the public interest. One has to read their action against the playbook of the powerful, one of whose classic techniques is "divide and rule" and as far as I can see they have driven a wedge into the CCWG-A.

Ironically, if the Community Accountability Mechanism were currently in place, this would constitute grounds to activate the community power to spill the whole Board.

Willie

On Thursday, October 8, 2015, william currie <willie.currie@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I endorse the CENTR and European Commission statement and encourage the CCWG-A not to lose heart at the eleventh hour.

Only a form of membership in ICANN can replace the NTIA accountability function. And it seems that only the GAC and the GNSO have the consistency and coherence to prevent the dilution attempts by the Board. At Large and ASO have wavered their way through the process. And are likely to go with a compromise. It is not clear what incentives NTIA is operating under and whether they have been supportive of the Board's intervention or not.

If I were to assess the position of South Africa and the Africa Group, they are waiting for the current multi-stakeholder process to collapse as now seems very likely. In the context of ICANN's botched dotAfrica process, African governments do not have any confidence in ICANN as a trustworthy or competent institution. They are much more persuaded by the intergovernmental logic of the ITU, where they are treated with respect. It is patently obvious to Africans involved in internet governance that the Board is effecting an anti-democratic manoevre to dilute the introduction of basic accountabilities. If they succeed they will have made a mockery of the bottom-up multi-stakeholder process. In any constitutional change, the task is to make a best effort to make the best decisions and not to try and use the uncertainty of the future to second-guess those decisions as the Board is attempting to do. I must say that I believe the Board is acting in bad faith and should be removed.

I call on the GAC and the GNSO to resist this attempt by the Board to railroad the CCWG-A into a false compromise. It is better that there be no consensus at Dublin than for GNSO and GAC to support a "solution" that will only reinforce African and international perception that ICANN is a dangerously flawed institution that should under no circumstances by entrusted with the IANA function.

Willie Currie An Advisor to CCWG-Accountability

On Thursday, October 8, 2015, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@vlaw-dc.com');>> wrote:

...

Thanks. Very clear and important statement.

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

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 10:39 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Dear colleagues,

Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship transition.

The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now online : https://t.co/EuolALNkgV

You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free to re-use) :

https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability+Updat...

As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play, and what remains to be done.

Best,

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

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

----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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

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

Thank you for pointing out a "difficult truth" in this situation: the inherent conflict of interest of a board trying to stop the community from creating checks on the board's power, including using the position of board and all of the organization's resources to try to stop the creation of those checks. This conflict of interest cannot be ignored in our analysis and final decision making about the proposal. Robin On Oct 9, 2015, at 12:06 AM, william currie wrote:

Thanks, Steve.

I want to clarify why I think the Board is acting in bad faith. The Board have a particular position as the highest decision-making body in the ICANN ecosystem and as such have the status of being the Accountable Actor - the "who" in the accountability chain: "who is accountable to whom, for what, by which standardss, and why?" When it comes to the process of developing a new accountability mechanism for ICANN, they have to negotiate a conflict of interest, namely, that they are the subject of the accountability process and therefore have an interest in the outcome that may be self-serving to their current position in the ICANN ecosystem. So when they acted to intervene in the multistakeholder process (whether in their minds they thought they were acting in good faith, i.e. making their views and counterproposal known) they could not override this conflict of interest and have compounded it. As I have observed the CCWG-A in action, I have been impressed by the delicate and respectful way that members of different SOs and ACs have conducted themselves in working through the complex options available, compromising where necessary to achieve a fragile consensus position in the the second draft proposal. This was the bottom up multistakeholder in action. What the Board did was to use their power to destroy this consensus. And in doing so it was not possible to distinguish whether they were acting in their own (conflicted) interest or for the public interest. One has to read their action against the playbook of the powerful, one of whose classic techniques is "divide and rule" and as far as I can see they have driven a wedge into the CCWG-A.

Ironically, if the Community Accountability Mechanism were currently in place, this would constitute grounds to activate the community power to spill the whole Board.

Willie

On Thursday, October 8, 2015, william currie <willie.currie@gmail.com> wrote: I endorse the CENTR and European Commission statement and encourage the CCWG-A not to lose heart at the eleventh hour.

Only a form of membership in ICANN can replace the NTIA accountability function. And it seems that only the GAC and the GNSO have the consistency and coherence to prevent the dilution attempts by the Board. At Large and ASO have wavered their way through the process. And are likely to go with a compromise. It is not clear what incentives NTIA is operating under and whether they have been supportive of the Board's intervention or not.

If I were to assess the position of South Africa and the Africa Group, they are waiting for the current multi-stakeholder process to collapse as now seems very likely. In the context of ICANN's botched dotAfrica process, African governments do not have any confidence in ICANN as a trustworthy or competent institution. They are much more persuaded by the intergovernmental logic of the ITU, where they are treated with respect. It is patently obvious to Africans involved in internet governance that the Board is effecting an anti-democratic manoevre to dilute the introduction of basic accountabilities. If they succeed they will have made a mockery of the bottom-up multi-stakeholder process. In any constitutional change, the task is to make a best effort to make the best decisions and not to try and use the uncertainty of the future to second-guess those decisions as the Board is attempting to do. I must say that I believe the Board is acting in bad faith and should be removed.

I call on the GAC and the GNSO to resist this attempt by the Board to railroad the CCWG-A into a false compromise. It is better that there be no consensus at Dublin than for GNSO and GAC to support a "solution" that will only reinforce African and international perception that ICANN is a dangerously flawed institution that should under no circumstances by entrusted with the IANA function.

Willie Currie An Advisor to CCWG-Accountability

On Thursday, October 8, 2015, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote: Thanks. Very clear and important statement.

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

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 10:39 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Dear colleagues,

Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship transition.

The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now online : https://t.co/EuolALNkgV

You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free to re-use) : https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability+Updat...

As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play, and what remains to be done.

Best,

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

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

----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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

On 9 Oct 2015, at 16:58, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

May we logically and validly accept or reject a point rather than accusing people

I certainly agree Kavouss, and in the same the same tone of respect, would not characterise Robin's comment as an accusation. That the Board find themselves in a conflict is simply a fact, we are discussing what we should do to improve their accountability (or, more properly, the accountability of the organisation they control). They find themselves required to contribute to this process as stakeholders, as members of the community (and particularly respected ones at that) but also as the guardians under a fiduciary duty to defend the corporation in its current form - a form that we are proposing should be changed. This is the very definition of a conflict of interest. To note it casts no aspersions on the integrity or honour of the Board; they did not invite it or bring it about (except by allowing this CCWG process to be instituted, for which we should thank them) but it remains an inescapable fact of the circumstances of this discussion. And clearly it is a relevant fact as we consider their submission to our Public Comment. The Board are defending the corporation diligently, as their fiduciary duty requires them to do. This places them in opposition to a proposal that would change the corporation, and their duty is, for now, only and exclusively to defend that corporation. If the Single Member Model goes through the meaning of their fiduciary duty will change. They will still have to defend the corporation, but rather than for its own sake for the sake of the community the corporation serves, as embodied in the Member. I am sure that from that moment forth they will defend ICANN-with-Member every bit as diligently as they now defend the Memberless corporation. I do not think it besmirches the honour of Board members in any way to note this situation, or the conflict of interest it creates, nor do I think a proper respect and courtesy compels us to be blind to it. Malcolm.

