Thanks Wolfgang. Much appreciated. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 3:08 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: AW: [CWG-Stewardship] Op-Ed from The Hill Thanks Chuck, the Op-Ed from The Hill is is an interestig proposal we discussed with Rolf Weber from the University of Zurich (one of the co-authors of the study)since years. It is driven by the idea to move towards a "two chamber system" where the "checks and balances" are inside the system so that various bodies control each other. This includes a further decentralization of the decision making capacity among various ICANN bodies. Remember that we made such a proposal in behalf of the GNSO council years ago. The beauty of the proposal is that you avoid the creation of another NewCo with all the unavoidable problems (new bylaws, new incorporation, jurisdiction, new members, role of governments, accountability, legitimacy etc.). Remember that ICANN was struggling the first years with the clarification of what a "member" is. I was involved in the "Membership Advisory Committee" (MAC) which proposed the At Large elections. The election (based on registered members with an E-Mail address) were not repeated. Also the proposal by the Bildt Committee (to have individual members with a Domain Name)was not implemented. The issue became part of the ICANN Reform which created the NomCom and made some other structural changes (icluding the abolishment of the PSO and separation of the DNSO into the CNSO and the GNSO). The Membership question was postponed and not further discussed. The IANA transition option triggers now a process where the community should take a more comprehensive view and make ICANN fit for the next ten years. In our German Meeting last week we differentiated between "small" and "big" accountability (small more related directly to the IANNA functions). And as we know the two processes are interrelated. However I propose a "step by step" process probably based on an agreed roadmap. This is my very personal opinion and I am writing this s in my individual capacity. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Do 18.12.2014 01:46 An: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Betreff: [CWG-Stewardship] Op-Ed from The Hill Here is a link to an Op-Ed that some may find interesting. It probably more directly relates to the Accountability CCWG but accountability mechanisms like this were put in place overall in ICANN, it could impact our proposed solution. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-pla... Chuck "This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately."