My edits and comments are attached. Greg *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *666 Third Avenue **ï** New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> * *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> wrote:

concur with Milton and Chuck on this one.

Robert

On Dec 7, 2014, at 9:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

Yes, I agree. But the principle as formulated implies that every entity involved in management must be MS, which I think is excessive.

*From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com <cgomes@verisign.com>] *Sent:* Sunday, December 7, 2014 5:59 PM *To:* Milton L Mueller; Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

Milton,

It is ineffective to literally manage in a multistakeholder way but it is possible to respect and follow multistakeholder developed policies in managing.

Chuck

*From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu <mueller@syr.edu>] *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 5:55 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

I dissent from principle g by the way. I could see why oversight of IANA might be multi-stakeholder, but management need not be.

-MM

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Sunday, December 7, 2014 4:18 PM *To:* Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

I made a couple more edits in item g at the end of the document.

Chuck

*From:* Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 4:12 PM *To:* 'Lise Fuhr'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

I made a couple edits and suggested a third in my next to last comment. I also identified in my comments some possible action items that the CWG may need to perform as soon as possible assuming that the principles are adopted by the CWG.

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lise Fuhr *Sent:* Friday, December 05, 2014 8:34 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

Dear All,

We hereby send you a redline and a clean version of the Principles document. For the unresolved part, staff has done a table. We recommend that we focus on the outstanding issues, that are identified in the comments. We welcome any inputs on either the comments or on the redline draft. The document will be finalized on the next call.

Best regards, Martin and Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Chuck, My answers are inline below. Greg On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

Greg,

I agree with your second comment, [GS4]: “In a sense, the same thing could be said for each Principle, since we begin by stating that the proposal(s) can be tested against the principles and criteria before being sent to the ICG.” But I identified several principles that I think require a more extensive effort.

GSS; Fair enough. These are probably those that require particular focus.

Comment [GS23] says: “I don’t think this is technically true. There is nothing in the IANA contract that says this. Maybe this is being confused with the “separation from policy” concept. To be fair, the *structure* of the contract (i.e., with limited duration) gives the NTIA the opportunity to separate the IANA functions from the current operator, but it is not a *requirement* of the contract.” I think you are correct here but what I was suggesting is that we evaluate whether separability of the IANA functions from ICANN would be possible under the ICANN-only scenario.

GSS: I think this is an important point, although not one to be thrashed out in the Principles. Unfortunately, we don't really have an "ICANN-only scenario," what we have is more like an "ICANN-only idea."

Regarding your last comment, [GS27], do I understand you to say that the CSC should be multistakeholder? If so, why do you think that? And what would that mean?

GSS: I do believe that the CSC should be multistakeholder. I don't like the idea of a unistakeholder group. Such a group is prone to capture (or already "captured," depending on how you define capture). It also raises transparency concerns, as other stakeholder groups would have no idea what is going on the CSC (except after the fact), much less to participate in the work of the CSC. Other stakeholders provide transparency and a check against capture. Also, IANA performance (or lack thereof) does not only effect registries, it affects (perhaps less directly) many other stakeholders. I think that the membership of the CSC could be imbalanced (i.e., predominantly registries). Just to pick some numbers off the top of my head, there could be 8 registry operators (either split evenly between ccTLDs and gTLDs, or uneven to reflect the greater number of gTLDs) along with 6 non-registry members: one representative from RySG, one from CSG, one from NCSG, one from the GAC, one from SSAC and one from ALAC,

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 1:55 AM *To:* Robert Guerra *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

My edits and comments are attached.

Greg

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*666 Third Avenue **ï** New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> wrote:

concur with Milton and Chuck on this one.

Robert

On Dec 7, 2014, at 9:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

Yes, I agree. But the principle as formulated implies that every entity involved in management must be MS, which I think is excessive.

*From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com <cgomes@verisign.com>] *Sent:* Sunday, December 7, 2014 5:59 PM *To:* Milton L Mueller; Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

Milton,

It is ineffective to literally manage in a multistakeholder way but it is possible to respect and follow multistakeholder developed policies in managing.

Chuck

*From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu <mueller@syr.edu>] *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 5:55 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

I dissent from principle g by the way. I could see why oversight of IANA might be multi-stakeholder, but management need not be.

-MM

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Sunday, December 7, 2014 4:18 PM *To:* Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

I made a couple more edits in item g at the end of the document.

Chuck

*From:* Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 4:12 PM *To:* 'Lise Fuhr'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

I made a couple edits and suggested a third in my next to last comment. I also identified in my comments some possible action items that the CWG may need to perform as soon as possible assuming that the principles are adopted by the CWG.