Paul, what is in the CCWG report that affects ccTLDs, directly? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On 9 Oct 2015, at 03:08, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> wrote:

Thank you for this Mathieu,

Although this is an appropriately short and high-level document, it still conveys a very strong message. Not only is the work of the CWG and CCWG supported, but the process that was undertaken is justified and endorsed at some length.

It is interesting that this consensus has been reached as, in my observation, few ccTLD colleagues (with notable exceptions including yourself, Roelof, Jordan etc) have been very actively involved in the ongoing work. I can only imagine that the views of many Governments are also only in their nascent stage. This is certainly the case with mine.

So it is important that we fully understand the CENTR / HLIG position because it will carry considerable weight in the cc and GAC communities, where many may not have followed the work closely nor taken a definitive position. Is this core group of European stakeholders unconditionally endorsing the CWG, CCWG and their expected outputs? Or rather, is the position an endorsement of what has been done so far (and how it has been done), with a more open-ended position on what may happen over the coming months?

Regards,

Paul

Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs .au Domain Administration Limited T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389 E: paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> Twitter: @auda <http://twitter.com/auda> | Blog: www.auda.org.au/blog/ <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/>

auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator

Important Notice

This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 1:39 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Dear colleagues,

Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship transition.

The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now online : https://t.co/EuolALNkgV

You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free to re-use) : https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability+Upd ate

As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play, and what remains to be done.

Best,

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

_______________________________________________ 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

Hi all, A comment or two re Paul's note below; On Friday, 9 October 2015, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> wrote:

Eberhard,

I have long appreciated your vehement and unflinching commitment to the independence and autonomy of ccTLDs. However, as cc managers, we constantly face the challenge of balancing this independence against the need for engagement with the broader stakeholder community.

I believe that the CCWG is one process we need to engage in. As cc managers, are we happy for "the rest" of the community to arrive at a solution for the future stewardship of ICANN (which includes a place for the ccNSO) without contributing to that process?

In whatever membership model the community may arrive at, we ultimately get down to the unsavoury detail of votes and voting mechanisms. Are you happy with a 5 of 29 voting structure?

Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather than votes. Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto" a ccPDP? This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested any possibility of this. What is your novel interpretation of the ccwg's proposal that leads you to this curious conclusion? If you are going to assert the conclusion, I think it would be helpful to share the basis for it - mainly so that we can fix it so such a problem does not occur.

Irrespective of whether you answer "yes", "no" or "I don’t care", I believe that these issues are of sufficient significance to warrant our collective attention.

At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or Accountability processes that threatens the existing internal roles or responsibilities of ccTLD managers. However, I believe we need to be engaged in the broader ecosystem because these potential changes will have an effect on how each of us can influence our environment in the future.

Agree. Jordan

Perhaps I could turn your question back to you. I note that you have devoted considerable time, effort and intellectual capacity to the CCWG. Assuming that the CCWG report doesn’t affect ccTLDs directly, what is it about this process that has warranted your dedicated engagement?

Regards,

Paul

-----Original Message----- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el@lisse.na <javascript:;>] Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 3:20 PM To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <javascript:;>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:;>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Paul,

what is in the CCWG report that affects ccTLDs, directly?

el

-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

...

On 9 Oct 2015, at 03:08, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <javascript:;>> wrote:

Thank you for this Mathieu,

Although this is an appropriately short and high-level document, it still conveys a very strong message. Not only is the work of the CWG and CCWG supported, but the process that was undertaken is justified and endorsed at some length.

It is interesting that this consensus has been reached as, in my observation, few ccTLD colleagues (with notable exceptions including yourself, Roelof, Jordan etc) have been very actively involved in the ongoing work. I can only imagine that the views of many Governments are also only in their nascent stage. This is certainly the case with mine.

So it is important that we fully understand the CENTR / HLIG position because it will carry considerable weight in the cc and GAC communities, where many may not have followed the work closely nor taken a definitive position. Is this core group of European stakeholders unconditionally endorsing the CWG, CCWG and their expected outputs? Or rather, is the position an endorsement of what has been done so far (and how it has been done), with a more open-ended position on what may happen over the coming months?

Regards,

Paul

Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs .au Domain Administration Limited T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389 E: paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <javascript:;> <mailto: paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <javascript:;>> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> Twitter: @auda <http://twitter.com/auda> | Blog: www.auda.org.au/blog/ <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/>

auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator

Important Notice

This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:;> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 1:39 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:;> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Dear colleagues,

Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship transition.

The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now online : https://t.co/EuolALNkgV

You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free to re-use) : https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability +Upd ate

As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play, and what remains to be done.

Best,

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:;> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

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

---

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

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

Paul, I wrote ccTLD managers, not ccNSO Members. greetings, el el On 2015-10-09 09:42, Paul Szyndler wrote:

Thanks Jordan,

My questions were intentionally provocative in order to make clear my point about the need for ccTLD engagement.

After all, I was responding to Eberhard’s question directly.

I acknowledge that consensus models are under consideration. But the voting model has not been discounted.

As long as it is “on the table”, it is valid for me to use it as an example of an issue ccTLDs should be aware of.

With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question):

Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations.

This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.

However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community.

This is not an inconceivable scenario.

It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs.

This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).

The mechanisms of how it would be blocked, the distribution of voting rights and the likelihood of it occurring do not much matter in this case.

The point is that there is the /potential /for a ccNSO PDP to be vetoed by others.

The only alternative is to excise policy development processes from the currently-proposed accountability model, but would that defeat the purpose of the whole exercise?

This is just one example of the many strings that need to be brought together and addressed before we all agree on a new model for accountability for a post-NTIA ICANN.

Paul

*From:*Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] *Sent:* Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM *To:* Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> *Cc:* Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Hi all,

A comment or two re Paul's note below;

On Friday, 9 October 2015, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>> wrote:

Eberhard,

I have long appreciated your vehement and unflinching commitment to the independence and autonomy of ccTLDs. However, as cc managers, we constantly face the challenge of balancing this independence against the need for engagement with the broader stakeholder community.

I believe that the CCWG is one process we need to engage in. As cc managers, are we happy for "the rest" of the community to arrive at a solution for the future stewardship of ICANN (which includes a place for the ccNSO) without contributing to that process?

In whatever membership model the community may arrive at, we ultimately get down to the unsavoury detail of votes and voting mechanisms. Are you happy with a 5 of 29 voting structure?

Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather than votes.

Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto" a ccPDP?

This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested any possibility of this.

