<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 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:383220692;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:2036236224 1833500270 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:91.5pt;
text-indent:-37.5pt;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:2.0in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:5.0in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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">Douglas, thanks for your carefully thought out comments, my response below:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D">W</span>hilst I agree that the separation is important, it must be noted that contractually, this is the status-quo: ICANN makes policy and IANA is responsible
for "the coordination of the assignment of technical Internet protocol parameters." Given that the IANA function is being fulfilled by ICANN I would assume this would give rise to outsiders construing this as a conflict of interest and at the same time lead
to possible blurring of lines within ICANN of the two functions --- and by extension contracts.<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D">MM: Separation is _<i>not</i>_ really the status quo. If you really want to separate IANA and ICANN, one should not make one of them a wholly owned-and-operated
subsidiary of the other, living in the same building, under the same management.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Principle #2: Don’t internationalize political oversight: end it<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I have a particular problem with DNSA-related & root zone maintainer functions being controlled by only registry operators: IMHO the vast majority of registries have either political
or monetary motivation and given the slightest opportunity, abuse would be inevitable. If this were a purely root-zone-maintainer function where the SoW was “execute orders from above”, that would be ok, but recall your proposal is a merger of IANA function
and the root zone maintainer which causes a bit of concern.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D">MM: These kinds of concerns, I still believe, stem mostly from a lack of understanding of what root zone maintenance and change is. Remember, the information
in the root zone is data about TLDs themselves. Do you not believe that TLDs should be able to directly control entering and changing their own data? What, exactly, do you see being abused? Please be specific. Please explain also how any untoward political
and monetary motivations of one registry would not be checked by the other registries, or by its contract with ICANN, or by competition authorities.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I have also noticed a conspicuous absence of anything in your proposal on the USG-ICANN (not IANA) contract. With the IANA contract gone, I would expect more than ever that any
power in the USG-ICANN contract would be checked; failure to do so leaves USG with unilateral power to influence the policy making process --- which as you recall will be the only body with the “brains” in the new ecosystem.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D">MM: I do not understand this comment. There is no USG-ICANN contract other than the IANA contract. Perhaps you are referring to the Affirmation of Commitments
(AoC), which is <u>not</u> a contract. As many people know, I am not enthusiastic about the AoC, but we do not address it in the IANA globalization proposal because it has nothing to do with IANA. It is absent because it relates to the policy making function,
and we explicitly stated that our proposal does not address reform of the policy side. (Please refer to Principle #4)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D">It really seems to me that people have a lot of trouble conceptually separating the policy aspects of ICANN from the root zone management functions –
and that accounts for most of the trouble we are encountering here. More evidence below.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">My suggestion is a modification of the proposal to:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:91.5pt;text-indent:-37.5pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><![endif]>End unilateral USG oversight over ICANN and replace the USG oversight over ICANN with something more geographical et al representative: multi stakeholder, multilateral etc.? I don't know yet -- but the principle should be true representation
of all stakeholders.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D">MM: First, you are talking about the policy making function. So you are not proposing to modify _<i>our</i>_ proposal, which does not deal with the reform
of the policy making process at all. you are proposing a new proposal on how to reform the policy side. No time here to address the specifics of your proposal, but I would say that you don’t need yet another committee overlay to provide “oversight” over ICANN
process, what you need are better forms of accountability in ICANN’s board selection and policy makiung process. And unlike advocates of the AoC, I do not see a review committee as a serious form of accountability.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:91.5pt;text-indent:-37.5pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><![endif]>ICANN continues to develop policy and provide a governance layer over the DNSA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D">The whole point of separating DNSA from ICANN is to divide the power. You have violated principle #1. I think you may be the first person I’ve seen who
does not agree with principle #1. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.75in">
3.<span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span>Once the IANA technical contract is ended, ICANN signs a contract with DNSA which performs technical function based on the policies and stays under supervision of ICANN<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D">Ditto above comment. “Under supervision of ICANN” violates separation principle.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>