<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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";
color:black;}
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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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 bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net]
<br>
</span><br>
<span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">></span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Everyone's eye is on the one big knotty problem on the CIR side of global IG - the
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">></span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">oversight of ICANN..... It is not clear whether Milton and Brenden's proposal at all
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">></span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">attempts to solve this problem.
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Oh, it is _<i>very</i>_ clear that we do NOT attempt to solve or comprehensively reform ICANN as policy maker. We _<i>explicitly</i>_ say so and in fact make
it a principle: the globalization of the IANA functions should be separated from the reform of ICANN’s policy making process. They are two distinct problems. They cannot be solved at once.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">> </span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">They wish to create a new entity with an extremely unclear status, role and
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">>
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">authority. </span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Uh, no. the DNSA has a very clear status, very clear role, and very clear authority. I presume you have read the proposal.
<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-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">></span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">- and that too with no oversight above it at all, which seems to make this control
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">> </span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">rather absolute, whether Milton and Brenden actually say this or not.
<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","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">Odd, we thought you might like the idea that oversight of the DNSA would involve every ccTLD and gTLD in the world, including those that are state owned or
regulated, those that are multistakeholder, those that are private. You seem to be impervious to the fact that accurate and secure root zone management is in the direct self-interest of TLD registries as a group. (You do know what a TLD registry is, don’t
you?) <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-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">>
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">However, at the same time is seems that this new entity is
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","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">>
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">the Principal in the implied contract, which it can award to
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I guessed you missed the messages in which we directly asserted the opposite. The DNSA is not the principal.
<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-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">>
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Evidently, despite the proponents best effort at sugar-coating
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","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">>
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">the fact, the new entity would exercise a de facto oversight role
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","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">>
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">over ICANN, by being the Principal of the contract between them</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">DNSA having oversight over ICANN? Only in the sense that if ICANN abused its authority and managed to alienate practically every domain name registry in the
world, a DNSA would be in a position to check that abuse by refusing to honor ICANN requests (and bearing the legal consequences). By this logic, one might say that the root server operators currently have oversight authority over the NTIA.
<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">Of course, we do explicitly recognize the need for additional reform that would make ICANN itself more accountable.
<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-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">>
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Can a trade association be trusted to exercise such a role?</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Characterizing the DNSA as a “trade association” is inaccurate. I would say that it might be “dishonest” also, but based on your comments I cannot be sure whether
you have actually read the proposal. So I cannot say whether this error is based on ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation.
<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">Parminder, I know of your intense interest in ending unilateral U.S. oversight. Please tell me what you replace it with if you don’t like our ideas. All I’ve
seen from you so far is a purely ideological call for an “immediate end” to the IANA contract, and no specification of any institutional framework for its replacement. A challenge to US unilateral control may have been appropriate in 2005 (of course, IGP was
ahead of you there, as usual) but we are well beyond the point where mere finger-pointing and noise-making at a problem produces progress. It’s 10 years on, man, and it’s time to put up or shut up.
<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>
</body>
</html>