What is your novel interpretation of the ccwg's proposal that leads you to this curious conclusion? If you are going to assert the conclusion, I think it would be helpful to share the basis for it - mainly so that we can fix it so such a problem does not occur.

Irrespective of whether you answer "yes", "no" or "I don’t care", I believe that these issues are of sufficient significance to warrant our collective attention.

At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or Accountability processes that threatens the existing internal roles or responsibilities of ccTLD managers. However, I believe we need to be engaged in the broader ecosystem because these potential changes will have an effect on how each of us can influence our environment in the future.

Agree.

Jordan [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

Paul, .AU resolves whether Chris is on the Board, whether the ccNSO Council meets whether the GAC achieves Consensus on something, or whether ALAC spills the Board. In other words, the only ICANN issue of DIRECT concern to a ccTLD Manager is a hostile redelegation, everything else is "interesting" only. I have never advocated disengagement by the way, ICANN must just leave those ccTLD Managers alone who want it, especially those who registered the ccTLD(s) before ICANN, in particular those before RFC 1591. If you call that advocating for independence, sure. Protocols and Addresses advocate too, don't they? el On 2015-10-09 10:13, Paul Szyndler wrote:

Eberhard,

I appreciate the distinction you make.

But surely there must be at least one conceivable scenario where the interests of a ccTLD manager could be affected by the current proposals. Is there not a limit to the disengagement and independence you advocate?

I respectfully acknowledge that you may respond in the affirmative, but feel that the potentially seismic changes we are currently deliberating are likely to be of interest and consequence to anyone that can even spell "DNS".

Regards,

Paul

[...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

Important point to think through, thank you for raising it! We must be clear though: what motivation would there be for the entirety of the rest of the community to organise such a veto? Because these are not casual powers. Such a situation would surely only emerge if: A) the bylaws change was very resource intensive, and B) the ccnso had failed to engage the rest of the community in the logic of its case. In the case of both of these together, why should the rest of the community not be able to say 'go away and think again'? And in all other cases, the threshold to do a veto wouldn't be met. The alternative would be to exempt SO PDPs from these rules. But why should that be the case if resources were affected? Jordan On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as> wrote:

Greetings Paul,

With respect to my earlier post, you write:

[---START---]

With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question):

Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations.

This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.

However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community.

This is not an inconceivable scenario.

It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs.

This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).

[---END--]

Thank you Paul for acknowledging that under the current proposal it is possible for a ccNSO PDP, adopted by the Board, to be later overturned by the Community at large.

Can I ask the CCWG members how they might think this is an acceptable situation for the ccNSO, and can I also ask, what do the CCWG members might have in mind to remedy this? I see a difficult road ahead for ccNSO consensus for the CCWG proposal as it currently stands.

Regards,

Stephen Deerhake

AS Domain Registry

GDNS LLC

+1 212 334 3660

+1 212 656 1983

sdeerhake@nic.as <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sdeerhake@nic.as');>

sdeerhake@gdns.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sdeerhake@gdns.net');>

*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 *Paul Szyndler *Sent:* Friday, October 09, 2015 3:42 AM *To:* Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','directors@omadhina.net');>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Thanks Jordan,

My questions were intentionally provocative in order to make clear my point about the need for ccTLD engagement.

After all, I was responding to Eberhard’s question directly.

I acknowledge that consensus models are under consideration. But the voting model has not been discounted.

As long as it is “on the table”, it is valid for me to use it as an example of an issue ccTLDs should be aware of.

With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question):

Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations.

This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.

However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community.

This is not an inconceivable scenario.

It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs.

This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).

The mechanisms of how it would be blocked, the distribution of voting rights and the likelihood of it occurring do not much matter in this case.

The point is that there is the *potential *for a ccNSO PDP to be vetoed by others.

The only alternative is to excise policy development processes from the currently-proposed accountability model, but would that defeat the purpose of the whole exercise?

This is just one example of the many strings that need to be brought together and addressed before we all agree on a new model for accountability for a post-NTIA ICANN.

Paul

*From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>] *Sent:* Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM *To:* Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul.szyndler@auda.org.au');>> *Cc:* Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','el@lisse.na');>>; Lisse Eberhard < directors@omadhina.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','directors@omadhina.net');>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Hi all,

A comment or two re Paul's note below;

On Friday, 9 October 2015, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul.szyndler@auda.org.au');>> wrote:

Eberhard,

I have long appreciated your vehement and unflinching commitment to the independence and autonomy of ccTLDs. However, as cc managers, we constantly face the challenge of balancing this independence against the need for engagement with the broader stakeholder community.

I believe that the CCWG is one process we need to engage in. As cc managers, are we happy for "the rest" of the community to arrive at a solution for the future stewardship of ICANN (which includes a place for the ccNSO) without contributing to that process?

In whatever membership model the community may arrive at, we ultimately get down to the unsavoury detail of votes and voting mechanisms. Are you happy with a 5 of 29 voting structure?

Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather than votes.

Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto" a ccPDP?

This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested any possibility of this.

What is your novel interpretation of the ccwg's proposal that leads you to this curious conclusion? If you are going to assert the conclusion, I think it would be helpful to share the basis for it - mainly so that we can fix it so such a problem does not occur.

Irrespective of whether you answer "yes", "no" or "I don’t care", I believe that these issues are of sufficient significance to warrant our collective attention.

At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or Accountability processes that threatens the existing internal roles or responsibilities of ccTLD managers. However, I believe we need to be engaged in the broader ecosystem because these potential changes will have an effect on how each of us can influence our environment in the future.

Agree.

Jordan

Perhaps I could turn your question back to you. I note that you have devoted considerable time, effort and intellectual capacity to the CCWG. Assuming that the CCWG report doesn’t affect ccTLDs directly, what is it about this process that has warranted your dedicated engagement?

Regards,

Paul

-----Original Message----- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el@lisse.na] Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 3:20 PM To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','directors@omadhina.NET');>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Paul,

what is in the CCWG report that affects ccTLDs, directly?

el

-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

...

On 9 Oct 2015, at 03:08, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> wrote:

Thank you for this Mathieu,

Although this is an appropriately short and high-level document, it still conveys a very strong message. Not only is the work of the CWG and CCWG supported, but the process that was undertaken is justified and endorsed at some length.

It is interesting that this consensus has been reached as, in my observation, few ccTLD colleagues (with notable exceptions including yourself, Roelof, Jordan etc) have been very actively involved in the ongoing work. I can only imagine that the views of many Governments are also only in their nascent stage. This is certainly the case with mine.

So it is important that we fully understand the CENTR / HLIG position because it will carry considerable weight in the cc and GAC communities, where many may not have followed the work closely nor taken a definitive position. Is this core group of European stakeholders unconditionally endorsing the CWG, CCWG and their expected outputs? Or rather, is the position an endorsement of what has been done so far (and how it has been done), with a more open-ended position on what may happen over the coming months?

