<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12px; font-family: 'Century Gothic', sans-serif;"><div><div><div>Hi Maureen</div><div><br></div><div> I am afraid budget issues may suffer from delays due the several instances to have in an specific situation solved and action take. </div><div><div id="MAC_OUTLOOK_SIGNATURE"><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><div><b><i><font color="#009193">Vanda Scartezini</font></i></b></div><div><b><i><font color="#009193">Polo Consultores Associados</font></i></b></div><div><b><i><font color="#009193">Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004</font></i></b></div><div><b><i><font color="#009193">01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil</font></i></b></div><div><b><i><font color="#009193">Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253</font></i></b></div><div><b><i><font color="#009193">Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 </font></i></b></div><div style="font-family: 'Century Gothic', sans-serif;"><font color="#009193" face="Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i>So</i></b></font><b><i><font color="#009193"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">rry for any typos. </font></font></i></b></div></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br></div></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:12pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Maureen Hilyard<br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Tuesday 13 October 2015 22:22<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Vanda Scartezini<br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> 'ALAC List'<br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [ALAC] Fwd: [ccnso-council] A plea for time<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><div dir="ltr">Hi Vanda and all<div><br></div><div>Just clarifying for myself, but are these not what the stress tests are all about ? (considering the risks and their consequences and how these might be overcome?)</div><div><br></div><div>Maureen</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Vanda UOL <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vanda@uol.com.br" target="_blank">vanda@uol.com.br</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Dear colleagues</div><div> I do share a lot of the concerns about too much changes without a proven knowledge of the consequences. I strongly believe board and staff shall be accountable to the community, no doubts about that, but as in any organization, risks may be considered in any move and I haven't see much risk analysis consideration related to proposal changes. Have been in charge of large organization in a unstable country's economy like mine, I managed to success focusing on risk analysis for each small movement, I am afraid we are going forward without enough consideration about the risks we are taking and the consequences those moves will bring and how to fix them in the near future....<br><br>Vanda Scartezini<div>Sent from my iPad</div><div>Sorry for any typos and misspellings</div></div><div><div class="h5"><div><br>On 11 de out de 2015, at 17:27, Maureen Hilyard <<a href="mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com" target="_blank">maureen.hilyard@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p dir="ltr">FYI - a response to the ccTLD community from Board member Chris Disspain re the Board's proposals for CCWG Accountability</p><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: "Chris Disspain" <<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank">ceo@auda.org.au</a>><br>Date: 12/10/2015 5:06 am<br>Subject: [ccnso-council] A plea for time<br>To: "ccNSO Council" <<a href="mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org" target="_blank">ccnso-council@icann.org</a>>, "ccNSO Members" <<a href="mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org" target="_blank">ccnso-members@icann.org</a>><br>Cc: "CCWG Accountability" <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br><br type="attribution"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="font-family:'Verdana';font-size:13px;color:rgb(102,102,102)"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(83,83,83)">Greetings,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(83,83,83)">As we approach ICANN Dublin I have
been asked by some of my ccTLD colleagues to set out clearly why as a ccTLD
manager I support the Board proposals for improving ICANN's accountability as
part of the transition.</span><span style="color:rgb(83,83,83)"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(83,83,83)">In essence for me it’s all about
time.</span><span style="color:rgb(83,83,83)"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(83,83,83)">I believe that we, the
community, can get the enhanced accountability we want now without the need for
wholesale structural change. I'm not against change or indeed any of the models
being proposed but I am against making such changes without carefully
considering them over time. There is a significant amount of work to be done
before deciding to make such important structural changes and all of that will
take time and more research and stress testing and unforeseen consequence
analysis and impact analysis.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(83,83,83)">In essence the Board has supported
the CCWG’s proposed fundamental bylaws and the binding IRP and has suggested
that there be a Community IRP and a further fundamental bylaw setting in place an
ongoing improvement mechanism that will allow the community to take the
necessary time to consider the structural changes and to have confidence that
the proposals arising from such a process will be implemented.</span><span style="color:rgb(83,83,83)"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(83,83,83)">I believe that the Community IRP
does provide the community with the rights it seeks and that it can be implemented
in a timeframe that does not jeopardise
the transition. The Community IRP is an independent arbitration process for
