<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=big5"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Milton,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We understand the agreement with IETF/NRO in the past, and also the proposals delivered to ICG very well. We are not intend, and we can not change the status of the proposals to ICG. And we also know ICG will based on the proposals you received from IETF/CRISP (and eventually CWG) to develop ICG proposal. If you dont like lots of words in the last email, I simplify as : (1) we respect and support the ICG process based the proposals you received from IETF/CRISP and will receive from CWG. (2) describe what the operation in the past, and why the departing is not happened (if you dont like it, I can take if off). </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Kuo Wu</div><div class=""> <br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" class="">mueller@syr.edu</a>> 2015~430 21:47 gDG</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; font-family: TamilMN; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: PMingLiU, serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">Kuo-wei:<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: PMingLiU, serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">I am sorry but these responses show an almost Alice in Wonderland-like detachment from what is happening. Your comments fail to address the very serious concerns raised by the CRISP team, the RIRs and the IETF. My comments below:<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: PMingLiU, serif;" class=""><a name="_MailEndCompose" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""> </span></a></div><div style="border-style: none none none solid; border-left-color: blue; border-left-width: 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;" class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 4.9pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: PMingLiU, serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: TamilMN, serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">1.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-family: TamilMN, serif;" class="">The proposals of IETF and CRISP are in public and delivered to ICG already. They are in ICG's hands now. ICANN (including board) have no intention to intervene the ICG independent process. ICANN staff and Board continue to support independence of the ICG process.<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 4.9pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: PMingLiU, serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 4.9pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: PMingLiU, serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">MM: ICANN has _<i class="">already</i>_ intervened in the process. It is telling the two communities who have submitted consensus proposals that it does not accept the proposals. We would appreciate it if you could do something to bridge the obvious gap between what ICANN staff is doing and what the board is saying. </span><br class=""><br class="">2. The MOU or agreement between ICANN and IETF/NRO exist for many years and continue to exchange the performance information of IANA regularly. ICANN/IANA always do the best to meet the expectation of IETF and NRO, and continue to improve our service. This is one of key factors for the success operation of global internet. And it proves the current operation is benefit to the communities and global internet users. <span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: PMingLiU, serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: PMingLiU, serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">MM: You are dodging the issue. The issue is not the past agreement between ICANN and NRO, it is the _<i class="">new</i>_ proposal that the CRISP team has come up with.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 4.9pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: PMingLiU, serif;" class=""><br class="">3. Many on the ICANN Board support the sound engineering principle as recently articulated by Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, that for any working system change it as little as possible, and make gradual reforms over time. The Board continues to encourage simpler solutions where possible rather than creating new structures that require new legal frameworks and governance models.<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: PMingLiU, serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: PMingLiU, serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">MM: Are you asserting that the proposals of IETF/IANAPLAN and the CRISP team are changing too much? Are you asserting that ICANN staff can, therefore, unilaterally veto their proposals? We do not see the board encouraging simpler solutions through persuasion, we see them attempting to veto solutions. Furthermore, the differences between the existing IETF MoU and supplemental SLA and the new one are tiny, almost unnoticeable. So even assuming ICANN had the right to override a community consensus to make things simpler, ICANNs actions are not even consistent with this principle.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 4.9pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: PMingLiU, serif;" class=""><br class=""><br class="">5. ICANN will support the proposals generated by the community that have reached consensus.<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: PMingLiU, serif;" class=""><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: PMingLiU, serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">MM: Then ICANN will support the CRISP proposal and the IANAPLAN proposal, and it will cease attempting to undermine or modify them.</span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>