Regards,

Paul

Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs .au Domain Administration Limited T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389 E: paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> Twitter: @auda <http://twitter.com/auda> | Blog: www.auda.org.au/blog/ <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/>

auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator

Important Notice

This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 1:39 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Dear colleagues,

Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship transition.

The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now online : https://t.co/EuolALNkgV

You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free to re-use) : https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability +Upd ate

As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play, and what remains to be done.

Best,

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

_______________________________________________ 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

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

Jordan, I don't think the GNSO would like to be in a position where the ccNSO could muster additional SO/AC support to kill off a PDP that they worked diligently on and got Board buy in for. I think the ccNSO would not like this either. So to me it's not a "hypothetical" but rather, how does the CCWG proposal manage this, because at the end of the day, we need buy-in from the SO/AC community for the CCWG proposal to go forward, and if there is not an accommodation with respect to SO/Board approved PDPs standing as ICANN policy, not subject to being shot down by other SO/AC members, how do you realistically expect the SOs to provide consensus for the CCWG proposal put forward to the Board, and subsequently, NITA? Just asking… Best Regards, /Stephen From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 4:52 AM To: sdeerhake@nic.as Cc: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels Important point to think through, thank you for raising it! We must be clear though: what motivation would there be for the entirety of the rest of the community to organise such a veto? Because these are not casual powers. Such a situation would surely only emerge if: A) the bylaws change was very resource intensive, and B) the ccnso had failed to engage the rest of the community in the logic of its case. In the case of both of these together, why should the rest of the community not be able to say 'go away and think again'? And in all other cases, the threshold to do a veto wouldn't be met. The alternative would be to exempt SO PDPs from these rules. But why should that be the case if resources were affected? Jordan On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> > wrote: Greetings Paul, With respect to my earlier post, you write: [---START---] With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations. This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO. However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community. This is not an inconceivable scenario. It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs. This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point). [---END--] Thank you Paul for acknowledging that under the current proposal it is possible for a ccNSO PDP, adopted by the Board, to be later overturned by the Community at large. Can I ask the CCWG members how they might think this is an acceptable situation for the ccNSO, and can I also ask, what do the CCWG members might have in mind to remedy this? I see a difficult road ahead for ccNSO consensus for the CCWG proposal as it currently stands. Regards, Stephen Deerhake AS Domain Registry GDNS LLC +1 212 334 3660 +1 212 656 1983 sdeerhake@nic.as <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sdeerhake@nic.as');> sdeerhake@gdns.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sdeerhake@gdns.net');> 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 Paul Szyndler Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 3:42 AM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> > Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> ; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','directors@omadhina.net');> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels Thanks Jordan, My questions were intentionally provocative in order to make clear my point about the need for ccTLD engagement. After all, I was responding to Eberhard’s question directly. I acknowledge that consensus models are under consideration. But the voting model has not been discounted. As long as it is “on the table”, it is valid for me to use it as an example of an issue ccTLDs should be aware of. With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations. This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO. However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community. This is not an inconceivable scenario. It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs. This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point). The mechanisms of how it would be blocked, the distribution of voting rights and the likelihood of it occurring do not much matter in this case. The point is that there is the potential for a ccNSO PDP to be vetoed by others. The only alternative is to excise policy development processes from the currently-proposed accountability model, but would that defeat the purpose of the whole exercise? This is just one example of the many strings that need to be brought together and addressed before we all agree on a new model for accountability for a post-NTIA ICANN. Paul From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> ] Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul.szyndler@auda.org.au');> > Cc: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','el@lisse.na');> >; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','directors@omadhina.net');> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels Hi all, A comment or two re Paul's note below; On Friday, 9 October 2015, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul.szyndler@auda.org.au');> > wrote: Eberhard, I have long appreciated your vehement and unflinching commitment to the independence and autonomy of ccTLDs. However, as cc managers, we constantly face the challenge of balancing this independence against the need for engagement with the broader stakeholder community. I believe that the CCWG is one process we need to engage in. As cc managers, are we happy for "the rest" of the community to arrive at a solution for the future stewardship of ICANN (which includes a place for the ccNSO) without contributing to that process? In whatever membership model the community may arrive at, we ultimately get down to the unsavoury detail of votes and voting mechanisms. Are you happy with a 5 of 29 voting structure? Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather than votes. Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto" a ccPDP? This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested any possibility of this. What is your novel interpretation of the ccwg's proposal that leads you to this curious conclusion? If you are going to assert the conclusion, I think it would be helpful to share the basis for it - mainly so that we can fix it so such a problem does not occur. Irrespective of whether you answer "yes", "no" or "I don’t care", I believe that these issues are of sufficient significance to warrant our collective attention. At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or Accountability processes that threatens the existing internal roles or responsibilities of ccTLD managers. However, I believe we need to be engaged in the broader ecosystem because these potential changes will have an effect on how each of us can influence our environment in the future. Agree. Jordan Perhaps I could turn your question back to you. I note that you have devoted considerable time, effort and intellectual capacity to the CCWG. Assuming that the CCWG report doesn’t affect ccTLDs directly, what is it about this process that has warranted your dedicated engagement? Regards, Paul -----Original Message----- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el@lisse.na] Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 3:20 PM To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> > Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> ; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','directors@omadhina.NET');> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels Paul, what is in the CCWG report that affects ccTLDs, directly? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On 9 Oct 2015, at 03:08, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> > wrote:

Thank you for this Mathieu,

Although this is an appropriately short and high-level document, it still conveys a very strong message. Not only is the work of the CWG and CCWG supported, but the process that was undertaken is justified and endorsed at some length.

It is interesting that this consensus has been reached as, in my observation, few ccTLD colleagues (with notable exceptions including yourself, Roelof, Jordan etc) have been very actively involved in the ongoing work. I can only imagine that the views of many Governments are also only in their nascent stage. This is certainly the case with mine.

So it is important that we fully understand the CENTR / HLIG position because it will carry considerable weight in the cc and GAC communities, where many may not have followed the work closely nor taken a definitive position. Is this core group of European stakeholders unconditionally endorsing the CWG, CCWG and their expected outputs? Or rather, is the position an endorsement of what has been done so far (and how it has been done), with a more open-ended position on what may happen over the coming months?

Regards,

Paul

Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs .au Domain Administration Limited T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389 E: paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au> <http://www.auda.org.au/> Twitter: @auda <http://twitter.com/auda> | Blog: www.auda.org.au/blog/ <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/> <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/>

auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator

Important Notice

This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 1:39 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Dear colleagues,

Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship transition.

The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now online : https://t.co/EuolALNkgV

You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free to re-use) : https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability +Upd ate

As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play, and what remains to be done.

Best,

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

_______________________________________________ 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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

I'd like to repeat my question. We have to think through the specifics and work out what we need to worry about, and what isn't a worry. What say you? Do you think that the ccNSO should be able to run a PDP that demands, say, ICANN give a lot of money to ccTLD projects, and not have that subject to question? I ask because getting specific about cases is the only way to rule things in or out, and to unlock any possibility of arriving at consensus. If we as a group of ccTLDs can't come to consensus, then there isn't going to be an accountability proposal and isn't going to be a transition. cheers Jordan best Jordan On 9 October 2015 at 22:52, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

Hi Stephen, all:

I've been very clear, most lately in a blog post today, that these issues need to be ironed out to consensus before a proposal goes anywhere.