hearing community claims that the Board has acted outside of its by-laws. Under
the process there is a legally enforceable and contractual obligation on ICANN
to comply with a decision of the arbitration panel.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(83,83,83)">I believe that the community find
ourselves in our current difficult situation because, with the best of intentions,
the CCWG’s attorneys have been instructed to come up with models that deliver
‘the highest possible levels of enforcement’. It is not that the Community IRP
cannot deliver the enhanced accountability that we want but rather that it is
perceived, by some, as inadequate because there is a different mechanism that delivers a higher
level of enforceability.</span><span style="color:rgb(83,83,83)"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(83,83,83)">The CCWG appears to be requiring
a mechanism that allows the community (in whatever guise we finally agree is
acceptable) the absolute final say. The right to step over the Board's
fiduciary duty without any check or balance in place to allow for the testing
of the Board's claim that acting would indeed be in breach of such duty.</span><span style="color:rgb(83,83,83)"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(83,83,83)">I firmly believe in the
corporate governance structures adopted by most corporate bodies around the
world. Board members are appointed to manage the affairs of the organisation on
the understanding that they are legally bound to act in the best interests of
the organization rather than any one member or community. Such best interests
are set out in the by-laws - in ICANN's case for example, the security and
stability of the Internet as a whole. The Board has a fiduciary obligations to
act in that way.</span><span style="color:rgb(83,83,83)"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(83,83,83)">The ICANN Board has proposed the
Community IRP as binding arbitration. The CCWG’s attorneys have said that the Board
can refuse to implement such a binding arbitration decision if it claims that
to implement it would be a breach of its obligations to act in the best
interests of ICANN. This is true BUT the community representatives can then go
to court and a court will enforce the arbitration decision if it disagrees with
the Board's view. In my opinion this is precisely the type of safeguard we need
to have in place because it ensures that an elected board made up of
representatives of the multi-stakeholder community will always act, first, in
the interests of a stable and secure Internet and it puts in place an independent
arbiter to decide, in the final analysis, if the community or the board is
right. </span><span style="color:rgb(83,83,83)"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(83,83,83)">The alternative, it seems to me,
is to create, now, a system where fiduciary duty is abandoned and the will of
the community holds sway. That is in effect what happens under the membership
model as described by the CCWG’s attorneys. This may well be acceptable in the
future when all of the nuances have been thought through and the necessary
community conflicts and ethics rules, accountability mechanisms and disclosure
requirements have been agreed. But it will take time and testing and a fuller
discussion.</span><span style="color:rgb(83,83,83)"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(83,83,83)">Fiduciary responsibilities and
duties are there for a reason. I think that some in the community feel that
the Board and ICANN legal sometimes use the ‘cloak’ of fiduciary responsibility
to avoid doing what the community wants. Whilst I don’t believe that is true I do
empathise with the feeling. To my mind the solution (at least at this time
during the transition) is NOT to create a mechanism under which fiduciary duty
is held by no one but rather to create a mechanism where the community can test
the Board's claims about such duty. The Community IRP as suggested by the Board
does just that.</span><span style="color:rgb(83,83,83)"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(83,83,83)">I want to stress again that I am
not against any of the proposed models put forward by the CCWG. But I can't
agree the models at this stage because I don’t believe we have enough detail
and I think the community as a whole should take their time in considering making
such important changes. And I do not agree with those who claim that "we
must do it now because it's our only chance". </span><span style="color:rgb(83,83,83)"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(83,83,83)">I am very much looking forward
to spending time with my ccTLD colleagues during the Dublin meeting and hope we
will have the opportunity to talk, and not just about the transition.</span></p><div><p><br></p><p>Cheers,</p><p><br></p><p>Chris Disspain<span> </span><span>|</span><span> </span>Chief Executive Officer</p><p>.au Domain Administration Ltd</p><p>T: <span><a href="tel:%2B61%203%208341%204111" value="+61383414111" target="_blank">+61 3 8341 4111</a></span><span> </span><span>|</span><span> </span>F: <span><a href="tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112" value="+61383414112" target="_blank">+61 3 8341 4112</a></span></p><p><span>E:</span><span> <a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank"><span>ceo@auda.org.au</span></a> </span><span>|</span><span> </span><span>W:</span><span> <a href="http://www.auda.org.au/" target="_blank"><span>www.auda.org.au</span></a></span><span> </span></p><p>auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator</p><p><br></p><p><span><b>Important Notice</b></span><span><b> </b></span><b>- </b>This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.</p></div><br></span></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>ALAC mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>At-Large Online: <a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a></span><br><span>ALAC Working Wiki: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a></span></div></blockquote></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></span></body></html>