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lise Fuhr *Sent:* Friday, December 05, 2014 8:34 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

Dear All,

We hereby send you a redline and a clean version of the Principles document. For the unresolved part, staff has done a table. We recommend that we focus on the outstanding issues, that are identified in the comments. We welcome any inputs on either the comments or on the redline draft. The document will be finalized on the next call.

Best regards,

Martin and Lise

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Yes On Monday, December 8, 2014, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

Greg,

I assume you meant one from the RrSG instead of the RySG?

Chuck

*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>] *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 5:12 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Robert Guerra; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

Chuck,

My answers are inline below.

Greg

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cgomes@verisign.com');>> wrote:

Greg,

I agree with your second comment, [GS4]: “In a sense, the same thing could be said for each Principle, since we begin by stating that the proposal(s) can be tested against the principles and criteria before being sent to the ICG.” But I identified several principles that I think require a more extensive effort.

GSS; Fair enough. These are probably those that require particular focus.

Comment [GS23] says: “I don’t think this is technically true. There is nothing in the IANA contract that says this. Maybe this is being confused with the “separation from policy” concept. To be fair, the *structure* of the contract (i.e., with limited duration) gives the NTIA the opportunity to separate the IANA functions from the current operator, but it is not a *requirement* of the contract.” I think you are correct here but what I was suggesting is that we evaluate whether separability of the IANA functions from ICANN would be possible under the ICANN-only scenario.

GSS: I think this is an important point, although not one to be thrashed out in the Principles. Unfortunately, we don't really have an "ICANN-only scenario," what we have is more like an "ICANN-only idea."

Regarding your last comment, [GS27], do I understand you to say that the CSC should be multistakeholder? If so, why do you think that? And what would that mean?

GSS: I do believe that the CSC should be multistakeholder. I don't like the idea of a unistakeholder group. Such a group is prone to capture (or already "captured," depending on how you define capture). It also raises transparency concerns, as other stakeholder groups would have no idea what is going on the CSC (except after the fact), much less to participate in the work of the CSC. Other stakeholders provide transparency and a check against capture. Also, IANA performance (or lack thereof) does not only effect registries, it affects (perhaps less directly) many other stakeholders.

I think that the membership of the CSC could be imbalanced (i.e., predominantly registries). Just to pick some numbers off the top of my head, there could be 8 registry operators (either split evenly between ccTLDs and gTLDs, or uneven to reflect the greater number of gTLDs) along with 6 non-registry members: one representative from RySG, one from CSG, one from NCSG, one from the GAC, one from SSAC and one from ALAC,

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 1:55 AM *To:* Robert Guerra *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

My edits and comments are attached.

Greg

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*666 Third Avenue **ï** New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan@lawabel.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gsshatan@lawabel.com');>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');> *

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rguerra@privaterra.org');>> wrote:

concur with Milton and Chuck on this one.

Robert

On Dec 7, 2014, at 9:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mueller@syr.edu');>> wrote:

Yes, I agree. But the principle as formulated implies that every entity involved in management must be MS, which I think is excessive.

*From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cgomes@verisign.com');>] *Sent:* Sunday, December 7, 2014 5:59 PM *To:* Milton L Mueller; Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

Milton,

It is ineffective to literally manage in a multistakeholder way but it is possible to respect and follow multistakeholder developed policies in managing.

Chuck

*From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mueller@syr.edu');>] *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 5:55 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

I dissent from principle g by the way. I could see why oversight of IANA might be multi-stakeholder, but management need not be.

-MM

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','%5Bmailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org%5D');> *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Sunday, December 7, 2014 4:18 PM *To:* Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

I made a couple more edits in item g at the end of the document.

Chuck

*From:* Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 4:12 PM *To:* 'Lise Fuhr'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

I made a couple edits and suggested a third in my next to last comment. I also identified in my comments some possible action items that the CWG may need to perform as soon as possible assuming that the principles are adopted by the CWG.

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','%5Bmailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org%5D');> *On Behalf Of *Lise Fuhr *Sent:* Friday, December 05, 2014 8:34 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

Dear All,

We hereby send you a redline and a clean version of the Principles document. For the unresolved part, staff has done a table. We recommend that we focus on the outstanding issues, that are identified in the comments. We welcome any inputs on either the comments or on the redline draft. The document will be finalized on the next call.

Best regards,

Martin and Lise

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *666 Third Avenue **ï** New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> * *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*