/
Staff Summary - Second Public Comment

Staff Summary - Second Public Comment

Owned by Kimberly Carlson
Last updated: Oct 24, 2015 by Alice Jansen

<style>tr {mso-height-source:auto; mso-ruby-visibility:none;}col {mso-width-source:auto; mso-ruby-visibility:none;}br {mso-data-placement:same-cell;}ruby {ruby-align:left;}.style0 { mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border:none; mso-protection:locked visible; mso-style-name:Normal; mso-style-id:0;}.font0 { color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; }.font1 { color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font2 { color:#000000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; }.font3 { color:#0563C1; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; text-decoration:underline; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; }.font4 { color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font5 { color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font6 { color:#0563C1; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; text-decoration:underline; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font7 { color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font8 { color:#2E75B6; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; text-decoration:underline; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font9 { color:#FFFFFF; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font10 { color:#FFFFFF; font-size:12pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font11 { color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font12 { color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font13 { color:#0563C1; font-size:9pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font14 { color:#000000; font-size:9pt; font-weight:400; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font15 { color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font16 { color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font17 { color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font18 { color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font19 { color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font20 { color:#954F72; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; text-decoration:underline; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; }.font21 { color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font22 { color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; }.font23 { color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font24 { color:#2E75B6; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font25 { color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Noteworthy Light","sans-serif"; }.font26 { color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font27 { color:#FF0000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; }.font28 { color:#212121; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }.font29 { color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:italic; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; }.font30 { color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Noteworthy Bold","sans-serif"; }.font31 { color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; }td {mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border:none; mso-protection:locked visible; mso-ignore:padding;}.style0 { text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; mso-style-name:"Normal"; }.style1 { text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.style2 { text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.style3 { text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.style4 { text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.style5 { text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.style6 { text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.style7 { text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.style8 { text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.style9 { text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.style10 { text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.style11 { text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.style12 { text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.style13 { text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.style14 { text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x15 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.style16 { mso-number-format:"0%"; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; mso-style-name:"Percent"; }.style17 { text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#0563C1; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; text-decoration:underline; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; mso-style-name:"Hyperlink"; }.style18 { text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; mso-style-name:"Normal 2"; }.style19 { text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; mso-style-name:"Normal 3"; }.style20 { text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; mso-style-name:"Normal 3 2"; }.x21 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x22 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:none; border-right:none; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x23 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x24 { mso-style-parent:style17; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#0563C1; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; text-decoration:underline; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x25 { mso-style-parent:style17; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#2E75B6; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; text-decoration:underline; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x26 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:right; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x27 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x28 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x29 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:#2E75B6; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FFFFFF; font-size:12pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:3px solid windowtext; border-right:3px solid windowtext; border-bottom:3px solid windowtext; border-left:3px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x30 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x31 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x32 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x33 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x34 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x35 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x36 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x37 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x38 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x39 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x40 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x41 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x42 { mso-style-parent:style17; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x43 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x44 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x45 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x46 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x47 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x48 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x49 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x50 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x51 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x52 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x53 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x54 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x55 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x56 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#FFFFFF; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x57 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x58 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x59 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x60 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x61 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x62 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x63 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x64 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x65 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#FFF2CC; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x66 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x67 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x68 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x69 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x70 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x71 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DDEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x72 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x73 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x74 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x75 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DDEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x76 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#FFF2CC; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x77 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x78 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x79 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x80 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#E2F0D9; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x81 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x82 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x83 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x84 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x85 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x86 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#FBE5D6; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x87 { mso-style-parent:style16; mso-number-format:"0%"; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x88 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x89 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x90 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x91 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x92 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x93 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x94 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x95 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x96 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x97 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#E2F0D9; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x98 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#FBE5D6; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x99 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x100 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#E2F0D9; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x101 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x102 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x103 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x104 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x105 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x106 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x107 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x108 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x109 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x110 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x111 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x112 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x113 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x114 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x115 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x116 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x117 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x118 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x119 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#FFFFFF; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x120 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x121 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x122 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x123 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:justify; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x124 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:justify; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x125 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DDEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x126 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#FFF2CC; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x127 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x128 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DDEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x129 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x130 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x131 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x132 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DDEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x133 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x134 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x135 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x136 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DDEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x137 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x138 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x139 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x140 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x141 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#FFFFFF; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x142 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DDEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x143 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x144 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x145 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x146 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#FFF2CC; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x147 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x148 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x149 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x150 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x151 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x152 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x153 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x154 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x155 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x156 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x157 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x158 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x159 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x160 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#FFFFFF; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x161 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x162 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x163 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x164 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x165 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x166 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x167 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#212121; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x168 { mso-style-parent:style16; mso-number-format:"0%"; text-align:center; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x169 { mso-style-parent:style17; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#0563C1; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; text-decoration:underline; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x170 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x171 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x172 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x173 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x174 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#FFF2CC; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x175 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#E2EFDA; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x176 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x177 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x178 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x179 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x180 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x181 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x182 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x183 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x184 { mso-style-parent:style16; mso-number-format:"0%"; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x185 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x186 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x187 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:none; border-right:none; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x188 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#D9D9D9; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x189 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#D0CECE; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x190 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#FFFFFF; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x191 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x192 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#FFFFFF; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x193 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x194 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x195 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x196 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#D0CECE; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x197 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#FFFFFF; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x198 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#FFFFFF; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x199 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#FFFFFF; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x200 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#FFFFFF; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x201 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#FFFFFF; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x202 { mso-style-parent:style16; mso-number-format:"0%"; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#FFFFFF; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x203 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x204 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x205 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x206 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x207 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x208 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x209 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x210 { mso-style-parent:style16; mso-number-format:"0%"; text-align:center; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x211 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x212 { mso-style-parent:style16; mso-number-format:"0%"; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x213 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x214 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x215 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x216 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x217 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x218 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x219 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x220 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:"0\.00%"; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x221 { mso-style-parent:style16; mso-number-format:"0%"; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x222 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x223 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:"0\.00%"; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x224 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x225 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x226 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:"0\.00%"; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x227 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x228 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x229 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:"0\.00%"; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x230 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x231 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x232 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x233 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x234 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x235 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x236 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x237 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x238 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x239 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:"0\.00%"; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x240 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x241 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:none; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x242 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:"0\.00%"; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x243 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x244 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:"0\.00%"; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x245 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x246 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:"0\.00%"; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x247 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:none; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x248 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x249 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x250 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x251 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x252 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x253 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x254 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:bottom; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x255 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#BDD7EE; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x256 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#BDD7EE; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x257 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:"0\.00%"; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#BDD7EE; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x258 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#BDD7EE; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x259 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#404040; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x260 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#404040; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x261 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x262 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x263 { mso-style-parent:style16; mso-number-format:"0%"; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x264 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x265 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x266 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x267 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#404040; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x268 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x269 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x270 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#DEEBF7; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:14pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:1px solid windowtext; border-right:1px solid windowtext; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:1px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x271 { mso-style-parent:style17; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#0563C1; font-size:9pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:3px solid #385724; border-right:none; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x272 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#1F4E79; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FFFFFF; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:3px solid #385724; border-right:none; border-bottom:3px solid #385724; border-left:3px solid #385724; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x273 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:#1F4E79; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#FFFFFF; font-size:14pt; font-weight:700; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:3px solid #385724; border-right:3px solid #385724; border-bottom:3px solid #385724; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x274 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap; background:#FFF9E9; mso-pattern:auto none; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x275 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:none; border-right:none; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x276 { mso-style-parent:style20; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:2px solid windowtext; border-right:none; border-bottom:none; border-left:2px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x277 { mso-style-parent:style20; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:2px solid windowtext; border-right:2px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x278 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:2px solid windowtext; border-right:none; border-bottom:none; border-left:2px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x279 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:2px solid windowtext; border-right:2px solid #000000; border-bottom:none; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x280 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:general; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:none; border-right:none; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x281 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:2px solid windowtext; border-right:none; border-bottom:none; border-left:2px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x282 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:2px solid windowtext; border-right:2px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x283 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:none; border-right:none; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:2px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x284 { mso-style-parent:style18; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:none; border-right:none; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x285 { mso-style-parent:style19; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:2px solid windowtext; border-right:none; border-bottom:none; border-left:2px solid windowtext; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x286 { mso-style-parent:style19; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#FF0000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:700; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:2px solid windowtext; border-right:2px solid windowtext; border-bottom:none; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x287 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:italic; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; border-top:none; border-right:none; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }.x288 { mso-style-parent:style0; mso-number-format:General; text-align:left; vertical-align:top; white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word; background:auto; mso-pattern:auto; color:#000000; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:italic; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; border-top:none; border-right:none; border-bottom:1px solid windowtext; border-left:none; mso-diagonal-down:none; mso-diagonal-up:none; mso-protection:locked visible; }</style><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="0" data-sheet-name="Welcome"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:781pt"> <colgroup> <col span="2" style="width:81px"></col> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;width:880px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr class="x28" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.55pt" id="r0"> <td rowspan="31" class="x274" style="height:521.9999999999997pt;width:60.75pt"></td> <td colspan="2" class="x272" style="border-right:3px solid #385724;border-bottom:3px solid #385724">Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1)<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">                                </span>03 August - 12 September 2015</td> </tr> <tr class="x22" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:64.05pt" id="r1"> <td colspan="2" class="x271" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext">Note: This document contains a summary of the public comments received in response to the draft Work Stream 2 recommendations issued by the Cross Community Working on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). The comments are summarized in alphabetical for each category as applicable. Even though this summary was drawn‐up to reflect as accurately and objectively as possible the views expressed by participants, it does not substitute in any way the original contributions which are publicly available for full reference at: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en</td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r2"> <td class="x21"></td> <td class="x21"></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r3"> <td class="x21">Tab 1</td> <td class="x21">Welcome</td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r4"> <td class="x21">Tab 2 </td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet002.