<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">So nothing, really, in this arrangement serves as a constraint on the ICANN Board. If ICANN "misbehaves," PTI won't be able to find a new partner (or terminate its contract with ICANN), but if PTI misbehaves ICANN will be able to do both
of those things. I thought that one of the virtues of the "Contract Co." approach was that, with truly independent bodies, each would function as a constraint on the other, and that seems to have gotten lost here; whatever constraints there will be on the
ICANN Board won't come from the IANA functions side but through the "accountability" mechanisms, I suppose.<br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: You’re forgetting about the periodic review process. If ICANN’s “misbehavior” is such that it is trying to make sure that PTI is the IANA functions operator
when the community doesn’t want it to be, the review function can require the board to change IANA.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">If, on the other hand, ICANN misbehaves by trying to use its (very indirect) control of IANA to implement root zone changes that are not actually properly authorized
as policies, then the existence of an independent PTI with its own staff and board makes that a bit more difficult, and much more transparent. I think there is also an appeals process.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">It seems to me that the kind of “constraint on the ICANN board” you sound interested in are constraints on the ICANN board _<i>as policy maker.”</i>_ But those
do indeed have to come from the CCWG process. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="color:#1F497D">--MM</span><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards<br>
sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
On 26 Apr 2015 14:20, "David Post" <<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com">david.g.post@gmail.com</a> > wrote:
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Thanks, Avri, for your response - very helpful. I understand the point that there are LOTS of details still to be filled in, so I suppose I can postpone some of my questions until those are on the table.  Â
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">But this arrangement worries me, because in the ordinary sense, a wholly-owned subsidiary is most definitely not independent of its parent - in fact, the very opposite is usually true - and I'm just not aware of
a lot of models where something like this actually works to counter that inherent dependence. Maybe there are such things out there and I'm just not aware of them, and maybe the right combination of ICANN and PTI by-law provisions, and contract language,
and procedures for selecting the PTI Board can be devised to give the PTI Board real independence, and I just haven't seen them yet. But without independence from the ICANN Board, the possibility that it would ever actually exercise the "<span style="color:#330033">option
of creating a RFP (request for proposal) and possibly finding a new IANA function operator</span>" (even though its parent corporation and sole Member (i.e. ICANN) does not want it to do that) strikes me as pretty slim, and without the ability to do that its
not really independent at all. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
David<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">At 04:51 AM 4/24/2015, Avri Doria wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Hi,<span style="color:#330033"> <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">The original positions in the CWG ranged from maintaining the status quo to a completely free standng IANA model. The supporters of both of these options have strong reasons and resolve.Â
We were making no progress on finding agreement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:#330033">A hybrid position was offered after the Singapore meeting, proposing a shared service held by the 3 operational communities: names, number and protocols. This offered both legal separation but joint affiliation with the various
operational communities. That could not be accepted becasue the other communities did not want to take on the extra repsonsiblity and objected strongly to the Naming commmunity coming up with a solution that presupposed their participation. So we ended
up coming down to a single member affiliate. Those who supported the full free standing IANA proposal, mostly, accepted that having legal separation was a minimum, but could be acceptable as a first step, with other steps possible in the future if necessary.Â
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">Since IANA would be subsidiary to ICANN we are therefore also including in the model, probably in a fundamental bylaw, a process by which further separation could be achieved if necessary.Â
This is described in the proposal. Briefly, the IANA Function Review (IFR) Team (IFRT) could recommend that there was a problem with the then current arrangement and recommend that further separation discussions be initiated. The current proposal is still
open on whether at that point:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">- a Cross Community WG, similar to the CWG-IANA or to the ICGÂ (IANA stewardship transition Coordination Group), would be established to work on that issue with the option of creating
a RFP (request for proposal) and possibly finding a new IANA function operator.Â
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">- the IFR team itself could then begin the work on a RFP and finding a new IANA Function Operator.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">The CWG is looking for community opinion on these alternatives, so if NCSG has a recommendation, it would be a good thing to offer in our comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">In terms of the degree of control that ICANN has of the affiliate, we are still discussing the degree to which the affiliate will be subject to ICANN mangement and working for as much
independent action as possible. The contract between ICANN and its affiliate would define the relationship as well as the requirements on each side. The Post Transtion IANA (PTI) would have its own largely independent Board.Â
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">Devils and details still abound.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">avri <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">(NCSG member on the CWG-IANA)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">On 23-Apr-15 11:27, David Post wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">Milton/All<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">I'm sure this was talked about at length during the development of the proposal, but it does seem rather odd to me that "functional and legal separation" between the IANA naming functions
and ICANN (which I agree is an important principle) has been implemented in this proposal by means of setting up a new corporation that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ICANN's (with an ICANN-designated Board - sec III.A.i.b). Can you say a few words as to
why you think that provides for the necessary independence? The PTI Board will be answerable to the ICANN Board, because ICANN is the only "member" of PTI - ??
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:#330033">David<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">The At 10:58 AM 4/23/2015, Milton L Mueller wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">Dear NCSG-ers:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">Â <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a name="14cf5e2e2480957d__MailEndCompose"></a><span style="color:#330033">The domain names part of the IANA transition is finally being formed. A draft proposal was released yesterday and it is open for public
comment. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">Â <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">In my view, this is a big win for accountability. By legally separating the IANA functions operator from ICANN, it will be easier to hold ICANN’s board and staff accountable for the
policy making process, and easier to hold the post-transition IANA accountable for its performance of the IANA functions. Lines of responsibility will be more direct, and policy more clearly separated from implementation.Â
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">Â <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">The proposal also promotes accountability by creating a periodic review process that could allow the names community to “fire†the existing IANA if there was great dissatisfaction
with its performance. This enhances the accountability sought by the numbers and protocols communities as well as creating separability for the names community for the first time.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">Â <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">The legal affiliate structure seems to have found the middle ground in the debate over ICANN’s role in the IANA functions. Although IANA will still be a subsidiary of ICANN, Inc., thus
defusing any concerns about creating new organizations, it will have a separate board and a clearer line of demarcation between the politics of ICANN the policy maker and the technical coordination functions provided by the IANA functions operator.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">Â <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">You can read the (very long) proposal here:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">Â <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033"><a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en">https ://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">Â <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">You can comment on it here:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">Â <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033"><a href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en">https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center"><span style="color:#330033">Â
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">Â <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">*******************************
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post">http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">book (Jefferson's Moose)Â
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0">http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">music <a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic</a> publications etc. <a href="??.htm">http://www.davidpost.com  Â
</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">*******************************
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:#330033"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center">
<span style="color:#330033">
<hr size="3" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033"><a href="http://www.avast.com/"><span style="text-decoration:none"><img border="0" id="_x0000_i1026" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo"></span></a><a href="http://www.avast.com/"> </a>
<a href="http://www.avast.com/">Â </a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033">This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#330033"><a href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">******************************* <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">blog (Volokh Conspiracy) <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post</a> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">book (Jefferson's Moose)Â <a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n    </a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">music <a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic</a> publications etc. <a href="??.htm">http://www.davidpost.com     Â
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">******************************* <o:p>
</o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
*******************************<br>
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation<br>
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br>
</a>book (Jefferson's Moose) <a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a><br>
music <a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic">http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic</a> publications etc.
<a href="http://www.davidpost.com /">http://www.davidpost.com </a><br>
******************************* <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>