But that means answering tough questions - and the biggest tough question here is whether or not PDP processes needs some quarantine around them.

For instance, I would support a restriction on the bylaws changes veto which said:

"Where a bylaws change arises from an SO PDP, has no impact on ICANN generally, and the budget impact is less than $x per year, the bylaws veto isn't available."

I support that because the intent of the accountability powers is *not* to interfere in PDPs. It is to exercise community control over ICANN and its overall operations.

A PDP with limited financial impact could be usefully excluded to make that clear.

But also, to be clear, aPDP by any SO that demanded a huge call on ICANN resources should in principle be able to be vetoed.

In the end, our interest as cctld managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us and our operations. That's fair. What isn't fair is creating some fantastical right to claim on others' resources.

What say you?

Cheers Jordan

On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as> wrote:

...

Jordan,

I don't think the GNSO would like to be in a position where the ccNSO could muster additional SO/AC support to kill off a PDP that they worked diligently on and got Board buy in for.

I think the ccNSO would not like this either.

So to me it's not a "hypothetical" but rather, how does the CCWG proposal manage this, because at the end of the day, we need buy-in from the SO/AC community for the CCWG proposal to go forward, and if there is not an accommodation with respect to SO/Board approved PDPs standing as ICANN policy, not subject to being shot down by other SO/AC members, how do you realistically expect the SOs to provide consensus for the CCWG proposal put forward to the Board, and subsequently, NITA?

Just asking…

Best Regards,

/Stephen

*From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] *Sent:* Friday, October 09, 2015 4:52 AM *To:* sdeerhake@nic.as *Cc:* Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Lisse Eberhard < directors@omadhina.net> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Important point to think through, thank you for raising it!

We must be clear though: what motivation would there be for the entirety of the rest of the community to organise such a veto?

Because these are not casual powers.

Such a situation would surely only emerge if:

A) the bylaws change was very resource intensive, and

B) the ccnso had failed to engage the rest of the community in the logic of its case.

In the case of both of these together, why should the rest of the community not be able to say 'go away and think again'?

And in all other cases, the threshold to do a veto wouldn't be met.

The alternative would be to exempt SO PDPs from these rules. But why should that be the case if resources were affected?

Jordan

On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as> wrote:

Greetings Paul,

With respect to my earlier post, you write:

[---START---]

With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question):

Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations.

This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.

However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community.

This is not an inconceivable scenario.

It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs.

This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).

[---END--]

Thank you Paul for acknowledging that under the current proposal it is possible for a ccNSO PDP, adopted by the Board, to be later overturned by the Community at large.

Can I ask the CCWG members how they might think this is an acceptable situation for the ccNSO, and can I also ask, what do the CCWG members might have in mind to remedy this? I see a difficult road ahead for ccNSO consensus for the CCWG proposal as it currently stands.

Regards,

Stephen Deerhake

AS Domain Registry

GDNS LLC

+1 212 334 3660

+1 212 656 1983

sdeerhake@nic.as

sdeerhake@gdns.net

*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Szyndler *Sent:* Friday, October 09, 2015 3:42 AM *To:* Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Lisse Eberhard < directors@omadhina.net> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Thanks Jordan,

My questions were intentionally provocative in order to make clear my point about the need for ccTLD engagement.

After all, I was responding to Eberhard’s question directly.

I acknowledge that consensus models are under consideration. But the voting model has not been discounted.

As long as it is “on the table”, it is valid for me to use it as an example of an issue ccTLDs should be aware of.

With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question):

Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations.

This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.

However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community.

This is not an inconceivable scenario.

It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs.

This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).

The mechanisms of how it would be blocked, the distribution of voting rights and the likelihood of it occurring do not much matter in this case.

The point is that there is the *potential *for a ccNSO PDP to be vetoed by others.

The only alternative is to excise policy development processes from the currently-proposed accountability model, but would that defeat the purpose of the whole exercise?

This is just one example of the many strings that need to be brought together and addressed before we all agree on a new model for accountability for a post-NTIA ICANN.

Paul

*From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] *Sent:* Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM *To:* Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> *Cc:* Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>; Lisse Eberhard < directors@omadhina.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Hi all,

A comment or two re Paul's note below;

On Friday, 9 October 2015, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> wrote:

Eberhard,

I have long appreciated your vehement and unflinching commitment to the independence and autonomy of ccTLDs. However, as cc managers, we constantly face the challenge of balancing this independence against the need for engagement with the broader stakeholder community.

I believe that the CCWG is one process we need to engage in. As cc managers, are we happy for "the rest" of the community to arrive at a solution for the future stewardship of ICANN (which includes a place for the ccNSO) without contributing to that process?

In whatever membership model the community may arrive at, we ultimately get down to the unsavoury detail of votes and voting mechanisms. Are you happy with a 5 of 29 voting structure?

Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather than votes.

Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto" a ccPDP?

This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested any possibility of this.

What is your novel interpretation of the ccwg's proposal that leads you to this curious conclusion? If you are going to assert the conclusion, I think it would be helpful to share the basis for it - mainly so that we can fix it so such a problem does not occur.

Irrespective of whether you answer "yes", "no" or "I don’t care", I believe that these issues are of sufficient significance to warrant our collective attention.

At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or Accountability processes that threatens the existing internal roles or responsibilities of ccTLD managers. However, I believe we need to be engaged in the broader ecosystem because these potential changes will have an effect on how each of us can influence our environment in the future.

Agree.

Jordan

Perhaps I could turn your question back to you. I note that you have devoted considerable time, effort and intellectual capacity to the CCWG. Assuming that the CCWG report doesn’t affect ccTLDs directly, what is it about this process that has warranted your dedicated engagement?

Regards,

Paul

-----Original Message----- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el@lisse.na] Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 3:20 PM To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Paul,

what is in the CCWG report that affects ccTLDs, directly?

el

-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

...

On 9 Oct 2015, at 03:08, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> wrote:

Thank you for this Mathieu,

Although this is an appropriately short and high-level document, it still conveys a very strong message. Not only is the work of the CWG and CCWG supported, but the process that was undertaken is justified and endorsed at some length.

It is interesting that this consensus has been reached as, in my observation, few ccTLD colleagues (with notable exceptions including yourself, Roelof, Jordan etc) have been very actively involved in the ongoing work. I can only imagine that the views of many Governments are also only in their nascent stage. This is certainly the case with mine.

So it is important that we fully understand the CENTR / HLIG position because it will carry considerable weight in the cc and GAC communities, where many may not have followed the work closely nor taken a definitive position. Is this core group of European stakeholders unconditionally endorsing the CWG, CCWG and their expected outputs? Or rather, is the position an endorsement of what has been done so far (and how it has been done), with a more open-ended position on what may happen over the coming months?

