<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;}
p
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
        margin-right:0in;
        mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
        margin-left:0in;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
        color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@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"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"> Vinay Kesari [mailto:vinay.kesari@gmail.com]
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">&gt; </span>How is accountability to be ensured, though? A fixed-term contract
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&gt;
</span>(which is what the paper proposes) acts as a check since the threat of <span style="color:#1F497D">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&gt;
</span>non-renewal always hangs over the head of the policy making body. <span style="color:#1F497D">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&gt;
</span>But if we move away from this idea (as suggested in your trailing email) <span style="color:#1F497D">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&gt;
</span>to an open ended arrangement combined with clauses relating to exigent <span style="color:#1F497D">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&gt;
</span>circumstances, my fear is that the proposal then becomes incompatible with
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&gt;
</span>(or at least materially dilutes) Principle 1, which is 'Completely separate
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&gt;
</span>root zone file modification from policy&shy;making'. Because DNSA would then <span style="color:#1F497D">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&gt;
</span>need to actually monitor orders from ICANN/the policy making body, to <span style="color:#1F497D">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&gt;
</span>ensure that they do not fall afoul of the 'safety valve clause'.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">This is an excellent point. I think it is a point that needed to be made and needs to be discussed. But I don&#8217;t think it undermines the case for the DNSA-ICANN
 separation. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">First, I think an ICANN-DNSA contract that contains material relating to &#8220;exigent circumstances&#8221; is not incompatible with the separation of policy and root
 zone implementation. Any contractual relationship &#8211; and in fact, any formalized regulatory relationship, whether between private parties or between private parties and governments &#8211; may at some point produce disputes about interpretation. If ICANN runs amok
 and starts requiring registries to do things that they don&#8217;t think they are obligated to do, or shouldn&#8217;t be doing, then it&#8217;s good that they will be in a position to legally challenge certain implementation requests. Likewise, if DNSA runs amok, it is good
 that ICANN will be in a position to challenge it legally. This is how checks and balances work. You cannot know in advance which party will be the renegade, so you try to set up a structure that balances power.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">So, of course DNSA would have to monitor ICANN requests to ensure that they are authorized, just as ICANN (and others) would need to monitor DNSA implementations
 to ensure that they are correct. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>