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Comments</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r5"> <td class="x21">Tab 3</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet003.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Mastersheet</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r6"> <td class="x21">Tab 4 </td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet004.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Overall Support</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r7"> <td class="x21">Tab 5</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet005.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Overall Disagreement</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r8"> <td class="x21">Tab 6</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet006.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Principles</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r9"> <td class="x21">Tab 7 </td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet007.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Fundamental Bylaws</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r10"> <td class="x21">Tab 8</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet008.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Human Rights</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r11"> <td class="x21">Tab 9</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet009.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Independent Review Process (IRP)</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r12"> <td class="x21">Tab 10 </td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet010.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Request for Reconsideration (RFR)</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r13"> <td class="x21">Tab 11</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet011.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Model</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r14"> <td class="x21">Tab 12</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet012.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Voting-Forum</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r15"> <td class="x21">Tab 13</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet013.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">GAC</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r16"> <td class="x21">Tab 14</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet014.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Budget</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r17"> <td class="x21">Tab 15</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet015.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Standard Bylaw</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r18"> <td class="x21">Tab 16</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet016.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Remove Individual Directors</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r19"> <td class="x21">Tab 17</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet017.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Recall Board</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r20"> <td class="x21">Tab 18</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet018.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Affirmation of Commitments (AOC)</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r21"> <td class="x21">Tab 19</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet019.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Stress Tests </span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r22"> <td class="x21">Tab 20</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet020.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Implementation</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r23"> <td class="x21">Tab 21</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet021.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Diversity</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r24"> <td class="x21">Tab 22</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet022.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Staff Accountability</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r25"> <td class="x21">Tab 23</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet023.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">SO/AC Accountability</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r26"> <td class="x21">Tab 24</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet024.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Methodology</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r27"> <td class="x171">Tab 25</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet025.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Work Stream 2</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r28"> <td class="x21">Tab 26</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet026.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Do you agree that the CCWG-Accountability proposal enhances ICANN's accountability?</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r29"> <td class="x21">Tab 27</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet027.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Are there elements of this proposal that would prevent you from approving it transmission to Chartering Organizations?</span></a></td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r30"> <td class="x21">Tab 28</td> <td class="x169"><a href="sheet028.htm#RANGE!A1"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Does this proposal meet the requirements set forward by the CWG-Stewardship?</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:60.75pt"></td> <td style="width:60.75pt"></td> <td style="width:660pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="1" data-sheet-name="Comments"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:728pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x21" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:28px"></col> <col class="x21" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:443px"></col> <col class="x21" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:500px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:16.8pt" id="r0"> <td class="x21" style="height:16.8pt;width:21pt"><a name="RANGE!A1"></a></td> <td class="x29" style="width:332.25pt">COMMENT SUBMISSIONS</td> <td class="x29" style="width:375pt">COMMENT LINK</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r1"> <td class="x21" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x21"></td> <td class="x21"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r2"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">1</td> <td class="x21">Cyber Invasion Ltd</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/1.%20%20Cyber%20Invasion%20Ltd%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Cyber Invasion Ltd Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r3"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">2</td> <td class="x21">Info</td> <td class="x25"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/87.%20%20Info%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#2E75B6;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Info Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r4"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">3</td> <td class="x21">Just Net Coalition</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/2.%20%20Richard%20Hill%20Comment%20on%20behalf%20of%20Just%20Net%20Coalition.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Richard Hill Comment on behalf of Just Net Coalition.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r5"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">4</td> <td class="x21">Inficron</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/3.%20%20INFICRON%20comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">INFICRON comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r6"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">5</td> <td class="x21">Jeff Eshom</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/88.%20%20Jeff%20Eshom%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Jeff Eshom Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r7"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">6</td> <td class="x21">Heritage Foundation 1</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/4.%20a%29%20%20Heritage%20Foundation%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Heritage Foundation Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r8"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt"> <div style="float:right"> _ </div></td> <td class="x21">Heritage Foundation 2</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/4.%20b%29%20Heritage%20Foundation%20Additional%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Heritage Foundation Additional Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r9"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">7</td> <td class="x30">Jacob Malthouse</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/6.%20%20Jacob%20Malthouse%20Comment%20%281%29.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Jacob Malthouse Comment (1).pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r10"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">8</td> <td class="x30">ccTLD Australia (auDA)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/7.%20.au%20Domain%20Administration%20Ltd%20%28auDA%29%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">.au Domain Administration Ltd (auDA) Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r11"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">9</td> <td class="x30">AFRALO (African Regional At-Large Organization)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/8.%20%20African%20Regional%20At%20Large%20Organisation%20%28AFRALO%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">African Regional At Large Organisation (AFRALO) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r12"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">10</td> <td class="x30">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/9.%20%20Nominet%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Nominet Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r13"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">11</td> <td class="x30">CFA (Consumer Federation of America) </td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/11.%20%20Consumer%20Federation%20of%20America%20%28CFA%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Consumer Federation of America (CFA) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r14"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">12</td> <td class="x30">Dot Latin</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/10.%20%20dot%20Latin%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">dot Latin Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r15"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">13</td> <td class="x30">Public Knowledge</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/12.%20%20Public%20Knowledge%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Public Knowledge Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r16"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">14</td> <td class="x30">ELIG </td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/13.%20%20ELIG%2C%20Attorneys-at-Law%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">ELIG, Attorneys-at-Law Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r17"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">15</td> <td class="x30">William Currie (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/14.%20%20Willie%20Currie%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Willie Currie Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r18"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">16</td> <td class="x30">Dyn</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/15.%20%20Dyn%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Dyn Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r19"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">17</td> <td class="x30">IAB (Internet Architecture Board)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/16.%20%20IAB%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">IAB Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r20"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">18</td> <td class="x30">Brian Carpenter</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/17.%20%20Brian%20E%20Carpenter%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Brian E Carpenter Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r21"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">19</td> <td class="x30" style="overflow:hidden">CENTR (European Association of National Internet Domain Registries)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/18.%20%20CENTR%20%28European%20Association%20of%20National%20Internet%20Domain%20Registries%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">CENTR (European Association of National Internet Domain Registries) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r22"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">20</td> <td class="x30">ccTLD Norway (Norid) </td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/19.%20%20NORID%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">NORID Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r23"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">21</td> <td class="x30">Government of France</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/20.%20%20Government%20of%20France%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Government of France Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r24"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">22</td> <td class="x30">UK Children's Charities</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/21.%20%20UK%20Children%27s%20Charities%27%20Coalition%20on%20Internet%20Safety%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">UK Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r25"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">23</td> <td class="x30">Government of New Zealand</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/22.%20%20Government%20of%20New%20Zealand%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Government of New Zealand Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r26"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">24</td> <td class="x30">ccTLD Canada (CIRA)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/23.%20%20CIRA%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">CIRA Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r27"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">25</td> <td class="x30">Government of Australia</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/5.%20Government%20of%20Australia%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Government of Australia Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r28"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">26</td> <td class="x30">JPNIC (Japan Network Information Center)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/24.%20%20Japan%20Network%20Information%20Center%20%28JPNIC%29%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC) Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r29"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">27</td> <td class="x30">Luis Hecht</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/25.%20%20Luis%20Hecht%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Luis Hecht Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r30"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">28</td> <td class="x30">Linda Breucker</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/26.%20%20Linda%20Breucker%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Linda Breucker Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r31"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">29</td> <td class="x30" style="overflow:hidden">ISPCP (Internet Services Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/27.%20%20Internet%20Service%20Provider%20and%20Connectivity%20Provider%20%28ISPCP%29%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider (ISPCP) Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r32"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">30</td> <td class="x30">Government of Germany</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/28.%20%20Government%20of%20Germany%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Government of Germany Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r33"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">31</td> <td class="x30" style="overflow:hidden">eNACSO EU Project (European NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/29.%20%20European%20NGO%20Alliance%20for%20Child%20Safety%20Online%20%28eNACSO%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">European NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online (eNACSO) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r34"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">32</td> <td class="x30">IT Law Institute - Istanbul</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/31.%20%20IT%20Law%20Institute%20_%20Istanbul%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">IT Law Institute _ Istanbul Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r35"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">33</td> <td class="x30">Government of Spain</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/30.%20%20Government%20of%20Spain%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Government of Spain Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r36"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">34</td> <td class="x30">ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/32.%20%20At-Large%20Advisory%20Committee%20%28ALAC%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r37"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">35</td> <td class="x30">Google</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/33.%20%20Google%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Google Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r38"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">36</td> <td class="x30">KIGA (Korea Internet Governance Alliance)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/34.%20%20Korea%20Internet%20Governance%20Alliance%20%28KIGA%29%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Korea Internet Governance Alliance (KIGA) Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r39"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">37</td> <td class="x30">INTA (International Trademark Association)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/35.%20%20International%20Trademark%20Association%20%28INTA%29%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">International Trademark Association (INTA) Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r40"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">38</td> <td class="x30">Erman Öncel - Partnership Istanbul</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/37.%20%20%20Erman%20%C3%96ncel%20-%20Partnership%20Istanbul%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Erman Öncel - Partnership Istanbul Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r41"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">39</td> <td class="x30">Internet Association</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/36.%20%20Internet%20Association%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Internet Association Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r42"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">40</td> <td class="x30">eco Association of the Internet Industry</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/38.%20%20eco%20Association%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">eco Association Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r43"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">41</td> <td class="x30">SIIA (Software &amp; Information Industry Association)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/39.%20%20Software%20%26%20Information%20Industry%20Association%20%28SIIA%29%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Software &amp; Information Industry Association (SIIA) Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r44"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">42</td> <td class="x30">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/40.%20%20U.S.%20Council%20for%20International%20Business%20%28USCIB%29%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">U.S. Council for International Business (USCIB) Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r45"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">43</td> <td class="x30">US Chamber of Commerce</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/41.%20%20US%20Chamber%20of%20Commerce%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">US Chamber of Commerce Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r46"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">44</td> <td class="x30">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/42.%20%20InternetNZ%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">InternetNZ Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r47"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">45</td> <td class="x30">ICANN Board - Summary of Input</td> <td class="x25"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/43.%20a%29%20%20ICANN%20Board%20Supplementary%20and%20Final%20Comments%20-%20Summary%20of%20Board%20Input.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#2E75B6;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Summary of Board Input.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r48"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt"> <div style="float:right"> _ </div></td> <td class="x30">ICANN Board - Comments Matrix</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/43.%20b%29%20%20ICANN%20Board%20Supplementary%20and%20Final%20Comments%20-%20Comments%20Matrix%20and%20Notes%20on%20Proposed%20Elements.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Comments Matrix and Notes on Proposed Elements.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r49"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt"> <div style="float:right"> _ </div></td> <td class="x30" style="overflow:hidden">ICANN Board - Memo on Proposed Approach for Community Enforceability</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/43.%20c%29%20%20ICANN%20Board%20Supplementary%20and%20Final%20Comments%20-%20Memo%20on%20Proposed%20Approach%20for%20Community%20Enforceability.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Memo on Proposed Approach for Community Enforceability.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r50"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt"> <div style="float:right"> _ </div></td> <td class="x30">ICANN Board - Frequently Asked Questions</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/43.%20d%29%20%20ICANN%20Board%20Supplementary%20and%20Final%20Comments%20-%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions%20Regarding%20Approach%20for%20Community%20Enforceability.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Approach for Community Enforceability.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r51"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt"> <div style="float:right"> _ </div></td> <td class="x30">ICANN Board - Preliminary Comments</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/43.%20e%29%20%20Board%20Preliminary%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Board Preliminary Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r52"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt"> <div style="float:right"> _ </div></td> <td class="x30">ICANN Board - Submission of Jones Day Impact Analysis</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/43.%20f%29%20%20ICANN%20Board%20Submission%20of%20Jones%20Day%20Impact%20Analysis.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">ICANN Board Submission of Jones Day Impact Analysis.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r53"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">46</td> <td class="x30">Graham Schreiber</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/44.%20%20Graham%20Schreiber%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Graham Schreiber Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r54"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">47</td> <td class="x30">MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/45.%20%20Motion%20Picture%20Association%20of%20America%2C%20Inc.%20%28MPAA%29%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r55"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">48</td> <td class="x30">Frank Simons</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/46.%20%20Frank%20Simons%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Frank Simons Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r56"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">49</td> <td class="x30">i2Coalition (Internet Infrastructure Coalition)</td> <td class="x24">Internet Infrastructure Coalition (i2Coalition) Comments</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r57"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">50</td> <td class="x30">Jan Scholte (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/48.%20%20Jan%20Aart%20Scholte%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Jan Aart Scholte Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r58"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">51</td> <td class="x30">CCAOI (Cyber Cafe Association of India)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/49.