Regards,

Paul

Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs .au Domain Administration Limited T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389 E: paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> Twitter: @auda <http://twitter.com/auda> | Blog: www.auda.org.au/blog/ <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/>

auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator

Important Notice

This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 1:39 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Dear colleagues,

Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship transition.

The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now online : https://t.co/EuolALNkgV

You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free to re-use) : https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability +Upd ate

As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play, and what remains to be done.

Best,

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

_______________________________________________ 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

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

-- 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 *

What say you? Do you think that the ccNSO should be able to run a PDP that demands, say, ICANN give a lot of money to ccTLD projects, and not have that subject to question? Thanks for re-stating your question Jordan. I have pasted from a number of your previous messages. Yes, I think that the ccNSO should be able to run and conclude a PDP that “demands” whatever the cc community requires of ICANN. The same goes for the GNSO. My main issue is that I don’t agree with your categorisation that a PDP it is not “subject to question”. The current process for policy development is a sound model. It was a hard-won, negotiated model that necessarily involves input from the rest of the community. A ccPDP includes commentary periods that allow the GNSO, At Large, governments and everyone else to contribute. It is also subject to clearance via the ICANN Board. We have a mechanism / system / process in place and the current Accountability work should not subvert it. It sounds awfully like a solution in search of a problem. "Where a bylaws change arises from an SO PDP, has no impact on ICANN generally, and the budget impact is less than $x per year, the bylaws veto isn't available." This is very dangerous territory. The question of whether an SO PDP “has no impact on ICANN generally” is subjective and open to all sorts of debate. Attempting to define what figure “$x per year” is even trickier. It will open up all sorts of arguments regarding community contribution, budget etc. Not a space the CCWG needs to get in to. Even with the very best intentions, if we are not careful, we risk undermining everything we have achieved so far as a community In the end, our interest as cctld managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us and our operations. That's fair. What isn't fair is creating some fantastical right to claim on others' resources. I don’t agree that our interest as cc managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us. That is a very protectionist position that I had hope we have moved beyond. Our interest is developing the most stable, secure and reliable model that we can all support, and bringing in to question the mechanisms we currently have in place is counter-productive (see my comments above) If we as a group of ccTLDs can't come to consensus, then there isn't going to be an accountability proposal and isn't going to be a transition. At the risk of stating the obvious, at this important juncture, we need to steer clear of such dramatic categorisations. If we cant come to consensus, we all need to look critically at the options before us, negotiate further, and try to arrive at a model that works Regards, Paul Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs .au Domain Administration Limited T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389 E: <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> paul.szyndler@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> Twitter: <http://twitter.com/auda> @auda | Blog: www.auda.org.au/blog/ <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Saturday, 10 October 2015 11:53 AM To: sdeerhake@nic.as Cc: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels I'd like to repeat my question. We have to think through the specifics and work out what we need to worry about, and what isn't a worry. What say you? Do you think that the ccNSO should be able to run a PDP that demands, say, ICANN give a lot of money to ccTLD projects, and not have that subject to question? I ask because getting specific about cases is the only way to rule things in or out, and to unlock any possibility of arriving at consensus. If we as a group of ccTLDs can't come to consensus, then there isn't going to be an accountability proposal and isn't going to be a transition. cheers Jordan best Jordan On 9 October 2015 at 22:52, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > wrote: Hi Stephen, all: I've been very clear, most lately in a blog post today, that these issues need to be ironed out to consensus before a proposal goes anywhere. But that means answering tough questions - and the biggest tough question here is whether or not PDP processes needs some quarantine around them. For instance, I would support a restriction on the bylaws changes veto which said: "Where a bylaws change arises from an SO PDP, has no impact on ICANN generally, and the budget impact is less than $x per year, the bylaws veto isn't available." I support that because the intent of the accountability powers is *not* to interfere in PDPs. It is to exercise community control over ICANN and its overall operations. A PDP with limited financial impact could be usefully excluded to make that clear. But also, to be clear, aPDP by any SO that demanded a huge call on ICANN resources should in principle be able to be vetoed. In the end, our interest as cctld managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us and our operations. That's fair. What isn't fair is creating some fantastical right to claim on others' resources. What say you? Cheers Jordan On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> > wrote: Jordan, I don't think the GNSO would like to be in a position where the ccNSO could muster additional SO/AC support to kill off a PDP that they worked diligently on and got Board buy in for. I think the ccNSO would not like this either. So to me it's not a "hypothetical" but rather, how does the CCWG proposal manage this, because at the end of the day, we need buy-in from the SO/AC community for the CCWG proposal to go forward, and if there is not an accommodation with respect to SO/Board approved PDPs standing as ICANN policy, not subject to being shot down by other SO/AC members, how do you realistically expect the SOs to provide consensus for the CCWG proposal put forward to the Board, and subsequently, NITA? Just asking… Best Regards, /Stephen From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 4:52 AM To: sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> Cc: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> ; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels Important point to think through, thank you for raising it! We must be clear though: what motivation would there be for the entirety of the rest of the community to organise such a veto? Because these are not casual powers. Such a situation would surely only emerge if: A) the bylaws change was very resource intensive, and B) the ccnso had failed to engage the rest of the community in the logic of its case. In the case of both of these together, why should the rest of the community not be able to say 'go away and think again'? And in all other cases, the threshold to do a veto wouldn't be met. The alternative would be to exempt SO PDPs from these rules. But why should that be the case if resources were affected? Jordan On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> > wrote: Greetings Paul, With respect to my earlier post, you write: [---START---] With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations. This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO. However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community. This is not an inconceivable scenario. It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs. This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point). [---END--] Thank you Paul for acknowledging that under the current proposal it is possible for a ccNSO PDP, adopted by the Board, to be later overturned by the Community at large. Can I ask the CCWG members how they might think this is an acceptable situation for the ccNSO, and can I also ask, what do the CCWG members might have in mind to remedy this? I see a difficult road ahead for ccNSO consensus for the CCWG proposal as it currently stands. Regards, Stephen Deerhake AS Domain Registry GDNS LLC +1 212 334 3660 <tel:%2B1%20212%20334%203660> +1 212 656 1983 <tel:%2B1%20212%20656%201983> sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> sdeerhake@gdns.net <mailto:sdeerhake@gdns.net> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Szyndler Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 3:42 AM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> ; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels Thanks Jordan, My questions were intentionally provocative in order to make clear my point about the need for ccTLD engagement. After all, I was responding to Eberhard’s question directly. I acknowledge that consensus models are under consideration. But the voting model has not been discounted. As long as it is “on the table”, it is valid for me to use it as an example of an issue ccTLDs should be aware of. With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations. This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO. However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community. This is not an inconceivable scenario. It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs. This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point). The mechanisms of how it would be blocked, the distribution of voting rights and the likelihood of it occurring do not much matter in this case. The point is that there is the potential for a ccNSO PDP to be vetoed by others. The only alternative is to excise policy development processes from the currently-proposed accountability model, but would that defeat the purpose of the whole exercise? This is just one example of the many strings that need to be brought together and addressed before we all agree on a new model for accountability for a post-NTIA ICANN. Paul From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> > Cc: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na> >; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels Hi all, A comment or two re Paul's note below; On Friday, 9 October 2015, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> > wrote: Eberhard, I have long appreciated your vehement and unflinching commitment to the independence and autonomy of ccTLDs. However, as cc managers, we constantly face the challenge of balancing this independence against the need for engagement with the broader stakeholder community. I believe that the CCWG is one process we need to engage in. As cc managers, are we happy for "the rest" of the community to arrive at a solution for the future stewardship of ICANN (which includes a place for the ccNSO) without contributing to that process? In whatever membership model the community may arrive at, we ultimately get down to the unsavoury detail of votes and voting mechanisms. Are you happy with a 5 of 29 voting structure? Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather than votes. Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto" a ccPDP? This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested any possibility of this. What is your novel interpretation of the ccwg's proposal that leads you to this curious conclusion? If you are going to assert the conclusion, I think it would be helpful to share the basis for it - mainly so that we can fix it so such a problem does not occur. Irrespective of whether you answer "yes", "no" or "I don’t care", I believe that these issues are of sufficient significance to warrant our collective attention. At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or Accountability processes that threatens the existing internal roles or responsibilities of ccTLD managers. However, I believe we need to be engaged in the broader ecosystem because these potential changes will have an effect on how each of us can influence our environment in the future. Agree. Jordan Perhaps I could turn your question back to you. I note that you have devoted considerable time, effort and intellectual capacity to the CCWG. Assuming that the CCWG report doesn’t affect ccTLDs directly, what is it about this process that has warranted your dedicated engagement? Regards, Paul -----Original Message----- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el@lisse.na] Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 3:20 PM To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> > Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> ; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET <mailto:directors@omadhina.NET> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels Paul, what is in the CCWG report that affects ccTLDs, directly? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On 9 Oct 2015, at 03:08, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> > wrote:

