<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=iso-8859-1">
<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">My response would be that there is no reason to assume that the board comments will be accepted. If they are not accepted, and we end up with CCWG’s 3<sup>rd</sup>
draft, on net I would vote for it in preference to no transition. The strengthened IRP and improved mission statement with explicit limitations are the reasons I would go for it.
<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 the board comments are accepted, and we get no inspection, an eviscerated mission limitation, and no respect for human rights, I could be swayed to go against
it. <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">The presence of GAC in the Sole Designator mechanism is disturbing, and NCSG is indicating to the CCWG that it does not support that.<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"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></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 [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>David Post<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 15, 2015 10:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: The CCWG Accountability Proposal -- Should It Be Rejected<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
It does appear to be a particularly bad combination of (a) a proposal that has itself been considerably watered down, and (b) a Board that is suggesting that even that is too
<i>strong,</i>and needs to be weakened further.<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
At 08:44 PM 12/14/2015, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">At the risk of stirring the pot, I want to ask the community whether or not the accountability proposal has been so watered down that the NCSG ought to oppose it outright and, concurrently, seek agreement from
the Commercial users such that the gNSO was opposed to the transition in its current form. If I were to tally the reasons to oppose the current draft they would include:<br>
<br>
· Enhanced GAC role through the 2/3 vote rule and there membership in the Empowered Community<br>
· Incomplete rights of inspection<br>
· Continued board opposition to human rights and mission statement as drafted<br>
· Process fouls in any number of ways, most recently in the overly short 21-day comment period on what the Co-Chairs say is the “final report”<br>
· Enhanced role of ACs in the empowered community to the detriment of the SOs where policy actually resides (this is above and beyond the GAC issue already noted)<br>
<br>
I could go on, but frankly, for myself, the proposal seems to have fallen sufficiently short that I would probably “vote” no, if votes were being counted. It seems to me that someone needs to say that out loud ….<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig<br>
Red Branch Consulting, PLLC<br>
509 C St. NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002<br>
<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>
<br>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/">www.paulrosenzweigesq.com</a> <br>
<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9">Link to my PGP Key</a><br>
<a href="http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016"><span style="text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="578" height="87" id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:image001.png@01D136B0.48103220" alt="[]"></span></a><br>
<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%A0">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a><br>
music <a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0">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>