%20%20Cyber%20Cafe%20Association%20of%20India%20%28CCAOI%20%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Cyber Cafe Association of India (CCAOI ) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r59"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">52</td> <td class="x30">Government of India</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/50.%20%20Government%20of%20India%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Government of India Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r60"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">53</td> <td class="x31">Government of Argentina</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/51.%20%20Government%20of%20Argentina%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Government of Argentina Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r61"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">54</td> <td class="x30">NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/52.%20%20Non-Commercial%20Stakeholders%20Group%20%28NCSG%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r62"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">55</td> <td class="x30">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/53.%20%20Afnic%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Afnic Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r63"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">56</td> <td class="x30">Government of Italy</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/54.%20%20Government%20of%20Italy%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Government of Italy Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r64"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">57</td> <td class="x30">CWG-Stewardship</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/55.%20%20CWG%20IANA%20Stewardship%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">CWG IANA Stewardship Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r65"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">58</td> <td class="x30">NRO (Number Resource Organization)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/56.%20%20Number%20Resource%20Organisation%20%28NRO%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Number Resource Organisation (NRO) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r66"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">59</td> <td class="x30">IGP (Internet Governance Project)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/57.%20%20Internet%20Governance%20Project%20%28IGP%29%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Internet Governance Project (IGP) Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r67"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">60</td> <td class="x30">LINX (London Internet Exchange)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/58.%20%20London%20Internet%20Exchange%20%28LINX%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">London Internet Exchange (LINX) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r68"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">61</td> <td class="x30">CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/59.%20%20Center%20for%20Democracy%20%26%20Technology%20%28CDT%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Center for Democracy &amp; Technology (CDT) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r69"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">62</td> <td class="x30">COA (Coalition for Online Accountability)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/60.%20%20Coalition%20for%20Online%20Accountability%20%28COA%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r70"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">63</td> <td class="x30">Francis Hopkinson</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/61.%20%20Francis%20Hopkinson%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Francis Hopkinson Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r71"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">64</td> <td class="x30">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/62.%20%20Business%20Constituency%20%28BC%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Business Constituency (BC) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r72"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">65</td> <td class="x30">Christopher Wilkinson 1</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/63.%20%20a%29%20%20Christopher%20Wilkinson%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Christopher Wilkinson Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r73"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt"> <div style="float:right"> _ </div></td> <td class="x30">Christopher Wilkinson 2</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/63.%20%20b%29%20%20Christopher%20Wilkinson%20Additional%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Christopher Wilkinson Additional Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r74"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">66</td> <td class="x30">Government of the United Kingdom</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/85.%20%20Government%20of%20United%20Kingdom%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Government of United Kingdom Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r75"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">67</td> <td class="x30">Government of Norway</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/64.%20%20Norwegian%20Communications%20Authority%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Norwegian Communications Authority Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r76"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">68</td> <td class="x30" style="overflow:hidden">IFPI &amp; RIAA (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry &amp; Recording Industry Association of America)</td> <td class="x25"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/65.%20%20International%20Federation%20of%20the%20Phonographic%20Industry%20%28IFPI%29%20and%20Recording%20Industry%20Association%20of%20America%20%28RIAA%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#2E75B6;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;"> (IFPI) and (RIAA) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r77"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">69</td> <td class="x30">GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/66.%20%20Governmental%20Advisory%20Committee%20%28GAC%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r78"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">70</td> <td class="x30">RySG (Registries Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/67.%20%20Registries%20Stakeholder%20Group%20%28RySG%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r79"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">71</td> <td class="x30" style="overflow:hidden">CCG-NULD (Centre for Communication Governance National Law University Delhi)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/68.%20%20Centre%20for%20Communication%20Governance%20_%20National%20Law%20University%2C%20Delhi%20%28CCG%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Centre for Communication Governance _ (CCG) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r80"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">72</td> <td class="x30">John Klensin</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/69.%20%20John%20C%20Klensin%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">John C Klensin Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r81"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">73</td> <td class="x30">Garth Bruen</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/70.%20%20Garth%20Bruen%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Garth Bruen Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r82"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">74</td> <td class="x30">Avri Doria (endorsed by Joy Liddicoat &amp; Timothy McGinnis)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/71.%20%20Avri%20Doria%20%28endorsed%20by%20Joy%20Liddicoat%20%26%20Timothy%20McGinnis%29%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Avri Doria (endorsed by Joy Liddicoat &amp; Timothy McGinnis) Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r83"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">75</td> <td class="x30">ITI (Information Technology Industry Council)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/72.%20%20Information%20Technology%20Industry%20Council%20%28ITI%29%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r84"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">76</td> <td class="x30">Carolina Aguerre &amp; Eduardo Santoyo</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/73.%20%20Carolina%20Aguerre%20and%20Eduardo%20Santoyo%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Carolina Aguerre and Eduardo Santoyo Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r85"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">77</td> <td class="x30">Government of Kuwait</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/74.%20%20Government%20of%20Kuwait%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Government of Kuwait Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r86"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">78</td> <td class="x30">Centre for Internet &amp; Society</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/75.%20%20Centre%20for%20Internet%20%26%20Society%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Centre for Internet &amp; Society Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r87"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">79</td> <td class="x30">Nell Minow (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/76.%20%20Nell%20Minow%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Nell Minow Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r88"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">80</td> <td class="x30">Giacomo Mazzone</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/77.%20%20Giacomo%20Mazzone%20Comments%20%28combined%29.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Giacomo Mazzone Comments (combined).pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r89"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">81</td> <td class="x30" style="overflow:hidden">KMC &amp; Ping (Karsten Manufacturing Corporation &amp; Ping Registry Provider, Inc.)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/78.%20%20KMC%20%26%20Ping%20%28Karsten%20Manufacturing%20Corporation%20%26%20Ping%20Registry%20Provider%2C%20Inc.%29%20Comments.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">KMC &amp; Ping (Karsten Manufacturing Corporation &amp; Ping Registry Provider, Inc.) Comments.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r90"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">82</td> <td class="x30">John Poole</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/79.%20%20John%20Poole%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">John Poole Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r91"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">83</td> <td class="x30">Government of Egypt</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/80.%20%20Government%20of%20Egypt%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Government of Egypt Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r92"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">84</td> <td class="x30">IPC (Intellectual Property Constituency)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/81.%20%20Intellectual%20Property%20Constituency%20%28IPC%29%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r93"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">85</td> <td class="x30">Lee Andrew Bygrave (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/82.%20%20Lee%20Andrew%20Bygrave%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Lee Andrew Bygrave Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r94"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">86</td> <td class="x30">Government of Brazil</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/83.%20%20Government%20of%20Brazil%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Government of Brazil Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r95"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">87</td> <td class="x30">Edward Morris</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/84.%20%20Edward%20Morris%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Edward Morris Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r96"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">88</td> <td class="x30">Intel</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/86.%20%20Intel%20Corporation%20Comments%20.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Intel Corporation Comments .pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r97"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">89</td> <td class="x30">Government of Denmark</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/89.%20%20Government%20of%20Denmark%20Comment.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Government of Denmark Comment.pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r98"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt">90</td> <td class="x30">CONAC (China Organizational Name Administration Center)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/90.%20%20CONAC%20Comments%20%28in%20ZH%29.pdf?api=v2" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">CONAC Comments (in ZH).pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r99"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt"> <div style="float:right"> _ </div></td> <td class="x30">EN translation</td> <td class="x24"><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/pdfpmVvFXP10C.pdf" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">CONAC Comments (in EN).pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r100"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:13.8pt">91</td> <td class="x21" style="overflow:hidden">CAICT (China Academy of Information and Communication Technology)</td> <td class="x24"><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00098.html" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">CAICT Comments (in ZH).pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r101"> <td class="x26" style="height:13.8pt"> <div style="float:right"> _ </div></td> <td class="x21">EN translation</td> <td class="x24"><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/pdf84kC2S6sxi.pdf" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">CAICT Comments (IN EN).pdf</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r102"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:14.4pt">92</td> <td class="x21">Richard Hill</td> <td class="x169"><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00101.html" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">Richard Hill comment</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r103"> <td class="x21" style="text-align:right;height:14.4pt">93</td> <td class="x21">SSAC</td> <td class="x169"><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00102.html" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:#0563C1;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;text-line-through:none;text-underline-style:single;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;">SSAC Comments</span></a></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:21pt"></td> <td style="width:332.25pt"></td> <td style="width:375pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="2" data-sheet-name="Mastersheet"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:2758pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x64" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x69" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:96px"></col> <col class="x69" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:115px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:117px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:98px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:112px"></col> <col class="x28" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:56px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:120px"></col> <col class="x28" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:86px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:101px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:77px"></col> <col class="x28" span="7" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:87px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:113px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> <col class="x57" span="7" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r0"> <td colspan="2" class="x208" style="height:13.8pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">METHOD USED IN PUBLIC COMMENT ANALYSIS</a></td> <td class="x70" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x69" style="width:72pt"></td> <td class="x69" style="width:86.25pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:73.5pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:84pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:42pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:90pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:64.5pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:75.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:57.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:65.25pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:84.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:352.05pt" id="r1"> <td colspan="3" class="x275" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext;height:351.3pt">The staff support team assessed all comments received in multiple phases. <br /><br />• First, the team read each comment and noted areas of support, neutrality, and disagreement. If a comment was made on the sections and elements of the CCWG-Accountability proposal, whether it was supportive, neutral, in disagreement, or otherwise, a notation was made to indicate inclusion in a further detailed sheet for analysis: Methodology; Principles; Human Rights; IRP; RFR; Fundamental Bylaws; Sole Member Model; Voting and Community Forum; Role of Governments; each of the Powers related to Standard Bylaws, Budget, Operating and Strategic Plans, Removal of Individual Board Directors, and Recall of the entire Board; Diversity; Staff Accountability; SO/AC Accountability; AOC Reviews; Stress Tests; WS2; Implementation Plan. <br /><br />• In addition, the team assessed direct responses to the three questions posed in the 2nd Public Comment including: Do you agree that the CCWG-Accountability proposal enhances ICANN's accountability? Are there elements of this proposal that would prevent you from approving it transmission to Chartering Organizations? Does this proposal meet the requirements set forward by the CWG-Stewardship?<br /><br />• Comments that were generally supportive of the CCWG-Accountability Proposal are filed under “Overall Support” and the same notation was made for comments that were generally in disagreement "Overall Disagreement". <br /><br />• Second, following the categorization of the comments in the Master Sheet (described above), each comment was detailed per category, including direct quotes as much as possible. <br /><br />• Some comments only addressed a few categories, so these were counted as “eligible” or “respondents” per category. That breakdown is also available in the Master Sheet. <br /><br />• In the detailed comment analysis, the team used a further category breakdown so as to show the nuances of the comments: Confusion/ Clarification; New Idea/Suggestion; Concerns; Agreement; Disagreement; Neutral. <br /><br />• Finally, the team provided written summary and analysis based on the tallies and the quotes in the detailed sheets. <br /></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x59" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69.6pt" id="r2"> <td class="x48" style="height:68.1pt">Master List </td> <td class="x48">Support areas</td> <td class="x48">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x48">Issue areas</td> <td class="x48">Generally supportive</td> <td class="x48">Generally against</td> <td class="x48">Methodology</td> <td class="x48">Principles</td> <td class="x48">Fundamental Bylaws</td> <td class="x48">IRP</td> <td class="x48">RFR</td> <td class="x48">Model</td> <td class="x48">Voting/Forum</td> <td class="x48">GAC</td> <td class="x48">Budget</td> <td class="x48">Standard Bylaws</td> <td class="x48">Remove Individual Directors</td> <td class="x48">Recall Board</td> <td class="x48">Diversity</td> <td class="x48">Staff Acct</td> <td class="x48">SOAC Acct.</td> <td class="x48">AOC</td> <td class="x48">Stress Tests</td> <td class="x48">Human Rights</td> <td class="x48">WS2</td> <td class="x48">Implementation</td> <td class="x48">Enhances Acct</td> <td class="x48">Chartering organizations</td> <td class="x48">CWG</td> <td class="x186"></td> <td class="x186"></td> <td class="x186"></td> <td class="x186"></td> <td class="x186"></td> <td class="x186"></td> <td class="x186"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r3"> <td class="x36" style="height:50.7pt">AFRALO (African Regional At-Large Organization)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Details issues with IRP, how to count votes, budget veto, removing an indi. Director and coordination of community powers</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r4"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Generally supportive but would of wanted less enforcability but details issues with all major sections of the report - numerous comments</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r5"> <td class="x36" style="height:50.7pt">Avri Doria (endorsed by Joy Liddicoat &amp; Timothy McGinnis)</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model (concerns with equal footing and diversity); expanding the ATRT scope to include diversity; suggests adding SCWG as a community power;</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">IRP (expansion of role to include “hearing and resolving claims that concern SMCM decisions.”); Human rights (suggests language)</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r6"> <td class="x36" style="height:108.9pt">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">agrees proposal enhances accountability; supports enforceable powers, binding IRP, community powers, CMSM, inclusion of AoC reviews including time window interval and suggestion that ATRT change WHOIS review) - note: suggestion to consider some of Board language; Article VIII as Fundamental Bylaw; ST18</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">pushing critical work to Work Stream 2; elements need to be addressed for COs' support; limiting scope and contract enforcement: Bylaws text to clarify; human rights; participation in processes before IRP and RFR; repeated budget vetoes; status of AoC 8b; government influence and transparency; elimination of Core Value 11; meeting CWG requirements; PTI accountability; clarifications needed on paragraphs 168 and 187 of Mission; process definition of SCWG needed including escalation.</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r7"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">Brian Carpenter</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Details issues with the sole member model - Likes the approach proposed by the IAB</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69.6pt" id="r8"> <td class="x36" style="height:68.1pt">CAICT (China Academy of Information and Communication Technology)</td> <td class="x51">Geographical balance and users' representation are important. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Extend comment period; clarify dispute resolution system; clarification needed on voting system; jurisdiction to be addressed. </td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r9"> <td class="x39" style="height:33.3pt">Carolina Aguerre &amp; Eduardo Santoyo</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model (concerns about voting); </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Concerns about voting; Jurisdiction for WS2; IRP scope; SO/AC accountability</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r10"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">CCAOI (Cyber Cafe Association of India)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">focus should not be on accoutability via SOACs, more details needed in WS1 and not pushed to WS2, Forum, voting allocations, IRP, RFR, methodology. </td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69.6pt" id="r11"> <td class="x36" style="height:68.1pt">CCG-NULD (Centre for Communication Governance National Law University Delhi)</td> <td class="x51">Fundamental Bylaws</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">SOACs participating in the sole member need their accountability reviewed prior to being given those powers in the sole member. Lac of details in the sole member and the IRP. Any pts that would prevent trans. To chart. Orgs = Y, issues with Voting allocations, GAC</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r12"> <td class="x36" style="height:95.1pt">ccTLD Australia (auDA)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">proposal overly complex, lacks important details and may not meet NTIA requirements, deferring key elements to WS2 that need to be covered in WS1 (timing) which include IRP, Comm Powers issues (communiuty forum),<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Human rights issue, implementability which could hinder operations or cause paralysis, issues around the delicate balance bet SOs and ACs, issues around the role of the GAC,</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r13"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">ccTLD Canada (CIRA)</td> <td class="x51">IRP,</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model</td> <td class="x51">Details issues with voting allocations, enhanced role of GAC And the applicability of the IRP to PTI decisions, may not meet the requirements of the CWG; RFR</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r14"> <td class="x39" style="height:122.7pt">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x51">CCWG proposal necessary and sufficient to allow transition; ICANN needs to commit to implement; agrees with four building blocks, Fundamental Bylaws, standard Bylaws, inclusion of AoC; accepts "private sector" definition; suggests referring to UN Human Rights language; supports sole membership model; supports outcome of PDP not being challenged by CMSM; supports powers toward Board (remove dir and Board), no opposition to recommending transmission to Chartering Organizations</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">; refinements needed for powers; number of SO/ACs participating in CMSM needed; discuss combined powers of SO/AC including GAC voting and advisory powers as well as exclusive powers; closure needed on stress test 18 and power of GAC; discuss government capture; IRP must comply with diversity</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r15"> <td class="x36" style="height:81.3pt">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x54">General support for most of the proposal; enhances? = yes; CO approval? = yes; CWG requirements? = yes; Principles; Fundamental Bylaws (jurisdiction does not need to be a Fundamental bylaw); IRP; Model; Community Forum; Voting (opt-in, opt-out); Community Powers; AoC reviews (Whois chnage is pragmatic); ST (#18); WS2 (transitional bylaw)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">timing (new issues may add public comment); WS2 (HR, SO/AC acct and staff acc); ACs influence in model (should only be SOs); PTI/IANA budget; Bylaws drafting process (CCWG counsel to draft)</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r16"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">ccTLD Norway (Norid)</td> <td class="x51">IRP, diversity, staff accountability, SOAC accountability</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Details issues with voting allocations, Appeals mechanisms and diversity (441), Implementation - need better risk analysis</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r17"> <td class="x36" style="height:67.5pt">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal, Enhance acct? = Y, mission, commitments and core values, Diversity, jurisdiction (WS2), Forum, AOC (tiiming suggestions), elements that would prevent support = N, CWG reqs = Y,</td> <td class="x51">Sole member model, SOAC acct.