<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Dear Martin</div><div>Pls carefully read my last message.</div><div>I can understand theCSC approach as I have outlined.</div><div>The other communities may use whatever they wish but can not be seen as having the right identical to that of name community as they may or may not have contract with PTI</div><div>Tks</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss</div><div><br></div><div><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 20 Aug 2015, at 13:39, Martin Boyle <<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (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:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
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.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{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:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thanks Kavouss,
<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">That\u2019s helpful \u2013 if I understand you correctly, your concern seems to be that the different communities will use different mechanisms and that these mechanisms
might produce different outcomes for similar circumstances: is that right? If so, I personally would find it useful to see examples of how you think that the different approaches would diverge. This is important as we can\u2019t (and shouldn\u2019t) try to impose
a common approach on the OCs. We <i>might</i> need to go back to them if we conclude that the different approaches won\u2019t work together, but I thought that our analysis so far was that the three proposals were different, but coherent.<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">In the case of significant issues with the IANA functions operator (initially PTI for names and ICANN for numbers and protocol parameters) there is one clear
common mechanism: that the IANA functions operator \u2013 initially the PTI \u2013 can lose its contract. For names the community instructs ICANN to issue a RfP to replace PTI while the other communities that can re-tender their contract to move from ICANN to another
operator.<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">Fundamental for the names community is that the framework is based in ICANN \u2013 which is where many of the interested parties meet. That is not the case for
the other two OCs. I would not really expect all three to have the same approach because their communities are focussed elsewhere than ICANN.<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">You will recollect, though, that the initial model considered by the CWG followed the same approach as the other communities \u2013 of an independent organisation
that let a contract to the IANA functions operator, and that this approach did not provide a basis for consensus, so was abandoned.<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 guess that you are right, that in the names proposal, there is a community wider than just the direct customers. However, the other OCs also have wider networks
to ensure that additional accountability. <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">So for the moment I still
<i>think</i> that the suggested re-wording from Lynn works reasonably well \u2013 at least I cannot see any big issues associated with 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">Best<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">Martin<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"><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>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Kavouss Arasteh [<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 20 August 2015 10:23<br>
<b>To:</b> Martin Boyle<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mueller, Milton L; ICG Group<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Daar Martin<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Welcome back to the discussion<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for yr comprehensive comments. However,there is considerable difference between the Name Community and the two other communities.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The responsibility if the name community would be reflected in the revised Bylaws whereas the task of the two other communities are addressed in their contracts or SLAs with ICANN.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is major difference between the scope, value and weighting of Bylaws provisions and those of bilateral agreement or contracts between the latter communities and ICANN which are limited ti the parties of SLAs and / or Contracts<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">These legal differences must be reflected in the text in order to avoid comparing unequal circumstances.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Until such differences in discharging responsibilities are not appropriately reflected, I maintain my concerns/ objection to the current text <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kavouss<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On 20 Aug 2015, at 10:41, Martin Boyle <<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Hi Kavouss,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I\u2019m trying to catch up following a long weekend away, so I might be missing a bit in this. However, it does seem to me that all of the OCs have mandates to
monitor and oversee the IFO whether directly or indirectly.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Names: the CSC monitors the PTI directly and can seek to resolve issues with PTI or with the ICANN Board or, if this fails to bring improvements, escalate
for a decision on launching an IANA Functions Review.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Numbers: their relationship is with ICANN and is contractual. Paragraphs 2075-2077 (contract), 2085-2088 (SLA) and 2089 (SLA principles, which includes review
of the IANA operations, and failure to perform).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Protocol Parameters: according to paragraph 3063 (principles) there are requirements for openness, transparency, and accountability; reference to Internet
community agreements; a requirement for \u201ccapable service;\u201d and IAB responsibility to define and manage the relationship with the operator.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Together it seems to me that all of the OCs have mandates to monitor and oversee the activities of the IFO. What are we/am I missing?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Martin</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Internal-cg [<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org">mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kavouss Arasteh<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 19 August 2015 22:31<br>
<b>To:</b> Mueller, Milton L<br>
<b>Cc:</b> ICG Group<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Milton<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Good to hear from you again Yes but other <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">OCs do not have any mandates monitor / oversight the activities of IFO<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kaviyss <br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On 19 Aug 2015, at 23:02, Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu">milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Kavouss:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I think Lynn, like me, is considering the CSC as part of the names operational community.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">--MM</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<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""> Internal-cg [<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org">mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kavouss Arasteh<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:47 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Russ Housley<br>
<b>Cc:</b> ICG Group<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Lynn<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I do not know from where you have in ferred that "<strong><i><span style="color:#500050">The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO" </span></i></strong><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#500050">Please read carefully The Final Proposal from CWG ,PARGRAPH 105, Bullet 3 and PARAGRAPH 106, SUB PARA. 4, in which the CSC is / will be responsible to monitor the performance of IFO.Please also read Annex G ,
Charter of CSC.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#500050">We should not invent new ideas.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#500050">However,,OCs may, coomment on the performance of IFO in regard with their area of responsibilties and bring the matter to the attention of CSC.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#500050">The text you have proposed is inconsistent with those referred to above.and thus I am not comfortable to that and in fact object to any kind of paraphrasing the CWG text.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#500050">Regards</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#500050">Kavouss </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>