<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=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle18
{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'>I would agree with Robin’s suggestion. The Board’s counter-proposal, if it comes out formally in anything like the form they disclosed to the CCWG will be pernicious and (for me at least) possibly a deal breaker. I think it would well-deserve its own critique and, as James says, it is better to be reacting to a concrete proposal than it is to a 10-bullet point outline (which is all we have so far).<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'>Paul<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><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>O: +1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>M: +1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9"><span style='color:#0563C1'>Link to my PGP Key</span></a><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></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton.mueller@PUBPOLICY.GATECH.EDU] <br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, September 6, 2015 11:25 AM<br><b>To:</b> NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: CCWG comments last call<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Agree with James. On the comment document, Robin suggested that we develop a separate comment on the board proposal, if and when it surfaces in fully developed form. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"></a><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'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> NCSG-Discuss [<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>James Gannon<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, September 6, 2015 6:19 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] CCWG comments last call<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I would argue against it, until the board has provided its comments in writing I don’t think we should give them any precedence over the others. <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>We know in concept what their position is but we have no idea of any of their actual disagreements or substance of their positions yet.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>-J<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 6 Sep 2015, at 10:46, William Drake <<a href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I’ve added a few comments. General question: should we add some language taking into account the Board’s positions outlined on the call the other day? I noted a couple spots where this could be done but am unsure whether people want to go there… <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Bill<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sep 5, 2015, at 9:58 PM, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG">avri@ACM.ORG</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>For the record I still oppose the revised formula on voting rights in<br>the NCSG statement. Though it may end up a moot point, given the<br>Board's refusal to accept the CMSM.<br><br>avri<br><br>On 04-Sep-15 18:43, Mueller, Milton L wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I have made some revisions. We seem to have rough consensus that we are opposed to the proposed voting allocations and consider them and two other things serious enough to raise doubts about whether the CCWG-Accountability proposal enhances ICANN's accountability. The comments now note that we are not unanimous on this but do have a preponderance of opinion that would constitute rough consensus. We all seem to be in agreement about our discussion of the so-called "freedom to contract" section and the section on advice from public authorities. We also now seem to have a way forward on how to handle the HR commitment, though that has only been floated a few minutes ago so it needs more review.<br><br>In reviewing these comments, please refrain from the temptation to introduce minor wordsmithing - we really don't have time for it at this point. <br><br><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JGBXO5oOiN_FxivPFkHjz3Gc2w3AT2PeJznrXPw2fJ4/edit">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JGBXO5oOiN_FxivPFkHjz3Gc2w3AT2PeJznrXPw2fJ4/edit</a><br><br>Dr. Milton L Mueller<br>Professor, School of Public Policy<br>Georgia Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br><br>---<br>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>*********************************************************<br>William J. Drake<br>International Fellow & Lecturer<br> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ<br> University of Zurich, Switzerland<br>Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, <br> ICANN, <a href="http://www.ncuc.org/">www.ncuc.org</a><br><a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a> (direct), <a href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com">wjdrake@gmail.com</a> (lists),<br> <a href="http://www.williamdrake.org/">www.williamdrake.org</a><br><i>Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap </i><a href="http://goo.gl/sRR01q">http://goo.gl/sRR01q</a><br>*********************************************************<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>