</td> <td class="x51">Rebuiding trust and reaching out to parties affectede but not involved in ICANN. Minor issues in commitments and core values, ICANN has to improve Diversity, Forum (timing issues), Recall Board (timing issues, repeat issues), Staff acct. should be resp. of CEO, Budget issues vs PTI,</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r18"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal, CWG reqs= Y, Human Rights, support Bylaw committing to WS2, supports implementation</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">(198) regulation of service suggestion, (225) unclear why govt advice text deleted, (268,295)need for increased transparency,issues with voting allocations, elaborate Forum in WS1, suggest includsion of eval. Of WS1 in WS2</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69.6pt" id="r19"> <td class="x36" style="height:68.1pt">CENTR (European Association of National Internet Domain Registries)</td> <td class="x51">IRP, diversity, staff accountability, SOAC accountability</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Details issues with voting allocations, Appeals mechanisms and diversity (441), Implementation - need better risk analysis; RFR</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r20"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">Centre for Internet and Society</td> <td class="x51">Human Rights (option 2). Diversity (current community is not really multistakeholder), sole member</td> <td class="x54"></td> <td class="x51">jusrisdiction (WS2) impact on sole member (Article XVIII Section 1 not be designated a fundamental bylaw), need to consider different voting allocations, transparency,</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r21"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">CFA (Consumer Federation of America)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r22"> <td class="x36" style="height:50.7pt">China Organizational Name Administration Center (CONAC)</td> <td class="x101">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Future practice will be the best way to test model</td> <td class="x51">Reconsider jurisdiction; give weight to contracted parties; more effetive methods needed to engage Chinese community</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r23"> <td class="x36" style="height:95.1pt">Christopher Wilkinson</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">reference to NTIA's backstop powers; specific concerns with methodology, report content and drafting process; political responsibilities and implications to be addressed (including on Board membership, CMSM, IRP); representing interests of SO/ACs; diversity; balance of power; clarify power to recall individual directors including diversity; core value on competition in DNS markets too low; extend comment period</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r24"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">COA (Coalition for Online Accountability)</td> <td class="x51">AOC, sole member model, Stress tests 18, 21</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Contract Negotiation, Interpretation and Enforcement (principles) and Stress test 29 and 30, AOC, voting allocations, stress test 33, Human Rights</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r25"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">CWG-Stewardship</td> <td class="x51">CWG reqs = yes</td> <td class="x51">Budget, model, IRP, Fundamental Bylaws</td> <td class="x51">Only clarifications of understanding</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r26"> <td class="x41" style="height:136.5pt">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x54">General support for most of the proposal: comprehensive analysis of PC1; Mission; Core Values; Freedom to Contact; Fundamental Bylaws; IRP (tiered timeline; training for panellists); Reconsideration; Model; Community Forum; Board removal (in interim Board, diversity requirements can be waived for better governance expertise); Diversity; Staff accountability (community involment in standards); AoC reviews; Stress Tests (#18; #11; #32); WS2 (transitional bylaw); inclusion of Human Rights; Enhances? =Yes; nothing to prevent acceptane by COs;<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Human Rights language had consensus (Keith's);</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Human rights &amp; private sector language; core value 11; voting allocation (GNSO; general power shift); PTI/IANA budget (and relation to CWG requirements); Director removal (SO/Acs can remove their own); diversity (should be in WS1 and not be expanded in ATRT); SO/AC accountability is reccursive; ST35; viability of implementation plan and consensus by exhaustion; CWG requirements budget issue; Bylaws drafting process (CCWG counsel to draft)</td> <td class="x55">1</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r27"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">Dot Latin</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Looking at changing the status of ICANN from not for profit to for profit</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r28"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">Dyn</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Enhances ICANN's accountability = N, Approving transmission = N, Meets CWG reqs = N, issues with sole member, IRP overly complex</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r29"> <td class="x39" style="height:33.3pt">eco Association of the Internet Industry</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">If concerns remain about voting allocations it should be replaced with rogh consensus should maintain GAC as advisory only</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r30"> <td class="x39" style="height:39.9pt">Edward Morris</td> <td class="x51">All Powers, RFR (reservation about the Ombudsman), Transparency, sole member</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">IRP (too limited in scope, too expensive to operate, too remote to actualize...), Definition of Private Sector (para 154), Voting Allocations, vote counting; Human Rights, </td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r31"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">ELIG</td> <td class="x51">Multistakeholder involvement</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Deadlocks in changing bylaws or fundamental Bylaqws may require stress test</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r32"> <td class="x36" style="height:50.7pt">eNACSO EU Project (European NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Mentions concern with limiting ICANN to its mission</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r33"> <td class="x39" style="height:81.3pt">Erman Öncel - Partnership Istanbul</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Notes issues with the timing and methodology. Details issues with vetoing the strat plan and budget, multistakeholder model must become more inclusive, does not support the single member model and the powers (with exception of approving changes to bylaws and remving ind. directors) and probably not IRP (unclear)S</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r34"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Francis Hopkinson</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Does not support the proposal</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r35"> <td class="x39" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Frank Simons</td> <td class="x56">Support for all CCWG recommendations</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190">1</td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190"></td> <td class="x190">1</td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r36"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model; Voting </td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r37"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Garth Bruen</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Separate GDD from ICANN</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r38"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">Giacomo Mazzone</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">concerns with RFR process and context; disagrees with CWG dependency that appeals mechanism should not cover ccTLD delegation/re-delegation; concerns with lack of consideration of public interest. Proposed text changes to IRP section.</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r39"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">Google</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Details issues with the IRP, veto over strat plan and budget, Board recall, voting process in the sole member</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r40"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Government of Argentina</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Core Value 7; Strest Test 18 and 12</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r41"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">Government of Australia</td> <td class="x51">ST18 (governments to remain in advisory role); </td> <td class="x51">Insufficient detail on IRP, given binding nature; </td> <td class="x51">Human Rights (WS2); </td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r42"> <td class="x36" style="height:67.5pt">Government of Brazil</td> <td class="x51">Supports the CCWG in paragraph 252, which does not consider appropriate that Article XVIII, Section 1, of ICANN's bylaws, be granted the status of a "fundamental bylaw", IRP (but some concerns), voting allocations, Diversity, Jurisdiction cxould be in WS2 to not hold the transition hostage; supports GAC comments</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Commitment 5 (private sector led), suggest mods to para 206, Supports GAc comments re Community mech. Stress test 18</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r43"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">Government of Denmark</td> <td class="x51">Denmark supports the proposal and the overall framework for enhancing<br />ICANN’s accountability; supports the GAC advisory role</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">ensuring that there is no capture in the system</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r44"> <td class="x36" style="height:95.1pt">Government of Egypt</td> <td class="x51">discussion of ICANN Board response; recognize and assess GAC’s role;</td> <td class="x51">importance of maintaining the stability of ICANN and its multistakeholder<br />bottom-up nature in any model proposed, as well as the<br />importance of stress-testing this model; </td> <td class="x51"><br /><br />limit WS1 to transition; importance of WS2 for all remaining<br />accountability measures</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r45"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">Government of France</td> <td class="x51">Supports IRP</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Details issues with Diversity, strcit conflict of interest rules at all levels, Core Value 7, Stress test 18 - </td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r46"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">Government of Germany</td> <td class="x51">Supports sole member model but stresses importance of participation</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">comments on the role of governments</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r47"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">Government of India</td> <td class="x51">fundamental Bylaws, stress test 34, diversity</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Sole member needs more testing and risk analysis, needs to provide ways to amend if necessary upon experience, Fundamental Bylaws, missing power to approve changes to the Root, IRP, WS2,</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r48"> <td class="x39" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Government of Italy</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">GAC participation</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r49"> <td class="x39" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Government of Kuwait</td> <td class="x51">IANA transition timeline; Removal of individual directors; </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model; Recall full board (trigger is not clear);</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r50"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">Government of New Zealand</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal, fundamenatl Bylaws, Human rights; Stress test 18 and 35</td> <td class="x51">Stress test 21</td> <td class="x51">Details issues regarding the role of governments in ICANN, IRP needed for ccTLDs and human rights</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r51"> <td class="x41" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Government of Norway</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model; Voting </td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r52"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">Government of Spain</td> <td class="x51">Supports IRP, AOC reviews</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Notes that GAC's current role should be maintaned, support for core value 7, issue with governments not mentionned in commitment 5, does not support stress test 18</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r53"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">Government of the United Kingdom</td> <td class="x51">Fundamental Bylaws, community emp. Mech, IRP, core value 7, GAC, Forum, stress test 18, Jurisdiction in WS2,</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Issues related to budget, removal of ind. Directors, removal of Board, sole member model, Mission and core values (except para 187, 218)</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r54"> <td class="x41" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Graham Schreiber</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r55"> <td class="x36" style="height:67.5pt">i2Coalition (Internet Infrastructure Coalition)</td> <td class="x51">AoC reviews; Principles (except HR); IRP; removal individual directors; ST18</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Human rights language; IRP and Reconsideration require public comment first; Core Value 11; budget veto (should not be open-ended; give GNSO extra weight); board recall (threshold); bylaw changes (additional weight for certain SO/Acs, bylaw 8, 9, 10, &amp; 11 -- include separate standard for these)</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r56"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">IAB (Internet Architecture Board)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">IRP applying to IETF? (should be addressed in Core Values), current formulation of budget veto problematic, Details issues with the sole member model, would prefer another approach and timing</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r57"> <td class="x36" style="height:81.3pt">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x51">Principles (balancing test and Fundamental Bylaws provisions); establishing Fundamental Bylaws; community empowerment; IRP (ccTLD exclusions; independence; recall; settlement; time; transparency); Reconsideration (standing; goals; access; due process); Board and Director removal (with recommended changes); AoC reviews; enforcement; Stress Tests</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Pinciples (limiting mission, some core values); Fundamental Bylaws (various);<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>IRP (purpose, role, initiation, standing; cost); Reconsideration process (decision making); Sole Member Model; Voting (GAC); Budget; Removal and recall of Board; staff and So/AC accountability; AOC; WS2;<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x191"></td> <td class="x191"></td> <td class="x191"></td> <td class="x191"></td> <td class="x191"></td> <td class="x191"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:87pt" id="r58"> <td class="x36" style="height:85.5pt">IFPI &amp; RIAA (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry &amp; Recording Industry Association of America)</td> <td class="x51">Contract enforcement</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">ST29; ST30 (should be removed entirely)</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r59"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">IGP (Internet Governance Project)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Voting (weights for Acs and composition), Core Value 7; Freedom to contract (see NCSG); concern with ICANN Board comments (treat as equal stakeholders)</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r60"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Inficron</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r61"> <td class="x42" style="height:15.899999999999999pt"><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00001.html" target="_parent"><span style="font-size:14pt;color:#000000;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;text-line-through:none;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;">Info</span></a></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Does not support NomCom</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x192" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt;background:none" id="r62"> <td class="x39" style="height:81.3pt">INTA (International Trademark Association)</td> <td class="x54">Remove Ind. Directors, remove Board, veto Bylaws, approve Fundamental Bylaws, veto budget and strat plan - inclusion of AOC, slole membership model - icreases ICANN accountability = yes, chartering orgs= ?, </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Many details missing - more power for commercial users, Wants ICANN and its components to remain US corps as a Fundamental Bylaw, issues with voting allocations, Bylaws must be drafted prios to transition, costs of IRP need other mechanisms which are less burdensome, cwg = no, cocnerns about implementing IFR or special IFR.</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x192" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt;background:none" id="r63"> <td class="x39" style="height:26.1pt">Intel</td> <td class="x51">General support for the 2nd draft report; Sole Member Model; Principles;Fundamental bylaws;<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>IRP; Human Rights; ST18</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r64"> <td class="x39" style="height:108.9pt">Internet Association </td> <td class="x54">Support for proposal; ICANN Board comments (work together for solution); Principles (Core Value 11; Human Rights; regulation of services); Fundamental Bylaws; IRP (scope; independence of panelists; binding arbitration); Reconsideration (with rebuttal; Ombudsman as initial review only if independent of ICANN Legal); Sole Member Model; Voting; Community powers (suggests an additional separation power); ST18; </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Core Values (ICANN Board should not accept advice that is not consistent with Core Values); HR should be addressed by experts; IRP (start with<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>safeguards such as public comment process; concern about WS2 elaboration); Reconsideration (safeguards such as Public Comment process and independence of ICANN Legal); Voting (threshold based on entire membership pool); Budget veto; threshold for recall of ICANN Boar; additional reviews for SO/AC and staff acct; WS2</td> <td class="x55">1</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r65"> <td class="x39" style="height:95.1pt">IPC (Intellectual Property Constituency)</td> <td class="x54">generally supports changes to Mission, Commitments, Core Values; concept of incorporating key AoC provisions including reviews (with concerns); supports single member model (with note that further detail need); supports changes to IRP (with concerns); GAC voting thresholds; ST18 and NTIA criteria (with caveat that further work needed); human rights;</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">concerns with restricting ICANN from "regulating services of content" and associated IRP procedure (ST29); concerns revisions to Mission weakens intellectual property protections/rights; balance Commitments and Core Values; status of incorporation of AoC Section 9.3; status of AoC Section 8b and 7; diversity and composition of review teams panels; ST29 and 30; independence of community power. </td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r66"> <td class="x36" style="height:50.7pt">ISPCP (Internet Services Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Sole member model</td> <td class="x51">Details issues with voting allocations and removing individual Directors</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r67"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">IT Law Institute - Istanbul</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Serious concerns - Details issues with recall of the Board, sole membership model, balance between ICANN communities, timing of implementation</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r68"> <td class="x36" style="height:50.7pt">ITI (Information Technology Industry Council)</td> <td class="x51">supports enhancing Bylaws and procedures, ST18, community powers </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r69"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Jacob Malthouse</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Details issues around the IRP</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r70"> <td class="x41" style="height:39.9pt">Jan Scholte (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Accountability of model, Clarification of voting, Stress test vs possibility of clogging PDPs, Clarification of GAC role, priviliged position for registries in IRP and elsewhere?</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r71"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Jeff Eshom</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x188"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r72"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">John Klensin</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">methodology; timeline, ST</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x187"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r73"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">John Poole</td> <td class="x51">No part of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">All parts of the proposal</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x189"></td> <td class="x193"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r74"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">JPNIC (Japan Network Information Center)</td> <td class="x51">Enhances ICANN acct = Y, Prevent transmission = N, Meets CWG reqs = Y;<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>human rights</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Details issues with the sole member model preferring the sole designator model, SOAC accountability</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x193"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r75"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">Just Net Coalition </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Does not support the process - Cancel current process and proceed with Tunis Agenda and Delhi decleration</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x193"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r76"> <td class="x39" style="height:39.9pt">KIGA (Korea Internet Governance Alliance)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal, sole member model, budget, bylaws, fund. Bylaws,<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>rem. Directors, remove Board, Voting allocation</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Mentions issues regarding the decision process in SOACs and increasing participation of developing countries</td> <td class="x55">1</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x193"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69.6pt" id="r77"> <td class="x39" style="height:68.1pt">KMC &amp; Ping (Karsten Manufacturing Corporation &amp; Ping Registry Provider, Inc.) </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">process; suggesting Fundamental Bylaws additions; jurisdiction; </td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x193"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r78"> <td class="x39" style="height:33.3pt">Lee Andrew Bygrave (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x51">General support with some concerns</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model; Voting; Community Forum; concern about voting right for GAC</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r79"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">Linda Breucker</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Specific questions regarding the number of times the community can veto a strategic plan</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r80"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">LINX (London Internet Exchange)</td> <td class="x51">Core Value and Commitments, Veto Bylaws changes, approve fundamental Bylaws, remove ind. dir. remove Board (but doubt how useful it could be)</td> <td class="x51">Sole member model</td> <td class="x51">IRP (many), Human rights, Contracting power (regulation), Budget veto</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r81"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">Luis Hecht</td> <td class="x51">Enhances ICANN acct = Y, Prevent transmission = N, Meets CWG reqs = Y</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x193"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r82"> <td class="x39" style="height:67.5pt">MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)</td> <td class="x51">enhances ICANN acct = Y with amendments, Prevent transmission = N, Meets CWG reqs = Y; Human rights</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Prevent transmission = several areas of concern, core values around consumer trust, possible issues around ICANN being a regulator, Jurisdiction needs to remain in US and be a fundamental Bylaw, transparent interaction with govts bylaw should be in WS1 and not 2</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r83"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x51">CWG reqs = yes, Human Rights,RFR,</td> <td class="x51">Enhance ICANN acct = ? - some issues</td> <td class="x51">Submit to chartering orgs, issue with sole member, issue with some core values, issues with voting allocations, role of GAC, AOC</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r84"> <td class="x36" style="height:81.3pt">Nell Minow (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Accountability of model, Clarification of voting, Stress test vs possibility of clogging PDPs, Clarification of GAC role, privileged position for registries in IRP and elsewhere?; outreach needed; regular review of ICANN effectiveness; checks and balances; rigidity of model; concerns with power to remove Board members; methodology of process</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r85"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">NRO (Number Resource Organization)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">CWG requirements (for names to decide)</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r86"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">Public Knowledge</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Detials issues with Voting Allocations and removing individual Directors</td> <td class="x55">1</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r87"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">RySG (Registries Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x51">supports proposal, ST18, analysis of DIDP; inclusion of WHOIS review into Bylaws.