Thank you for this Mathieu,

Although this is an appropriately short and high-level document, it still conveys a very strong message. Not only is the work of the CWG and CCWG supported, but the process that was undertaken is justified and endorsed at some length.

It is interesting that this consensus has been reached as, in my observation, few ccTLD colleagues (with notable exceptions including yourself, Roelof, Jordan etc) have been very actively involved in the ongoing work. I can only imagine that the views of many Governments are also only in their nascent stage. This is certainly the case with mine.

So it is important that we fully understand the CENTR / HLIG position because it will carry considerable weight in the cc and GAC communities, where many may not have followed the work closely nor taken a definitive position. Is this core group of European stakeholders unconditionally endorsing the CWG, CCWG and their expected outputs? Or rather, is the position an endorsement of what has been done so far (and how it has been done), with a more open-ended position on what may happen over the coming months?

Regards,

Paul

Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs .au Domain Administration Limited T: +61 2 6292 5034 <tel:%2B61%202%206292%205034> | F: +61 3 8341 4112 <tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112> | M: +61 402 250 389 <tel:%2B61%20402%20250%20389> E: paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au> <http://www.auda.org.au/> Twitter: @auda <http://twitter.com/auda> | Blog: www.auda.org.au/blog/ <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/> <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/>

auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator

Important Notice

This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 1:39 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Dear colleagues,

Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship transition.

The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now online : https://t.co/EuolALNkgV

You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free to re-use) : https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability +Upd ate

As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play, and what remains to be done.

Best,

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

_______________________________________________ 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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz> A better world through a better Internet

Dear Stephen, Are you arguing that ccNSO ought to have a blanket and unqualified right to initiate and give effect to a Bylaws change, without any reference to the rest of the community? Would you accept a similar power to be given to GNSO or ASO? Bylaws changes have the potential to create impact on the whole community, not just one SO. That seems justification for giving the rest of the community the opportunity to object. The mere opportunity to object does not mean it will actually be vetoed of course, just that it is possible if the community as a whole believes it justified. I can't imagine any circumstances in which the community would exercise such a veto unless the ccNSO grossly overreached itself, but then I'm not clear why a ccNSO PDP would require a bylaws change at all. Perhaps, if you could clarify what in ccNSO consensus policy might cause the need for a bylaws change, and what the nature of such a bylaws change might be, we could investigate the feasibility of a carve-out (just as we have given a carve-out to explicitly immunise ccTLD delegation/re-delegation from challenge under the IRP). Malcolm. On 09/10/2015 09:33, Stephen Deerhake wrote:

Greetings Paul,

With respect to my earlier post, you write:

[---START---]

With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question):

Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations.

This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.

However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community.

This is not an inconceivable scenario.

It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs.

This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).

[---END--]

Thank you Paul for acknowledging that under the current proposal it is possible for a ccNSO PDP, adopted by the Board, to be later overturned by the Community at large.

Can I ask the CCWG members how they might think this is an acceptable situation for the ccNSO, and can I also ask, what do the CCWG members might have in mind to remedy this? I see a difficult road ahead for ccNSO consensus for the CCWG proposal as it currently stands.

Regards,

Stephen Deerhake

AS Domain Registry

GDNS LLC

+1 212 334 3660

+1 212 656 1983

sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>

sdeerhake@gdns.net <mailto:sdeerhake@gdns.net>

*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Szyndler *Sent:* Friday, October 09, 2015 3:42 AM *To:* Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Thanks Jordan,

My questions were intentionally provocative in order to make clear my point about the need for ccTLD engagement.

After all, I was responding to Eberhard’s question directly.

I acknowledge that consensus models are under consideration. But the voting model has not been discounted.

As long as it is “on the table”, it is valid for me to use it as an example of an issue ccTLDs should be aware of.

With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question):

Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations.

This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.

However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community.

This is not an inconceivable scenario.

It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs.

This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).

The mechanisms of how it would be blocked, the distribution of voting rights and the likelihood of it occurring do not much matter in this case.

The point is that there is the /potential /for a ccNSO PDP to be vetoed by others.

The only alternative is to excise policy development processes from the currently-proposed accountability model, but would that defeat the purpose of the whole exercise?

This is just one example of the many strings that need to be brought together and addressed before we all agree on a new model for accountability for a post-NTIA ICANN.

Paul

*From:*Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] *Sent:* Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM *To:* Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>> *Cc:* Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Hi all,

A comment or two re Paul's note below;

On Friday, 9 October 2015, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>> wrote:

Eberhard,

I have long appreciated your vehement and unflinching commitment to the independence and autonomy of ccTLDs. However, as cc managers, we constantly face the challenge of balancing this independence against the need for engagement with the broader stakeholder community.

I believe that the CCWG is one process we need to engage in. As cc managers, are we happy for "the rest" of the community to arrive at a solution for the future stewardship of ICANN (which includes a place for the ccNSO) without contributing to that process?