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">public comment deadline; GAC allotment of community votes; consider gTLD revenue in context of budget/strategic plan power; IRP and transparency (including ICANN commitment to follow through in meantime); Human Rights; WHOIS review mandate.</td> <td class="x55">1</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r88"> <td class="x39" style="height:50.7pt">SIIA (Software &amp; Information Industry Association)</td> <td class="x51">Support for some mechanisms</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Issues around govt participation - supports stress test 18 and supports the BC recommendations to the CCWG</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r89"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">The Heritage Foundation</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Details concerns about GAC controlling ICANN; Issues with the Human Rights proposals</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r90"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">UK Children's Charities</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Mentions issues with limiting ICANN's mission</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r91"> <td class="x41" style="height:39.9pt">US Chamber of Commerce</td> <td class="x87">Sole member model, Retain current jurisdiction as a fundamental Bylaw, support bylaw to prevent govt capture of ICANN, support stress test 18</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Core value 11, concern about removing reference to consumer trust, Stress tests 29 and 30, possible issues around approval for the CWG</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:193.2pt" id="r92"> <td class="x39" style="height:191.7pt">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x51">mission; Core Value Fundamental Bylaws, California jurisdiction (with status of Fundamental Bylaw);<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>IRP + suggestions; support RfR and recommends providing definitions of materially harmed/affected; agrees with CMSM and rationale for voting weights (absolute thresholds are preferable); agrees with forum but urges development of an approach; supports community powers; supports inclusion of AoC reviews;agrees with ST 18.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Concerns about proposed revisions to mission: proposed Bylaws text does not provide adequate clarity; careful consideration needed with respect to effect an inclusion of Human Rights related commitment could have; no support for removal of reference to consumer; implement paragraph 337 of proposal 1; disagrees with inclusion of civil society and academia in "private sector"; disagrees with eliminaton of language to defer to input from public authorities and urges inclusion of textual revisions to 225; disagrees with power to veto a budget more than twice; supports higher threshold for Board recall; disagrees with ST 29 and 30 premises; community power needed for SCWG; transparency related to potential government capture (including disclosure of required information) needed; requests balancing recurring obligations of ICANN community.</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r93"> <td class="x45" style="height:34.05pt">William Currie (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x194">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x194">N/A</td> <td class="x194">N/A</td> <td class="x195">1</td> <td class="x195"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x196"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr class="x201" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r94"> <td class="x197" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x198"></td> <td class="x198"></td> <td class="x198"></td> <td class="x199">19</td> <td class="x199">3</td> <td class="x199">13</td> <td class="x199">32</td> <td class="x199">21</td> <td class="x199">39</td> <td class="x199">13</td> <td class="x199">49</td> <td class="x199">42</td> <td class="x199">34</td> <td class="x199">22</td> <td class="x199">10</td> <td class="x199">22</td> <td class="x199">22</td> <td class="x199">22</td> <td class="x199">9</td> <td class="x199">11</td> <td class="x199">14</td> <td class="x199">26</td> <td class="x199">23</td> <td class="x199">25</td> <td class="x199">9</td> <td class="x199">12</td> <td class="x199">16</td> <td class="x199">16</td> <td class="x200"></td> <td class="x201"></td> <td class="x201"></td> <td class="x201"></td> <td class="x201"></td> <td class="x201"></td> <td class="x201"></td> </tr> <tr class="x201" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r95"> <td class="x197" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x198"></td> <td class="x198"></td> <td class="x198"></td> <td class="x202">22%</td> <td class="x202">3%</td> <td class="x202">15%</td> <td class="x202">37%</td> <td class="x202">24%</td> <td class="x202">45%</td> <td class="x202">15%</td> <td class="x202">57%</td> <td class="x202">49%</td> <td class="x202">40%</td> <td class="x202">26%</td> <td class="x202">12%</td> <td class="x202">26%</td> <td class="x202">26%</td> <td class="x202">26%</td> <td class="x202">10%</td> <td class="x202">13%</td> <td class="x202">16%</td> <td class="x202">30%</td> <td class="x202">27%</td> <td class="x202">29%</td> <td class="x202">10%</td> <td class="x202">14%</td> <td class="x202">19%</td> <td class="x202">19%</td> <td class="x200"></td> <td class="x201"></td> <td class="x201"></td> <td class="x201"></td> <td class="x201"></td> <td class="x201"></td> <td class="x201"></td> </tr> <tr class="x206" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r96"> <td class="x94" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x203"></td> <td class="x203"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x205"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> </tr> <tr class="x206" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r97"> <td class="x94" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x203"></td> <td class="x203"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x205"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> </tr> <tr class="x206" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r98"> <td class="x94" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x203"></td> <td class="x203"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x205"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> </tr> <tr class="x206" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r99"> <td class="x94" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x203"></td> <td class="x203"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x205"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> </tr> <tr class="x206" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r100"> <td class="x94" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x203"></td> <td class="x203"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x205"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> <td class="x206"></td> </tr> <tr class="x206" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r101"> <td class="x94" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x95"></td> <td class="x203"></td> <td class="x203"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x204"></td> <td class="x207"></td> <td class="x207"></td> <td class="x207"></td> <td class="x207"></td> <td class="x207"></td> <td class="x207"></td> <td class="x207"></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:72pt"></td> <td style="width:86.25pt"></td> <td style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td style="width:73.5pt"></td> <td style="width:84pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:42pt"></td> <td style="width:90pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:64.5pt"></td> <td style="width:75.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:57.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:65.25pt"></td> <td style="width:84.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="3" data-sheet-name="Overall Support"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1205pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x58" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:187px"></col> <col class="x58" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:465px"></col> <col class="x58" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:350px"></col> <col class="x58" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:605px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr class="x50" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:36pt" id="r0"> <td class="x46" style="height:34.5pt;width:140.25pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">Overall Support </a></td> <td class="x47" style="width:348.75pt">Support areas</td> <td class="x47" style="width:262.5pt">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x47" style="width:453.75pt">Issue areas</td> </tr> <tr class="x53" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r1"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Generally supportive but would of wanted less enforcability but details issues with all major sections of the report - numerous comments</td> </tr> <tr class="x53" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r2"> <td class="x36" style="height:81.3pt">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x54">General support for most of the proposal; enhances? = yes; CO approval? = yes; CWG requirements? = yes; Principles; Fundamental Bylaws (jurisdiction does not need to be a Fundamental bylaw); IRP; Model; Community Forum; Voting (opt-in, opt-out); Community Powers; AoC reviews (Whois chnage is pragmatic); ST (#18); WS2 (transitional bylaw)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">timing (new issues may add public comment); WS2 (HR, SO/AC acct and staff acc); ACs influence in model (should only be SOs); PTI/IANA budget; Bylaws drafting process (CCWG counsel to draft)</td> </tr> <tr class="x53" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r3"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal, Enhance acct? = Y, mission, commitments and core values, Diversity, jurisdiction (WS2), Forum, AOC (tiiming suggestions), elements that would prevent support = N, CWG reqs = Y,</td> <td class="x51">Sole member model, SOAC acct.</td> <td class="x51">Rebuiding trust and reaching out to parties affectede but not involved in ICANN. Minor issues in commitments and core values, ICANN has to improve Diversity, Forum (timing issues), Recall Board (timing issues, repeat issues), Staff acct. should be resp. of CEO, Budget issues vs PTI,</td> </tr> <tr class="x53" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r4"> <td class="x36" style="height:50.7pt">CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal, CWG reqs= Y, Human Rights, support Bylaw committing to WS2, supports implementation</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">(198) regulation of service suggestion, (225) unclear why govt advice text deleted, (268,295)need for increased transparency, Sole member model, issues with voting allocations, elaborate Forum in WS1, suggest includsion of eval. Of WS1 in WS2</td> </tr> <tr class="x53" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r5"> <td class="x41" style="height:108.9pt">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x54">General support for most of the proposal: comprehensive analysis of PC1; Mission; Core Values; Freedom to Contact; Fundamental Bylaws; IRP (tiered timeline; training for panellists); Reconsideration; Model; Community Forum; Board removal (in interim Board, diversity requirements can be waived for better governance expertise); Diversity; Staff accountability (community involment in standards); AoC reviews; Stress Tests (#18; #11; #32); WS2 (transitional bylaw); inclusion of Human Rights; Enhances? =Yes; nothing to prevent acceptane by COs; </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Human rights &amp; private sector language; core value 11; voting allocation (GNSO; general power shift); PTI/IANA budget (and relation to CWG requirements); Director removal (SO/Acs can remove their own); diversity (should be in WS1 and not be expanded in ATRT); SO/AC accountability is reccursive; ST35; Human Rights language had consensus (Keith's); viability of implementation plan and consensus by exhaustion; CWG requirements budget issue; Bylaws drafting process (CCWG counsel to draft)</td> </tr> <tr class="x53" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r6"> <td class="x39" style="height:33.3pt">eco Association of the Internet Industry</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">If concerns remain about voting allocations it should be replaced with rogh consensus should maintain GAC as advisory only</td> </tr> <tr class="x53" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r7"> <td class="x39" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Frank Simons</td> <td class="x56">Support for all CCWG recommendations</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> </tr> <tr class="x53" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r8"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">Google</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Details issues with the IRP, veto over strat plan and budget, Board recall, voting process in the sole member</td> </tr> <tr class="x53" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r9"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">Government of Denmark</td> <td class="x51">Denmark supports the proposal and the overall framework for enhancing<br />ICANN’s accountability.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">ensuring that there is no capture in the system</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r10"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">Government of New Zealand</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal, fundamenatl Bylaws, Human rights; Stress test 18 and 35</td> <td class="x51">Stress test 21</td> <td class="x51">Details issues regarding the role of governments in ICANN, IRP needed for ccTLDs and human rights</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r11"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">Intel</td> <td class="x51">General support for the 2nd draft report; Sole Member Model; Principles;Fundamental bylaws;<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>IRP; Human Rights; ST18</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> </tr> <tr class="x53" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r12"> <td class="x39" style="height:95.1pt">Internet Association </td> <td class="x54">Support for proposal; ICANN Board comments (work together for solution); Principles (Core Value 11; Human Rights; regulation of services); Fundamental Bylaws; IRP (scope; independence of panelists; binding arbitration); Reconsideration (with rebuttal; Ombudsman as initial review only if independent of ICANN Legal); Sole Member Model; Voting; Community powers (suggests an additional separation power); ST18; </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Core Values (ICANN Board should not accept advice that is not consistent with Core Values); HR should be addressed by experts; IRP (start with<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>safeguards such as public comment process; concern about WS2 elaboration); Reconsideration (safeguards such as Public Comment process and independence of ICANN Legal); Voting (threshold based on entire membership pool); Budget veto; threshold for recall of ICANN Boar; additional reviews for SO/AC and staff acct; WS2</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r13"> <td class="x41" style="height:33.3pt">Jan Scholte (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Accountability of model, Clarification of voting, Stress test vs possibility of clogging PDPs, Clarification of GAC role, priviliged position for registries in IRP and elsewhere?</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:64.05pt" id="r14"> <td class="x39" style="height:62.55pt">KIGA (Korea Internet Governance Alliance)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal, sole member model, budget, bylaws, fund. Bylaws,<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>rem. Directors, remove Board, Voting allocation</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Mentions issues regarding the decision process in SOACs and increasing participation of developing countries</td> </tr> <tr class="x53" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r15"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">Nell Minow (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Accountability of model, Clarification of voting, Stress test vs possibility of clogging PDPs, Clarification of GAC role, privileged position for registries in IRP and elsewhere?; outreach needed; regular review of ICANN effectiveness; checks and balances; rigidity of model; concerns with power to remove Board members; methodology of process</td> </tr> <tr class="x53" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r16"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Public Knowledge</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Detials issues with Voting Allocations and removing individual Directors</td> </tr> <tr class="x53" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:57pt" id="r17"> <td class="x36" style="height:55.5pt">RySG (Registries Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x51">supports proposal, ST18, analysis of DIDP; inclusion of WHOIS review into Bylaws.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">public comment deadline; GAC allotment of community votes; consider gTLD revenue in context of budget/strategic plan power; IRP and transparency (including ICANN commitment to follow through in meantime); Human Rights; WHOIS review mandate.</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r18"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">The Heritage Foundation</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Details concerns about GAC controlling ICANN; Issues with the Human Rights proposals</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r19"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">William Currie (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:140.25pt"></td> <td style="width:348.75pt"></td> <td style="width:262.5pt"></td> <td style="width:453.75pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="4" data-sheet-name="Overall Disagreement"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1143pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x64" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x57" span="4" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr class="x50" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r0"> <td class="x46" style="height:15.899999999999999pt;width:161.25pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">Overall Disagreement</a></td> <td class="x47" style="width:318.75pt">Support areas</td> <td class="x47" style="width:161.25pt">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x47" style="width:318.75pt">Issue areas</td> <td class="x49" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x49" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x49" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x49" style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> <tr class="x53" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r1"> <td class="x41" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Jeff Eshom</td> <td class="x270"></td> <td class="x270"></td> <td class="x270">Thinks the proposal is toxic</td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69.6pt" id="r2"> <td class="x39" style="height:68.1pt">KMC &amp; Ping (Karsten Manufacturing Corporation &amp; Ping Registry Provider, Inc.) </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">process; suggesting Fundamental Bylaws additions; jurisdiction; </td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r3"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">John Poole</td> <td class="x51">No part of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">All parts of the proposal</td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r4"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">Just Net Coalition </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Does not support the process - Cancel current process and proceed with Tunis Agenda and Delhi decleration</td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="5" data-sheet-name="Principles"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1415pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x53" id="c0" style="mso-width-source:userset;width:0pt;mso-width-alt:0pt"></col> <col class="x64" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:127px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:89px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:82px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:93px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:124px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:92px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r0"> <td class="x53" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t1"><a name="RANGE!A1"></a></td> <td class="x96" style="width:161.25pt">SUMMARY</td> <td class="x70" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:95.25pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:66.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:61.5pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:69.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:93pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:69pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:102pt" id="r1"> <td class="x53" style="height:102pt;overflow:hidden" id="t2"></td> <td colspan="3" class="x275" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext">Concerns that ICANN will not be able to enforce contracts (187)<br />Concern that govt advice may override bylaws and mission (core Value 11)<br />Concern about private sector definition has no room for governments or is too narrow<br />Concern about jurisdiction not being a core value<br />Concerns about the composition of AOC review teams<br />General agreement on moving AOC into Bylaws<br />General concern that ICANN should not be a content regulator</td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> </tr> <tr class="x50" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:86.55pt" id="r2"> <td class="x50" style="height:86.55pt;overflow:hidden" id="t3"></td> <td class="x46">Principles</td> <td class="x47">Support areas</td> <td class="x47">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x47">Issue areas</td> <td class="x48">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x48">New Idea</td> <td class="x48">Concerns</td> <td class="x48">Agreement</td> <td class="x48">Disagreement</td> <td class="x48">Neutral</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r3"> <td class="x28" style="height:409.5pt;overflow:hidden" id="t4">1</td> <td class="x36">ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• Paragraph 154, Bullet 2 (and referencing paragraphs 205 and 234): The ALAC strongly supports the minority position that Users or End-Users must be explicitly referenced. +<br />• Paragraph 187, “ICANN shall have no power…”:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Some claim that the top-level domain name itself is content and that ICANN should not exercise any control over what TLDs are allowed. … This is not acceptable, and either the change must be omitted or clarified to make it explicit that the domain name itself is excluded.+<br />• Paragraph 199, “Preserve and enhance the neutral and judgment free operation of the DNS…”: The wording seems far too open ended and subject to future interpretation.+<br />• Paragraph 207, Discriminatory treatment: The first draft proposal implied that this principle will replace Bylaws Article II, Section 3. The current draft is silent on this. If Article II, Section 3 is to be removed, the ALAC strongly objects. +<br />• Paragraph 216: Change in Core Value 3: The ALAC does not support removing the phrase “To the extent feasible and appropriate”, particularly when adding the reference to external expert bodies +<br />• Paragraph 218: Core value 5 - The ALAC cannot accept the removal of the leading phrase “Where feasible and appropriate”. + Moreover, the ALAC notes that the reference to Consumer trust is removed. It is not sufficient to leave it to the Consumer Trust Review to monitor, and then to only consider name space expansion.+<br />• Paragraph 226, Balance: The ALAC believes that this statement must include the caveat that balance is secondary to the public interest, security and stability as stated in ICANN’s commitments and core values.<br /></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:262.2pt" id="r4"> <td class="x28" style="height:262.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t5">1</td> <td class="x36">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">• The BC strongly supports the CCWG proposal to bring the Affirmation of Commitments into ICANN’s bylaws.<br />• WHOIS Review - The BC could support the Board’s proposed text, except for the last sentence regarding intervals between reviews (recommends 5 years from beginning of review). Finally, the CCWG proposes that the next Accountability &amp; Transparency Review Team can change the WHOIS/Directory Services review, pursuant to community-based review and public comment.+<br /></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• The BC believes that the CCWG’s bylaws text is not clear on the tension between contract enforcement and a limited mission for ICANN. On the one hand, CCWG’s text could be read to prevent ICANN from enforcing Public Interest Commitments, or from agreeing to other contract provisions implementing consensus policies. On the other hand, CCWG’s text does not effectively limit ICANN from acting outside consensus policy in the implementation of those contracts. In addition, CCWG should adopt the recent suggestion of Greg Shatan to resolve ambiguity about the word “they” in the last sentence by replacing with “such services”, and to remove the phrase “attempt”, as follows: “ICANN shall not engage in or use its powers to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide.”<br />• With regard to existing Core Value 11, we disagree with the CCWG’s decision to eliminate language from its First Draft requiring that any decision to defer to input from public authorities must be consistent with ICANN’s Commitments and Core Values (154)+</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r5"> <td class="x28" style="height:27.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t6">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD Australia (auDA)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">proposal overly complex, lacks important details and may not meet NTIA requirements</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r6"> <td class="x28" style="height:151.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t7">1</td> <td class="x39">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x51">• The distinction between fundamental and standard bylaws is a nice way to focus on the core mission of ICANN. <br />• The inclusion of the AoC within is a good illustration of what we mean by shifting from US Government to the Global Multistakeholder community. <br />• Welcomes the clarification of<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>“private sector” (par. 206). We would definitely have preferred a definition sticking to the global consensus on what is the multistakeholder model , notably because the multistakeholder model, in our view, cannot be led by any of the particular stakeholders.<br /></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r7"> <td class="x28" style="height:41.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t8">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x54">• InternetNZ welcomes the updated Mission etc content, and supports the proposed changes compared with the first Proposal except in respect of human rights. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r8"> <td class="x28" style="height:409.5pt;overflow:hidden" id="t9">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x51">• The work on mission, commitments and core values provides a good basis for building ICANN’s enhanced accountability.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We strongly support this analysis and the proposals in the draft. <br />• Paragraph 187:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>we agree that ICANN is not, and should not be, a content regulator.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>However, we would not read into this any limitation on ICANN’s responsibility not to undermine trust and confidence in the use of global identifiers.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>In other words, public interest commitments associated with gTLDs can still be agreed in line with community‐identified concerns.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Similarly, they could be proposed by gTLD applicants to meet market‐specific needs.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>In both these cases, conditions can and probably should be built into the ICANN‐applicant registry contract.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>This would be in line with ICANN’s commitment to act in the public interest. <br />• Paragraph 218:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>we regret the deletion of “that enhances consumer trust and choice” to qualify what “a healthy competitive environment in the DNS market” means.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We hope that this does not undermine the importance of consumer interests in decisions related to improving competition in the market. <br />• Designating the core value to “apply policies consistently, neutrally, objectively and fairly, without singling any party out for discriminatory treatment” (paragraph 207) as a commitment is particularly important.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>However, this should not be applied to impose homogeneity that is not appropriate.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>So, for example, it should not seek to impose on ccTLDs the rules developed for gTLDs (recognising the national accountability that applies to ccTLDs).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>In addition, “documented policies” should be those agreed through recognised policy processes:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>as an example, ICP‐1 should not be considered as a documented policy.<br />• Considerable work needs to be done to ensure that ICANN meets the core value of “seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision‐making to ensure that the bottom‐up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent” (paragraph 214).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>+<br /></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r9"> <td class="x28" style="height:124.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t10">1</td> <td class="x36">CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• 188 - CDT believes it important to have clarity when it comes to the organization’s role vis-a-vis content and suggests that the following minor edit in 188 would go some way to contributing to such clarity: “… shall not engage in or use its powers to regulate services…”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br />• 225 - It is unclear to CDT why the text at the end of 225 on advice from governments and public authorities has been deleted.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Without adequate justification the text should remain.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br /></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:193.2pt" id="r10"> <td class="x28" style="height:193.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t11">1</td> <td class="x36">Christopher Wilkinson</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• ICANN was created not only to take over the IANA functions, but also to regulate the conditions of competition in the DNS markets. The latter responsibilities remain crucial. However there are increasing indications from the GNSO members and ICANN staff that they are reluctant to continue to fulfill this responsibility. The CCWG report reflects this tendency when it suggests that new Core Value would be “depending upon market mechanism to promote and sustain a healthy competitive environment ...” Clearly that would set the bar too low. A successful Registry effectively becomes the dominant operator, if not the monopolist, in its relevant market. Market mechanisms alone will not correct the risks of abuse. It is ICANN's responsibility to ensure, notably, that the interests of users and consumers are adequately protected, if necessary through regulatory means.</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r11"> <td class="x28" style="height:409.5pt;overflow:hidden" id="t12">1</td> <td class="x36">COA (Coalition for Online Accountability)</td> <td class="x51">• COA strongly supports the concept of incorporating into the ICANN Bylaws key provisions of the 2009 Affirmation of Commitments (AOC).</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• Unless the positive obligation to enter into, interpret and enforce contracts is enshrined in ICANN’s core missions, values, and bylaws, the enhanced accountability mechanisms proposed by CCWG may be unavailable to those injured by ICANN’s compliance omissions or shortfalls.+<br />• the substance of section 8(b) of the AOC to be included as a Fundamental Bylaw of ICANN +<br />• .”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Inexplicably, section 7 (AOC) is omitted from the list of “relevant ICANN commitments” that would be enshrined in the ICANN Bylaws (p. 72, para. 504).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Why?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br />• Incorporation of AOC Reviews into ICANN Bylaws. Accountability and Transparency Review.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>While COA agrees it may be appropriate to include in this review’s recommendations changes in the scope or timing of other periodic reviews, or to propose new reviews, we remain concerned about giving this review the power to abolish any of the reviews to which ICANN committed in the AOC.<br />• Incorporation of AOC Reviews into ICANN Bylaws. Whois/Directory Services Policy review.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>COA is pleased to see that CCWG calls for carrying over from AOC to bylaws the Whois /directory services policy review (p. 81).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>+<br />• Incorporation of AOC Reviews into ICANN Bylaws.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Composition of Review Teams.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>we strongly object to several aspects of the CCWG’s specific proposal, as set forth in para. 514, page 74.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>First, the Proposal concentrates the power to appoint members of review teams in “the group of chairs of the participating SOs and ACs,” not in the stakeholder groups or constituencies themselves +<br />• Incorporation of AOC Reviews into ICANN Bylaws - Action on Review Team Recommendations - The bylaws provision should retain the AOC requirement that the Board act upon recommendations of the review teams within a time certain (currently, 6 months), not that it should simply “consider” doing so (see p. 76, para. 534). <br />• Incorporation of AOC Reviews into ICANN Bylaws - Impact on Current or Pending Reviews - While we do not think it was CCWG’s intention to propose applying any of the new rules regarding these mandatory reviews (especially those on team composition) to the AOC reviews (Whois and CCT) scheduled to be launched during the current fiscal year, this should be spelled out in the Proposal before it advances further.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span><br /></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:220.8pt" id="r12"> <td class="x28" style="height:220.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t13">1</td> <td class="x41">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x54">• Revised report on mission and core values - With the exception listed above in respect to Core Value 11 we support the recommendations of the CCWG to ICANNs mission and core values. In particular we support the enumeration of ICANNs powers via the bylaws, this provides an important check via the community process on bylaw changes on any scope creep in ICANNs day to day operation.<br />• Balancing and reconciliation test - We agree with the changes to the balancing and reconciliation test as proposed.<br />• Freedom to contract - We strongly support the outcome of the consideration of the CCWG with regards to any impediment to ICANNs ability to contract with the contracted parties. We concur with the consensus that prohibiting the regulation of services is prudent in order to constrain ICANNs mission to its core principals.<br /></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">• Private sector leadership and advice contrary to the bylaws - We do not agree with the removal of both options specifying that advise from any SO or AC may not be in contravention of the bylaws. While respecting the concerns of the GAC on this matter we consider this to be a critical issues, as a potential compromise Becky Burr had suggested an alternative to Work Party 2 that was acceptable to many stakeholders, namely a chapeau into the descriptive bylaw outlining the formation and scope of responsibility for all Advisory Committees, we would request that the CCWG re-examines this proposal as an alternative to the current solution of including a specific standing within the IRP to address this concern.</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r13"> <td class="x28" style="height:82.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t14">1</td> <td class="x39">Edward Morris</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• I strongly support the minority view referenced in paragraph 154 that includes “individual end users” in the definition of private sector. To merely include organized groups in the definition, as is done in the reference definition, does a disservice to the wider internet community and feeds into the perception of ICANN as a closed and exclusive club.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r14"> <td class="x28" style="height:110.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t15">1</td> <td class="x36">eNACSO EU Project (European NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• In particular we refer to paragraph 187 - Potentially such wording is hugely restricting and limiting. Take the example of domains that are heavily and repeatedly associated with the distribution of child pornography or other activities associated with child exploitation. As we read it, assuming it were possible to utilize unique identifiers to reduce the incidence of such activity ICANN would deliberately and forever deny itself the possibility of so doing. That cannot be right.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r15"> <td class="x28" style="height:69pt;overflow:hidden" id="t16">1</td> <td class="x36">Google</td> <td class="x51">• In particular, we support the following - Incorporating the Affirmation of Commitments into ICANN’s bylaws; Providing greater guidance to the ICANN Board in circumstances where commitments or core values suggest conflicting outcomes, without adopting potentially rigid or unhelpful tests;<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;white-space:nowrap;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r16"> <td class="x28" style="height:138pt;overflow:hidden" id="t17">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of Argentina</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• Core Value 7 - Argentina recognizes the relevant role of the private sector in ICANN. At the same time, Argentina endorses the multistakeholder model for any Internet Governance structure, including ICANN. In the multistakeholder model, a meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users is expected. In this sense, the specific reference to the private sector in this Core Value 7 does not seem to be aligned with the Multistakehoder model that ICANN promotes.</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r17"> <td class="x28" style="height:110.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t18">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of Brazil</td> <td class="x51">• Brazil supports the recommendation put forward by the CCWG in paragraph 252, which does not consider appropriate that Article XVIII, Section 1, of ICANN's bylaws, be granted the status of a "fundamental bylaw".</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• Commitment 5 - With regard to the proposed ICANN commitments, Brazil reiterates its understanding that references to the leadership of the private sector ("led by the private sector"), in the absence of any reference to the role of governments, seem inadequate and contradictory to the spirit of multistakeholderism that should govern the corporation. We would like therefore to align ourselves with the comments made by both Spain and Argentina in that regard. (see original comment for alternative text)</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:234.6pt" id="r18"> <td class="x28" style="height:234.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t19">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of France</td> <td class="x51">• Core Value 7 - The French Government welcomes the deletion of the amendments to the former Core Value 11 that was proposed in the CCWG initial draft proposal, since their rationale and enforceability were, in our view, more than doubtful. Once more, it is our view that the current Core Value 11, now Core Value 7, adequately reflects several other international texts (such as the 2013 NETmundial Statement or the 2005 Tunis Agenda) that set the delicate balance of the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance which ICANN expects to embody. As far as DNS management is concerned among other topics of internet governance, the French government can only reiterate that it is the responsibility of the private sector, so long as the private sector acknowledges, and therefore “duly takes into account”, that internet-related public policies are not theirs but that of public authorities.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• Yet secondly, we also note that the CCWG proposes to “amend Article XI of the Bylaws, to provide that each advisory committee should provide a rationale for its advice, with references to relevant applicable national or international law where appropriate”, “instead” of “the language that was read by some commenters to remove ICANN’s obligation to consult with the GAC on consensus advice” (part 3, p.25, emphasis added). The French government would perfectly understand that the CCWG expects such a rationale for the sake of better clarity of GAC advice. If, however, the CCWG proposes that a rationale – or absence thereof, or even absence of clarity thereof – replace the obligation to consult with the GAC, the French Government would consider it an attempt to specify new terms of the GAC-Board relationship in contradiction with the very spirit of what is specifically designated as a core value of ICANN. As a consequence, we could not support such an amendment to Article XI.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r19"> <td class="x28" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t20">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of New Zealand</td> <td class="x51">• We also support mechanisms to ensure advisory committees’ do not advise ICANN to act outside of its current authority.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:276pt" id="r20"> <td class="x28" style="height:276pt;overflow:hidden" id="t21">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of Spain</td> <td class="x51">• Core value 7 - Spain is satisfied with the new text provided for CV 7 as it no longer sets limits to the public policy advice that the GAC may give to the ICANN Board.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• Commitment 5 - The GAC should be recognised and its role of protection of the public interest in ICANN’s multistakeholder environment should be guaranteed. In Commitment 5, the text “private sector lead” and a thorough description of what comprises that private sector have been included. Spain does not oppose to those additions, but since the proposed Commitments do not even once mention the governments’ role, out of fairness, respect for every actor’s role and avoid inconsistencies with the multistakeholder model, it is essential that the governments’ role is added as well in this Commitment. Hence, we put forward this text for Commitment 5 (additions in bold blue): 5. Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development processes, led by the private sector, including business stakeholders, civil society, the technical community, and academia, that (i) seek input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process, ***while duly taking into account the public policy advice of governments and public authorities, whenever public interest is affected.***</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:262.2pt" id="r21"> <td class="x28" style="height:262.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t22">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of the United Kingdom</td> <td class="x51">• Consistent with the mandate of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) as set out in the proposed Core Value 7 which we support as currently drafted, the considerations in paragraphs 7 and 8 above are likely to be key elements of global public interest concern for governments should any of the proposed community empowerment mechanisms be petitioned with the aim of proceeding to a community vote.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• With regard to broader provisions in the proposal relating to ICANN’s mission and core values, we disagree with the text in paragraph 187 as currently drafted which we consider exerts a constraint on ICANN’s ability to act in the public interest. The GAC has always held that ICANN policy decisions must have regard for example to fair competition in the top level domains market, to require where appropriate public interest commitments to be embedded in gTLD registry agreements (in relation to highly regulated business sectors and child protection), and to recognise demonstrable community support for specific new gTLD applications which are in contention with wholly commercially-based applications. While correctly referring to ICANN’s essential technical mission, we recommend therefore that the text of paragraph 187 be reconsidered in order explicitly to allow for such public interest considerations to be taken fully into account in ICANN decisions.<br />• we strongly recommend that paragraph 218 restores reference to enhancing consumer trust and choice. <br /></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r22"> <td class="x28" style="height:124.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t23">1</td> <td class="x36">i2Coalition (Internet Infrastructure Coalition)</td> <td class="x51">• Supports the efforts of the CCWG to update and revise the Bylaws pertaining to ICANN’s Mission Statement, Commitments, and Core Values.<br />• strongly supports the clarification that ICANN’s mission does not include the regulation of services that use the global DNS or the regulation of the content that those services provide;<br /></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• ICANN’s bylaws should retain language ensuring that any decision to defer to input from public authorities must be consistent with ICANN’s Commitments and Core Values. With regard to existing Core Value 11, we disagree with the CCWG’s decision to eliminate language requiring that any decision to defer to input from public authorities must be consistent with ICANN’s Commitments and Core Values (154).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>It should never be acceptable for the ICANN board to act in a manner<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>inconsistent with its<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Commitments and Core Values.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>+</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:262.2pt" id="r23"> <td class="x28" style="height:262.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t24">1</td> <td class="x36">IAB (Internet Architecture Board)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">In general, we believe that the IRP process should be narrowly tailored to names-related IANA actions. The expertise requested of panelists seems to assume this scope, but the limitation is not effectively stated within the document. The document could now be read to imply that an IRP could be convened for any matter touching on the Core Values. This is inconsistent with the enumerated powers for ICANN, as well as raising the issues with conflicting appeals processes and the existing agreement noted above. The most effective method of resolving this concern is recasting the Core Values themselves so that each relies directly on ICANN’s mandate in an area of policy. The IAB previously suggested a way to make the limit explicit in the mission statement within the bylaws, but the CCWG did not incorporate that recommendation in the latest draft. We ask that this be reconsidered, and we reiterate this core element of our previous proposal: “The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) is to support, at the overall level, core Internet registries, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of those registries.” </td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:317.4pt" id="r24"> <td class="x28" style="height:317.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t25">1</td> <td class="x36">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x51">• 1. ICANN Mission<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span>(paragraph 164, section 1) – Support with some changes - The Board supports the recommendations above. Specific changes to the text in the Bylaws will need to be thoroughly reviewed before being finalized.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span>+<br />o The Board notes that the resulting text of the Mission, Commitments and Core Values needs to unambiguously maintain ICANN’s ability to enforce its contracts with registries and registrars. ( See comment for details)<br />• 2. ICANN Core Values<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span>(paragraph 164, section 2) – Support with some changes - The Board supports the recommendations above. Specific proposed changes to the text in the Bylaws will need to be thoroughly reviewed before being finalized. It should be recognized that the Board's mandate includes a responsibility to act in the global public interest with respect to our primary mission of ensuring the stability, security and resilience of the Internet's unique identifier systems.<br />• 3. Core Values – Balancing or Reconciliation Test<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span>(paragraph 164, section 3) – Agreed<br />• 4. ICANN Mission and Core Values – Fundamental (“Durable” or “Enduring”) Bylaws Provisions – (Paragraph 164, section 4) – Agreed.<br /><br /></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r25"> <td class="x28" style="height:138pt;overflow:hidden" id="t26">1</td> <td class="x36">IFPI &amp; RIAA (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry &amp; Recording Industry Association of America)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• In light of this, we believe that any accountability proposal must include a commitment to contractual enforcement as a core value of ICANN.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span>Specifically, the proposal should require that ICANN amend its bylaws to make it clear that consistent and transparent contract enforcement, consistent with the public interest and in support of the rule of law is a core ICANN value.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>This is, in fact, one of the main mechanisms ICANN has to enforce the policies it has adopted, and to ensure some consistency as there are changes in ICANN leadership, and ICANN’s relationship with the U.S. government.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:234.6pt" id="r26"> <td class="x28" style="height:234.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t27">1</td> <td class="x36">IGP (Internet Governance Project)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• Core Value 7 addresses - ICANN’s willingness to duly take into account the advice of governments and public authorities. Objections from governments led the CCWG to remove language suggesting that ICANN’s response to GAC advice must be limited by its mission and core values. The CCWG needs to put that language back in. ICANN’s response to advice from public authorities must be within the constraints of its mission and core values, otherwise the mission and core values are meaningless. It is governments and public authorities, after all, who are most likely to push for actions by ICANN that expand its authority.<br />• We also echo the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) in objecting to the section entitled “Freedom to contract.” ICANN does not and should not be able to use its authority over DNS to impose ancillary regulations on Internet content and services via its contracts. That part of the report should be revised along the lines suggested by NCSG.<br /></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r27"> <td class="x28" style="height:110.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t28">1</td> <td class="x39">Internet Association </td> <td class="x54">• The Internet Association supports the efforts of the CCWG to update and revise the Bylaws pertaining to ICANN’s Mission Statement, Commitments, and Core Values.<br />• strongly supports the clarification that ICANN’s mission does not include the regulation of services that use the DNS or the regulation of the content those services provide (146).<br /></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">• With regard to existing Core Value 11, the Internet Association believes the clarification of the meaning of “private sector” is appropriate. However, we disagree with the CCWG’s decision to eliminate language requiring that any decision to defer to input from public authorities must be consistent with ICANN’s Commitments and Core Values (154). It should never be acceptable for the ICANN board to accept advice that is not consistent with these Commitments and Core Values</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r28"> <td class="x28" style="height:409.5pt;overflow:hidden" id="t29">1</td> <td class="x39">IPC (Intellectual Property Constituency)</td> <td class="x54">Generally supports changes to Mission, Commitments, Core Values; concept of incorporating key AoC provisions including reviews (with concerns). The IPC strongly supports the incorporation of the AoC into the ICANN Bylaws, including the incorporation of the various AoC-mandated reviews.