In whatever membership model the community may arrive at, we ultimately get down to the unsavoury detail of votes and voting mechanisms. Are you happy with a 5 of 29 voting structure?

Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather than votes.

Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto" a ccPDP?

This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested any possibility of this.

What is your novel interpretation of the ccwg's proposal that leads you to this curious conclusion? If you are going to assert the conclusion, I think it would be helpful to share the basis for it - mainly so that we can fix it so such a problem does not occur.

Irrespective of whether you answer "yes", "no" or "I don’t care", I believe that these issues are of sufficient significance to warrant our collective attention.

At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or Accountability processes that threatens the existing internal roles or responsibilities of ccTLD managers. However, I believe we need to be engaged in the broader ecosystem because these potential changes will have an effect on how each of us can influence our environment in the future.

Agree.

Jordan

Perhaps I could turn your question back to you. I note that you have devoted considerable time, effort and intellectual capacity to the CCWG. Assuming that the CCWG report doesn’t affect ccTLDs directly, what is it about this process that has warranted your dedicated engagement?

Regards,

Paul

-----Original Message----- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el@lisse.na <javascript:;>] Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 3:20 PM To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <javascript:;>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:;>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET <mailto:directors@omadhina.NET>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Paul,

what is in the CCWG report that affects ccTLDs, directly?

el

-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On 9 Oct 2015, at 03:08, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Thank you for this Mathieu, > > Although this is an appropriately short and high-level document, it > still conveys a very strong message. > Not only is the work of the CWG and CCWG supported, but the process > that was undertaken is justified and endorsed at some length. > > It is interesting that this consensus has been reached as, in my > observation, few ccTLD colleagues (with notable exceptions including > yourself, Roelof, Jordan etc) have been very actively involved in the > ongoing work. > I can only imagine that the views of many Governments are also only in > their nascent stage. This is certainly the case with mine. > > So it is important that we fully understand the CENTR / HLIG position > because it will carry considerable weight in the cc and GAC > communities, where many may not have followed the work closely nor > taken a definitive position. > Is this core group of European stakeholders unconditionally endorsing > the CWG, CCWG and their expected outputs? > Or rather, is the position an endorsement of what has been done so far > (and how it has been done), with a more open-ended position on what > may happen over the coming months? > > Regards, > > Paul > > Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs > .au Domain Administration Limited > T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389 > E: paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <javascript:;> <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <javascript:;>> | W: > www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au> <http://www.auda.org.au/> > Twitter: @auda <http://twitter.com/auda> | Blog: > www.auda.org.au/blog/ <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/> <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/> > > > auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator > > Important Notice > > This email may contain information which is confidential and/or > subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named > addressee only. > If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or > copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by > mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:;> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of > Mathieu Weill > Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 1:39 AM > To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:;> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels > > Dear colleagues, > > Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am > attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint > session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made > of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship > transition. > > The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now > online : > https://t.co/EuolALNkgV > > You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free > to > re-use) : > https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability > +Upd > ate > > > As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we > prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play, > and what remains to be done. > > Best, > > -- > ***************************** > Mathieu WEILL > AFNIC - directeur général > Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 > mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:;> > Twitter : @mathieuweill > ***************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:;> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:;> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:;> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

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

-- 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

Paul, At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or Accountability processes that improves the situation of ccTLD managers. Not that I am unaware of your technique of deflection, I was appointed by the ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability. I accepted the appointment. greetings, el On 2015-10-09 08:43, Paul Szyndler wrote:

Eberhard,

I have long appreciated your vehement and unflinching commitment to the independence and autonomy of ccTLDs. However, as cc managers, we constantly face the challenge of balancing this independence against the need for engagement with the broader stakeholder community.

I believe that the CCWG is one process we need to engage in. As cc managers, are we happy for "the rest" of the community to arrive at a solution for the future stewardship of ICANN (which includes a place for the ccNSO) without contributing to that process?

In whatever membership model the community may arrive at, we ultimately get down to the unsavoury detail of votes and voting mechanisms. Are you happy with a 5 of 29 voting structure? Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto" a ccPDP? Irrespective of whether you answer "yes", "no" or "I don’t care", I believe that these issues are of sufficient significance to warrant our collective attention.

At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or Accountability processes that threatens the existing internal roles or responsibilities of ccTLD managers. However, I believe we need to be engaged in the broader ecosystem because these potential changes will have an effect on how each of us can influence our environment in the future.

Perhaps I could turn your question back to you. I note that you have devoted considerable time, effort and intellectual capacity to the CCWG. Assuming that the CCWG report doesn’t affect ccTLDs directly, what is it about this process that has warranted your dedicated engagement?

Regards,

Paul [...]

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

+2 On 09/10/15 09:09, Mathieu Weill wrote:

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your appreciation of this statement. I don't think we should spend too much time on interpretation or speculation regarding statements motives in this group. Statements are statements, they are useful to be aware of, and when we have questions of clarifications, they should be directed to the authors of the statement rather than discussed on this list.

In light of your observation that few ccTLD colleagues are involved in the transition process, I feel compelled to react and acknowledge the significant contributions from many more of our ccTLD colleagues, especially Lise Fuhr from .fr, Martin Boyle from .uk, Staffan Johnson from .se, Nigel Roberts from .jj & .gg, Giovanni Seppia from .eu (& CENTR Chair) to name only those who were in Brussels.

I can't speak for Governments but will observe that the submission of a consensus view from the GAC on our public comment is a significant step that demonstrates the high level of engagement on their side as well. We are deeply grateful to the GAC appointed members and participants for their important work in that regard.

Best regards, Mathieu

Le 09/10/2015 03:08, Paul Szyndler a écrit :

...

Thank you for this Mathieu,

Although this is an appropriately short and high-level document, it still conveys a very strong message. Not only is the work of the CWG and CCWG supported, but the process that was undertaken is justified and endorsed at some length.

It is interesting that this consensus has been reached as, in my observation, few ccTLD colleagues (with notable exceptions including yourself, Roelof, Jordan etc) have been very actively involved in the ongoing work. I can only imagine that the views of many Governments are also only in their nascent stage. This is certainly the case with mine.

So it is important that we fully understand the CENTR / HLIG position because it will carry considerable weight in the cc and GAC communities, where many may not have followed the work closely nor taken a definitive position. Is this core group of European stakeholders unconditionally endorsing the CWG, CCWG and their expected outputs? Or rather, is the position an endorsement of what has been done so far (and how it has been done), with a more open-ended position on what may happen over the coming months?

Regards,

Paul

Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs .au Domain Administration Limited T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389 E: paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> Twitter: @auda <http://twitter.com/auda> | Blog: www.auda.org.au/blog/ <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/>

auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator

Important Notice

This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 1:39 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Dear colleagues,

Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship transition.

The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now online : https://t.co/EuolALNkgV

You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free to re-use) : https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability+Upd

ate

As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play, and what remains to be done.

Best,

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

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