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span>That said, the IPC remains concerned about the composition of these AoC review teams….. Therefore, the CCWG-Accountability should reconsider this proposal to ensure that AoC review teams are comprised of the full complement of community representatives at the stakeholder group and constituency level, and that participation in particular reviews is reflective of all stakeholders affected by the subject of the review.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">     </span><br />• In addition, the IPC supports the continued inclusion of WHOIS/Directory Services review criteria as currently reflected in the AoC. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">• First, in paragraph 193-195, the CCWG has eliminated language related to the balancing of one Commitment against another, or balancing a Commitment against a Core Value.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>This takes away some needed flexibility from the Board in order to deal with overlapping and potentially conflicting Commitments.<br />• Third, the IPC notes that the First Draft Report of the CCWG stated (in para. 337 of the First Draft Report) that the following “commitment” (in para. 336 of the First Draft Report) would be added to the Core Values: “ICANN will ensure that….”. However, it appears that this section has been “demoted” in the Second Draft Report, and will no longer become a “Core Value.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>A few pieces survived the demotion – specifically, “security, stability and resiliency” are reflected in para. 199 and “competition” is reflected in para. 218.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>However, “malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns and rights protection” no longer make the grade.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>These concerns continue to be accounted for in the review process (para. 566), but this is not sufficient.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The concern here is as the proposed IRP will judge the merits of cases it reviews against the standard of ICANN’s Mission, Commitments and Core Values; as such, it is important this missing language be explicitly listed in the Core Values section.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The IPC requests that this change be made.<br />• Incorporation of Section 8(b) of the AOC.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>In Section 8(b) of the AOC, ICANN committed to<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>“remain a not for profit corporation, headquartered in the United States of America with offices around the world to meet the needs of a global community.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>This commitment is critical to ICANN’s accountability and to the continued applicability of U.S. law to its major agreements and contracts.<br />• Section 7 is omitted from the list of “relevant ICANN commitments” that would be enshrined in the ICANN Bylaws (p. 72, para. 504).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>This needs to be explained (e.g., if the commitments are already covered elsewhere) or corrected.• The IPC also hopes to clarify that any recommendations put forth by the CCWG should not affect any AoC reviews currently in process, and that any such reviews slated to begin in the next calendar year not be halted or otherwise affected by the CCWG-Accountability process.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br /><br /><br /></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:372.6pt" id="r29"> <td class="x28" style="height:372.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t30">1</td> <td class="x36">LINX (London Internet Exchange)</td> <td class="x51">• We support the Core Vales and Commitments. <br />• We welcome the CCWG’s proposal to separate Core Values into two classes: one that must be upheld consistently, and another where a balance is likely to be needed between competing interests. We believe the CCWG has chosen well. <br />• We are aware that some concerns have been raised that the proposal to prevent ICANN from regulating Internet content or services might be taken to prevent ICANN from enforcing policies on the terms of gTLDs through Registry Agreements and the RAA. We agree with CCWG that this concern is misplaced. <br />• We agree with CCWG that ICANN should not attempt to regulate the services provided by Internet users nor the content on such services. ICANN’s proper role in developing, implementing and enforcing policy for gTLDs ought not to be used as a lever to say what users may, must or must not do, on pain of loss of the domain that supports their operations. At the same time, it is entirely appropriate for ICANN to develop policies for the uses to which particular domains are put. We see no conflict here: there is a world of difference between a policy that states that only medical doctors may register domains within .doctor, and a policy that states that only medical doctors may publish medical advice on the Internet, on pain of loss of the domain supporting the service where publication occurs. The former is regulation of the top level domain; that latter is regulation of the behaviour, leveraging the power at hand for enforcement. The former lies within ICANN’s Mission; the latter must be prevented.<br /></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:345pt" id="r30"> <td class="x28" style="height:345pt;overflow:hidden" id="t31">1</td> <td class="x39">MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• The MPAA is concerned that updates that limit the scope of ICANN’s Mission, specifically those proposed in paragraph 188 - may explicitly prevent ICANN from actively enforcing important obligations, including Section 3.18 of the 2013 RAA and Public Interest Commitments, with registries and registrars and from using contracts as a tool to implement consensus policies in the future.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>This concern is heightened by the addition of Stress Tests #29 and #30 which imply that current contracts and their enforcement are inconsistent with ICANN’s mission.<br />• MPAA believes that ensuring consumer trust should be a fundamental goal of ICANN and thus properly captured in its core values.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>As such we recommend that Paragraph 219 (p. 32) should amended as follows: “Depending on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a healthy competitive environment in the DNS market ***that enhances consumer trust and choice***.”<br />• The first draft proposal from the CCWG (released May 4, 2015) indicated the language in Paragraph 337 of that report would become a commitment specified in the Core Values. While some of this language is reflected in Paragraph 199 (security, stability and resiliency) and Paragraph 218 (competition) of the second draft report we note that the important concepts of “consumer protection, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns and rights protection” are not addressed in the Core Values as recommended previously.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>As the proposed Independent Review Process will judge the merits of cases it reviews against the standard of ICANN’s Mission, Commitments and Core Values, the MPAA believes that the recommendation made in the May 4th report has not been properly implemented, and that it should be implemented now.<br /></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r31"> <td class="x28" style="height:409.5pt;overflow:hidden" id="t32">1</td> <td class="x36">NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• The ICANN commitment in paragraph 187 says: "ICANN shall not engage in or use its powers to attempt the regulation of services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that they carry or provide." This is a very good, strong limitation on ICANN’s mission, and NCSG supports it. We would propose however, that the language could be simplified to read:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>“ICANN shall not engage in or use its powers to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that they carry or provide."<br />• In the Second Draft Report, paragraph 158 provides commentary on this ICANN commitment that contradicts its intent and purpose. The ICANN commitment in paragraph 187 was inserted to make clear that ICANN could not use its contracting power with Registries and Registrars as a lever to engage in general regulation of Internet content and services. And yet in under the heading “Freedom to Contract,” the CCWG wrote: “Several commenters expressed….”. This formulation is poorly stated and must be changed in any final proposal. Since ICANN’s regulatory powers are exercised exclusively via contract, the prohibition on regulation of services and content does ­ and must ­ act as a restraint on ICANN’s contracting authority.+ (see response for detailed text).<br />• NCSG believes that the heading “Freedom to Contract” is much too broad a title and must be changed to “Compliance with voluntary commitments.”<br />• NCSG is also concerned about paragraph 224, which also seems to undermine ICANN’s commitment to a narrow mission. In this Principle, ICANN commits itself to recognize that “governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly take into account the public policy advice of governments and public authorities.” The prior version of this language said that ICANN would take governmental advice into account, but qualified it with the statement that it would react to such advice “in accordance with the bylaws and to the extent consistent with these fundamental commitments and core values.” NCSG believes that it was a serious mistake to delete that language.<br /></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r32"> <td class="x28" style="height:82.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t33">1</td> <td class="x36">RySG (Registries Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x51">• With respect to bringing the Affirmation of Commitments language regarding WHOIS into the bylaws (paragraphs 580 – 587), the RySG supports this effort but suggests that it allow for the WHOIS concept to evolve while taking into account the reasons for the WHOIS policy in the first place and current thinking on access and data protections.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;white-space:nowrap;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">    </span></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r33"> <td class="x28" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t34">1</td> <td class="x36">UK Children's Charities</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Mentions issues with limiting ICANN's mission</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:220.8pt" id="r34"> <td class="x28" style="height:220.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t35">1</td> <td class="x41">US Chamber of Commerce</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• With regard to existing Core Value 11, we believe the clarification of the meaning of “private sector” is appropriate.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>However, we disagree with the CCWG’s decision to eliminate language requiring that any decision to defer to input from public authorities must be consistent with ICANN’s Commitments and Core Values (154).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>It should never be acceptable for the ICANN Board to accept advice that is not consistent with these Commitments and Core Values.<br />• We believe the current draft of ICANN’s mission regarding the regulation of services that use the DNS needs further revision. As drafted it could be read to prohibit ICANN from entering and enforcing contract provisions to implement consensus policies, such as Public Interest Commitments. At the same time it provides no meaningful limit on ICANN’s interpretation of those contract provisions. In addition, we also think it is important to affirm the commitment for the WHOIS/Directory Services.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r35"> <td class="x28" style="height:409.5pt;overflow:hidden" id="t36">1</td> <td class="x39">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x51">• The need to balance competing Core Values exists in ICANN’s current Bylaws. USCIB is pleased that the CCWG revised this element of its first draft. The revised language requires that in situations where one Core Value must be reconciled with another potential competing Core Value, the balance must “further an important public interest goal within ICANN’s Mission that it identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder process.” This approach gives guidance to the ICANN Board and staff without creating a bias toward inaction. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• (168-181), the Mission Statement should continue to limit the scope of ICANN’s mission to coordinating the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers and developing and implementing policies that are reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, and/or stability of the DNS.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br />• USCIB shares the concerns of the ICANN Business Constituency (BC) about certain proposed revisions to the Mission Statement that might prevent ICANN from creating and enforcing contracts and Public Interest Commitments with registries and registrars (187).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>USCIB believes that the CCWG’s bylaws text does not provide adequate clarity.<br />• (188), we also urge the following revisions (both the deleted text and the italicized text) to make clear that the ICANN’s mission does not include the regulation of services that use the DNS or the regulation of the content that such services carry or provide:: (see original comment for details).<br />• (219), USCIB does not support removal of the reference to consumer:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Promoting consumer trust should be one of ICANN’s fundamental goals.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We further urge that promoting trust in the DNS user community be a clearly stated commitment. Thus, we propose Paragraph 219 read as follows: (see original comment for details).<br />• While several aspects of this paragraph are reflected in the Core Values (@199 addresses security, stability and resiliency; @218 addresses competition),<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>consumer protection, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns and rights protection are not addressed in the Core Values as recommended in the first report. While this recommendation was made in the May 4th report it has not been implemented, and should be implemented now.<br />• (225) . However, the proposed text inappropriately suggests that civil society and academia, in particular, are part of the “private sector.” This term is widely understood to refer to profit-making enterprises run by private individuals or organizations. In addition, we disagree with the CCWG’s decision to eliminate language that would require that any decision to defer to input from public authorities must be consistent with ICANN’s Commitments and Core Values.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>It should never be acceptable for the ICANN Board to accept advice that is not consistent with these Commitments and Core Values.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br /></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:19.05pt" id="r36"> <td class="x53" style="text-align:right;height:19.05pt;overflow:hidden" id="t37">33</td> <td class="x255"></td> <td class="x256"></td> <td class="x256"></td> <td class="x256"></td> <td class="x258">3</td> <td class="x258">8</td> <td class="x258">18</td> <td class="x258">21</td> <td class="x258">10</td> <td class="x258">0</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:21pt" id="r37"> <td class="x53" style="height:21pt;overflow:hidden" id="t38"></td> <td class="x255"></td> <td class="x256"></td> <td class="x256"></td> <td class="x256"></td> <td class="x257">9.09%</td> <td class="x257">24.24%</td> <td class="x257">54.55%</td> <td class="x257">63.64%</td> <td class="x257">30.30%</td> <td class="x257">0.00%</td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:0pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:95.25pt"></td> <td style="width:66.75pt"></td> <td style="width:61.5pt"></td> <td style="width:69.75pt"></td> <td style="width:93pt"></td> <td style="width:69pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="6" data-sheet-name="Fundamental Bylaws"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1585pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x64" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x57" span="4" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x53" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:113px"></col> <col class="x53" span="3" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r0"> <td class="x96" style="height:13.8pt;width:161.25pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">SUMMARY </a></td> <td class="x70" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:84.75pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:77.25pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:88.05pt" id="r1"> <td colspan="3" class="x275" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext;height:87.3pt">There was strong support for the concept of Fundamental Bylaws. Two issues arose with regard to this section: the question of a jurisdiction Bylaw and the addition of a Separation Power. Jurisdiction Bylaw: 4 comments support the inclusion of a Fundamental Bylaw on ICANN’s US incorporation, essentially elevating Article XVIII Section 1 to the Fundamental Bylaw status. 4 comments reject this idea, including the Governments of India and Brazil. Separation Power: 4 comments support the idea of including the SCWG (a CWG-Stewardship proposal element for the process to separate the IANA Functions Operator) as a Community Power and therefore a Fundamental Bylaw. There was no opposition on this issue. </td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr class="x50" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:36pt" id="r2"> <td class="x46" style="height:34.5pt">Fundamental Bylaws</td> <td class="x47">Support areas</td> <td class="x47">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x47">Issue areas</td> <td class="x48">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x48">New Idea</td> <td class="x48">Concerns</td> <td class="x48">Agreement</td> <td class="x48">Disagreement</td> <td class="x48">Neutral</td> <td class="x65">Jurisdiction Bylaw</td> <td class="x65">Separation Power</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r3"> <td class="x36" style="height:136.5pt">ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">CLARIFICATION "Paragraph 259: The definition of the Board threshold to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws is unclear. Most Board votes are judged based on the number of Members voting or abstaining, but excluding those members not present. For the approval of Bylaw changes, the threshold is 2/3 of all members of the Board. Accordingly, the threshold for approving Fundamental Bylaws should explicitly be 75% of all members of the Board, since “available votes” could be construed as just those present at the time. This matches the description in Paragraph 236."</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r4"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">Avri Doria (endorsed by Joy Liddicoat &amp; Timothy McGinnis)</td> <td class="x51">support for adding SCWG: "Since we have developed the SMCM proposal, we have an obvious solution. We have not yet included this among the community powers of the SMCM and probably need to do so."</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x97">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r5"> <td class="x36" style="height:150.3pt">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">General support; process definition of SCWG: "As the ICG report is presently open ended on the specifics of this community approval process, we believe the ICG should work with the CCWG-Accountability to develop the specifications for this community power. <br />The CCWG’s proposed Community Mechanism as Sole Member may not be the right body to launch a Separation Working Group, since the protocol community (IETF) may not be represented.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We suggest that the ICG specify that a Separation Working Group, if ever needed, would include the IETF, regardless of whether that group was participating in the Community Mechanism"</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"The BC believes that Article XVIII should be designated a Fundamental Bylaw, so that it would require supermajority community voting approval for any change. CCWG’s proposal relies upon<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>statutory powers to recall the Board and other actions, as necessary, to ensure that the ICANN Board and staff remain accountable to the community.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The legal analysis indicating that these powers are available to Members of the organization was predicated on the understanding that <br />ICANN would remain a non-profit organization organized under California Law."</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x97">1</td> <td class="x97">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69.6pt" id="r6"> <td class="x36" style="height:68.1pt">CCG-NULD (Centre for Communication Governance National Law University Delhi)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The proposed procedure does take Consultation into account, as use of any community power (such as changing/adding a fundamental bylaw) first requires a discussion in the Community Forum. </td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r7"> <td class="x36" style="height:26.1pt">ccTLD Australia (auDA)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Greater detail needed in proposal since Fundamental Bylaws underpin the work</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r8"> <td class="x39" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x81">N/A</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r9"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x51">Fundamental Bylaws (jurisdiction does not need to be a Fundamental Bylaw)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x81">N/A</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x98">1</td> <td class="x68"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r10"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">Centre for Internet and Society</td> <td class="x81">N/A</td> <td class="x81">N/A</td> <td class="x81">Article XVIII Section 1 not be designated a fundamental bylaw:" it is essential that the Article XVIII Section 1 not be designated a fundamental bylaw."</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x98">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r11"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">CWG-Stewardship</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">CLARIFICATION:" We note that the CCWG-Accountability draft<br />proposal refers to “IANA Function Review” as a fundamental bylaw. We interpret this to cover both regular reviews (IFRs) and special reviews (Special IFRs)."</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r12"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">Government of Brazil</td> <td class="x51">Supports the CCWG in paragraph 252, which does not consider appropriate that Article XVIII, Section 1, of ICANN's bylaws, be granted the status of a "fundamental bylaw"</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x81">N/A</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x98">1</td> <td class="x68"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r13"> <td class="x36" style="height:67.5pt">Government of India</td> <td class="x99">"The establishment/designation of ‘fundamental bylaws’ may be the right step, since it would help protect the operating ethos of ICANN from repetitive amendments. "</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"However, the specific bylaws which would be designated ‘fundamental bylaws’ requires careful consideration, particularly in respect of provisions such as existing ICANN Bylaws Article XVIII Section 1 dealing with ‘headquarters’, to ensure that only the most essential characteristics of ICANN are included."</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x98">1</td> <td class="x68"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r14"> <td class="x36" style="height:408pt">Intel</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">We note that the first draft proposal included a question regarding whether the location of ICANN headquarters should be a Fundamental Bylaw. Intel would like to stress that the enforceability elements of the proposal (indeed any proposal) are inextricably linked to the laws under which the legal entity of ICANN is created, and so should receive substantial scrutiny before any change. We note that under the current proposal a change in location, via a modification to the Articles of Incorporation (which already state that ICANN is organized under California law), would require the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the Community Mechanism as Sole Member. The result of the first consultation and decision of CCWG has been to not include location of incorporation as a Fundamental Bylaw. Intel is respectful of the multi-stakeholder process and as long as the current proposal retains strong consensus, we support it. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r15"> <td class="x39" style="height:39.9pt">Internet Association </td> <td class="x51">Fundamental Bylaws; Community powers (suggests an additional separation power): "[SCWG] should be clearly detailed as a community power in order to meet the requirements of the CWG."</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x100">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r16"> <td class="x39" style="height:33.3pt">IPC (Intellectual Property Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Need to embody Article VIII as a Fundamental Bylaw</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x100">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r17"> <td class="x39" style="height:408pt">KMC &amp; Ping (Karsten Manufacturing Corporation &amp; Ping Registry Provider, Inc.) </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Imperative Changes to Fundamental Bylaws Prior to Any Transition<br /><br />In the event this ill-conceived transition proceeds, KMC and Ping believe that ICANN must, at an absolute minimum, adopt the following changes to its “Fundamental” Bylaws to ensure a modicum of accountability:<br /><br />·<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">         </span>Both ICANN and post-transition IANA should be prohibited from seeking or acting on “international organization” status or any other status that would preclude it from being held accountable in the U.S. federal courts, whether such status may be granted by the United States government or any other sovereign.<br /><br />·<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">         </span>Both ICANN and post-transition IANA should be subject exclusively to the law and jurisdiction of the federal courts located in a U.S. State.<br /><br />·<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">         </span>Both ICANN and post-transition IANA should be prohibited from taking any other action to change its composition and nature as to eliminate the possibility of liability under U.S. law. This restriction would prohibit both ICANN and post-transition IANA from changing the nature of their corporate status to avoid liability and thus accountability.<br /><br />·<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">         </span>The Fundamental Bylaws should require ICANN’s Board and staff to act in the best interests of the Internet users community and not in the best interests of the ICANN and IANA corporations or any of their internal <br />stakeholders (individual Board members, staff, vendors, etc.), in such times where there is a conflict between the two sets of interests.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x100">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:289.8pt" id="r18"> <td class="x39" style="height:288.3pt">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x51">The ICANN Board agrees that the authority to change Fundamental Bylaws should be shared between the ICANN Board and community.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The Board also agrees with the higher threshold proposed by the CCWG-Accountability for Board approval of Fundamental Bylaws.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>[…] With regards to Board decisions, the Board agrees with 3Ž4 of all Directors as the required threshold. […] With regards to community empowerment over decisions, and Articles of Incorporation, the Board agrees that an appropriate threshold of community support must be demonstrated prior to enactment of any changes to Fundamental Bylaws.</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">The Board agrees with most of the proposed Fundamental Bylaws identified, but for #5, the “Community Mechanism as the Sole Member Model.” The Board believes that the shared authority for changing these Fundamental Bylaws can be achieved through empowering the SOs and ACs in the Bylaws without having to move to a Sole Member model. In the event the Board does not follow its Bylaws, then the community may use binding arbitration, and in the event the Board does not abide by this arbitration, it may enforce the arbitration through the courts. The ICANN Board supports the new community power to approve a change to a Fundamental Bylaw, but believes this can be achieved without having to move to a Sole Member model. For example, a resolution supporting the change from each of the SOs, and no advice against the changes received from the ACs. Additionally, the Bylaws should be amended to include a requirement for public comment on all proposed changes to Bylaws. Additionally, for areas where the CCWG-Accountability has identified that additional work remains, such as on the IRP, the Board suggests further community consideration as to whether those items should be included in the Fundamental Bylaws immediately or once there are additional process improvements developed.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x100"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r19"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">LINX (London Internet Exchange)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r20"> <td class="x231" style="height:40.65pt">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x194">Support for threshold (75%); ADD: community power needed for SCWG;</td> <td class="x194">N/A</td> <td class="x250">"USCIB encourages the CCWG to further evaluate the merits of strengthening this current California jurisdiction ICANN Bylaw,<br />with the status of a Fundamental Bylaw."</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x100">1</td> <td class="x100">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r21"> <td class="x251" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x213"></td> <td class="x213"></td> <td class="x213"></td> <td class="x227" style="text-align:right">4</td> <td class="x227" style="text-align:right">5</td> <td class="x227" style="text-align:right">4</td> <td class="x227" style="text-align:right">10</td> <td class="x227" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x227" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x227" style="text-align:right">9</td> <td class="x227" style="text-align:right">4</td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r22"> <td class="x251" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x213"></td> <td class="x213"></td> <td class="x213"></td> <td class="x229" style="text-align:right">22.22%</td> <td class="x229" style="text-align:right">27.78%</td> <td class="x229" style="text-align:right">22.22%</td> <td class="x229" style="text-align:right">55.56%</td> <td class="x229" style="text-align:right">5.56%</td> <td class="x229" style="text-align:right">5.56%</td> <td class="x229" style="text-align:right">50.00%</td> <td class="x229" style="text-align:right">22.22%</td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:84.75pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="7" data-sheet-name="Human Rights"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1800pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x28" id="c0" style="mso-width-source:userset;width:0pt;mso-width-alt:0pt"></col> <col class="x64" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:341px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x60" span="6" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:124px"></col> <col class="x69" span="4" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:115px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r0"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t1"><a name="RANGE!A1"></a></td> <td colspan="2" class="x276" style="border-right:2px solid windowtext">SUMMARY</td> <td class="x70" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x208" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:93pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:93pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:93pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:93pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:93pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:93pt"></td> <td class="x69" style="width:86.25pt"></td> <td class="x69" style="width:86.25pt"></td> <td class="x69" style="width:86.25pt"></td> <td class="x69" style="width:86.25pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:117pt" id="r1"> <td class="x28" style="height:117pt;overflow:hidden" id="t2"></td> <td colspan="3" class="x275" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext">On Human Rights language: <br />• Submissions were in support of the inclusion of some language on Human Rights but there was no consensus on what that language should be.<br />• 23 of 92 submissions responded specifically to the question (see comments below). Of the 23 specific submissions 17 had concerns, 12 were in disagreement with the proposal, 8 were in agreement and 4 had new ideas.<br />• 20 of the 92 submission generally supported the proposal without specifically mentioning this point. (see Overall Support tab)<br />• 3 of the 92 submissions were against the proposal overall without specifically mentioning this point. (see Overall Disagreement tab)<br />• Specific recurring comments included 7 submissions supported option 2, 7 thought it was premature to have human rights language in WS1 (including the ICANN Board) and 6 believed that only existing standard human rights language should be used.</td> <td class="x90"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> </tr> <tr class="x50" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r2"> <td class="x59" style="height:52.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t3"></td> <td class="x46">Human Rights</td> <td class="x47">Support areas</td> <td class="x47">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x47">Issue areas</td> <td class="x48">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x48">New Idea</td> <td class="x48">Concerns</td> <td class="x48">Agreement</td> <td class="x48">Disagreement</td> <td class="x48">Neutral</td> <td class="x65">Option 2</td> <td class="x65">Need Experts and GAC</td> <td class="x65">Premature for WS1</td> <td class="x65">Standard Language</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:207pt" id="r3"> <td class="x28" style="height:207pt;overflow:hidden" id="t4">1</td> <td class="x36">Avri Doria (endorsed by Joy Liddicoat &amp; Timothy McGinnis)</td> <td class="x54"></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">…..My concern is found in the words: ‘relevant principles,’ ‘applicable international conventions and local laws,’ and ‘to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its bylaws.’ These words allow for many interpretations of the scope of ICANN’s commitment to the principles of international law and international conventions. ......Proposed by-law wording <br />Within its mission and in its processes and operations, ICANN will respect and protect fundamental human rights as defined in international law and applicable international conventions and local law. ICANN will also establish processes to clarify and document the rights impact of proposed policies and new operations.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>ICANN appeals mechanisms may be used for human rights issues relevant to ICANN mission and core values, among which are freedom of expression, free flow of information and privacy on the Internet. (see comment for complete text)</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r4"> <td class="x28" style="height:138pt;overflow:hidden" id="t5">1</td> <td class="x36">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The BC believes that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is comprehensive statement of human rights that is appropriate for ICANN14. The BC does not support having ICANN selectively <br />commit to certain human rights while excluding others.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Nor does the BC support having ICANN commit to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which was proposed by some sub-group members15. ICANN is not a business and would be a poor fit with the limited view of human rights originally developed by the UN for Businesses in the resource extraction industry.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:207pt" id="r5"> <td class="x28" style="height:207pt;overflow:hidden" id="t6">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD Australia (auDA)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">In particular, although labelled by the CCWG as topics "for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition", auDA believes that additional progress is required with regard to: <br /> <br />• Defining the modalities of how ICANN integrates human rights impact analyses, within its mission. <br /> <br />Many of these elements are described by the CCWG at a conceptual level, supported by proposed structural elements and principles for operation. However, auDA believes that the CCWG has stopped short of defining important operational detail that must be available in order to allow the community (and the ICANN Board and NTIA) to make informed decisions about whether or not to support these significant changes.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;white-space:nowrap;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:193.2pt" id="r6"> <td class="x28" style="height:193.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t7">1</td> <td class="x39">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Afnic notes that an inclusion of “human right commitment” within ICANN mission has been decided by the CCWG upon rough consensus. <br />Afnic would suggest to reference to already agreed language within the United Nation System, recalling once again the consensus reached in the Netmundial statement: <br />“Human rights are universal as reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that should underpin Internet governance principles. Rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in accordance with international human rights legal obligations, including the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of <br />Persons with Disabilities.” </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r7"> <td class="x28" style="height:138pt;overflow:hidden" id="t8">1</td> <td class="x36">CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology)</td> <td class="x51">CDT encourages the inclusion of a mention of human rights in the ICANN Bylaws and of the two examples presented in the proposal supports option 2.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>An alternative could be to add a clause specifically noting human rights in section 4 of the Articles of Incorporation. CDT recognizes that there is much further work and analysis work to be done on this issue in WS2, work which we would recommend be coordinated with the CCWP on Human Rights.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:248.4pt" id="r8"> <td class="x28" style="height:248.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t9">1</td> <td class="x36">COA (Coalition for Online Accountability)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x91">N/A</td> <td class="x51">1. Human rights commitment: COA does not believe that the Proposal persuasively demonstrates that ICANN needs to include “a Commitment related to human rights, within ICANN’s stated mission, in the ICANN Bylaws.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The Proposal acknowledges that there is nothing in the IANA functions transition itself that demands this, but references “recurring debates” about the topic in unspecified ICANN fora. See para. 149, page 24.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>This provides an insufficient base upon which to rest a recommendation that ICANN venture into these deep waters in Work Stream 1.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>COA agrees that the relationship between human rights and ICANN’s mission is a legitimate subject for discussion, but suggests that this discussion is not yet sufficiently well developed to call for a specific new bylaw provision at this time.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>If such a provision is ultimately included in the accountability package, COA prefers as a starting point the second wording option provided in para. 151 (p. 25), since it references “internationally recognized fundamental human rights,” a phrase more likely to have a stable and settled meaning than a cherry-picked list of specific rights could achieve.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r9"> <td class="x28" style="height:96.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t10">1</td> <td class="x41">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x54">We note with caution that ICANNs accountability to international human rights standards must be a core component in framing the future of ICANN, and as noted in our comment above we request that the CCWG reinstate the human rights text as suggested by Keith Drazek and as agreed by the CCWG at Meeting #46.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:372.6pt" id="r10"> <td class="x28" style="height:372.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t11">1</td> <td class="x39">Edward Morris</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Due process, privacy and free speech are the three principle human rights integrally involved in ICANN’s mission. As such, I support the following language, per the Draft, for inclusion in ICANN’s Bylaws with respect to human rights: <br /> <br />“Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information.” <br /> <br />Although ICANN is already required to respect human rights in its operations by virtue of Article 4 of ICANN’s Article of Incorporation, I do believe that special mention of free expression and the free flow of information in the Bylaws is needed to ensure that he withdrawal of the N.T.I.A. does not negatively impact ICANN’s respect of these specific rights.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The U.S. government’s backstop role in ICANN governance has given some de facto assurance that the notion of free expression, as typified by the first amendment of the United States Constitution, was an inviolable part of the ICANN ethos. A nonspecific mention to adherence to<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>“internationally recognized fundamental human rights”, the alternate language that has been proposed, gives no such assurance. Some would challenge the notion, for example, that the “free flow of information” is, in fact, an internationally recognized human right. To ensure that free speech and the free flow of information is respected throughout ICANN’s operations the more specific reference to it provided by the cited definition should be included in the Bylaws. </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r11"> <td class="x28" style="height:96.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t12">1</td> <td class="x39">Government of Australia</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x51">We do not in principle oppose the inclusion of a reference to human rights in ICANN’s Bylaws, but as there is not yet an agreed definition of ICANN’s role in relation to human rights, we suggest that this issue is best deferred to Work Stream 2 to allow the community time to consider further. We do not consider that it is necessary to agree text on human rights before the IANA transition takes place.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:386.4pt" id="r12"> <td class="x60" style="height:386.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t13">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of New Zealand</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Page 25, Paragraph 152 of the draft report notes that “the group has achieved consensus on including a human rights related commitment in ICANN’s Bylaws within its defined Mission. However, no particular wording currently proposed achieved consensus.” While we welcome a discussion of ICANN’s role in respecting human rights, and the possible inclusion of human rights as a bylaw within ICANN, we have some reservations with the inclusion of text at this late stage in the CCWG process.<br /><br />As indicated by the recent establishment of a Cross-Community Working Party on ICANN’s Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights and the GAC Working Group on Human Rights and International Law, there is substantial community interest in developing a shared understand of ICANN’s role in human rights. However, these working groups have also indicated that there is significant discussion to be had in order to develop a shared understanding of what ICANN’s role should be in human rights. This is further indicated by the challenge CCWG-Accountability has had in achieving consensus on the late addition of text to the bylaws.<br /><br />We consider it is important to develop a shared understanding of ICANN’s role in human rights and in developing consensus bylaw text. This process should not be rushed. We would question whether the addition of such text is a necessary for the successful transition of the IANA Stewardship role, or whether it would be more appropriate to consider this in the context of Work Stream 2, allowing further time for the community to reach consensus.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r13"> <td class="x28" style="height:124.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t14">1</td> <td class="x36">i2Coalition (Internet Infrastructure Coalition)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The i2Coalition supports the efforts of the CCWG to update and revise the Bylaws pertaining to ICANN’s Mission Statement, Commitments, and Core Values. With respect to human rights, i2C cautions that any ICANN action touching on human rights must remain within ICANN’s existing narrow role and remit in the security, stability &amp; resiliency of the Internet’s unique identifier systems, and notes that the CCWG cannot create its own legal standard around ‘human rights’ through the working group process; </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r14"> <td class="x60" style="height:82.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t15">1</td> <td class="x36">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">While the Board is committed to upholding human rights as appropriate within it Mission, the inclusion of human rights in the ICANN Bylaws<br />is premature at this time. There continues to be debate both in the CCWG-Accountability on the topic, as well as in the wider ICANN<br />community.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r15"> <td class="x60" style="height:110.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t16">1</td> <td class="x36">Intel</td> <td class="x51">We note that while there is general consensus on including some text Human Rights text, the specific language has yet to be developed. Intel has a long record of strong support for Human Rights and supports its inclusion. However, we echo the concern of multiple participants that care is taken that the inclusion of text does not, in any way broaden ICANN’s activity beyond its mission.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:400.2pt" id="r16"> <td class="x60" style="height:400.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t17">1</td> <td class="x39">Internet Association </td> <td class="x54">We agree that it is appropriate to provide an elaboration of ICANN’s commitments to human rights and that such an elaboration would be useful in preserving the right to free expression as ICANN transitions from U.S. Government oversight (149). Noting the important but sensitive nature of this topic, the Internet Association recommends the CCWG take certain steps to ensure this work is consistent with existing human rights norms. First, the CCWG must not suggest that ICANN directly incur human rights obligations; those obligations belong solely to states. Second, the CCWG cannot create new human rights; it must therefore rely on verbatim text from existing instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or it must refer to those instruments. Third, we believe the CCWG should undertake this work only with the cooperation of established experts in the field of international human rights. Fourth, any text regarding human rights should recognize ICANN’s limited remit: consideration of human rights should not expand the scope of ICANN’s activity or purview.<br /><br />Finally, the Internet Association strongly supports the clarification that ICANN’s mission does not include the regulation of services that use the DNS or the regulation of the content those services provide (146).<br /></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r17"> <td class="x60" style="height:409.5pt;overflow:hidden" id="t18">1</td> <td class="x39">IPC (Intellectual Property Constituency)</td> <td class="x54">In this Second Draft Report, the CCWG has introduced a proposed Bylaw amendment on ICANN’s responsibilities relating to Human Rights.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>While Human Rights are a laudable concern, this proposed Bylaw suffers from being introduced rather late in the process.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>There is no explanation or framework or interpretive guidance in the Report; just a couple of spare paragraphs.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>This is not sufficient to support a Bylaws amendment of potentially far-reaching consequences.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>One thing that needs to be made clear is that this Bylaw amendment is being introduced to replace the NTIA’s role as a backstop and guardian of Human Rights; it is not intended to expand ICANN’s Human Rights obligations. The CCWG must develop an appropriate framework so that it is clearly understood what the intent and effect of this Bylaw is, and what it isn’t.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The IPC would be hard pressed to support a Bylaws amendment without this type of supporting documentation. <br />With regard to the specific Bylaws proposed, the IPC would support the second option <br />(assuming appropriate documentation is developed).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The first option is highly inappropriate; the CCWG should not “cherry-pick” a couple of human rights and leave the rest behind.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Human Rights conventions, treaties and declarations have been developed in a comprehensive and interrelated fashion, and ICANN should respect the full suite of Human Rights, e.g., the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r18"> <td class="x28" style="height:55.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t19">1</td> <td class="x36">JPNIC (Japan Network Information Center)</td> <td class="x51">We would not oppose to adding description on human rights in the ICANN Bylaws, given it would be within the scope of ICANN’s Mission and Core Values. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r19"> <td class="x28" style="height:138pt;overflow:hidden" id="t20">1</td> <td class="x36">LINX (London Internet Exchange)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">36. Similarly, while it is clear that ICANN exists to pursue its Mission for the benefit of the public, rather than any particular private interest (such as the interests of a particular Registry), we are concerned that the introduction of generalised text referencing the public interest could diminish the clarifying effect of the CCWG’s proposal. In particular, we would very strongly object to the introduction of text that could allow the Board to argue that the enumerated Mission was complemented by a general authorisation to do anything that was, in ICANN’s view, beneficial to the public interest.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(please see the full response for details).</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r20"> <td class="x28" style="height:179.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t21">1</td> <td class="x39">MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)</td> <td class="x51">The MPAA believes ICANN’s current Articles of Incorporation already include a commitment to human rights and further work in this regard is unnecessary.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>However, as the CCWG has agreed on including further human rights related language into the bylaws, the MPAA supports the BC proposed amendment to Section 4 of ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>........The MPAA believes that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">    </span>is the most<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>appropriate and comprehensive statement of human rights for ICANN.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Any statement that selectively commits to certain human rights while excluding others is the wrong approach.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51"> Human rights</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1`</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:358.8pt" id="r21"> <td class="x60" style="height:358.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t22">1</td> <td class="x36">NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x51">The CCWG solicits comments on two different ways of formulating ICANN’s commitment to human rights. Option one expressed ICANN’s commitment “to respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information.” Option 2 expressed ICANN’s commitment more broadly, “Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights.” <br /> <br />With a few exceptions, NCSG tends toward support for the second, more general formulation. <br />The first formulation is too limited because other human rights, such as privacy, are relevant to ICANN policies. We do, however, recognize that a generic reference to human rights might not work as effectively as more specific requirements, and that freedom of expression and privacy are two human rights most directly relevant to ICANN’s policy activity. Our preference, therefore, would be to formulate the commitment this way:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br /> <br />“Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights, in particular freedom of expression and privacy.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r22"> <td class="x60" style="height:151.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t23">1</td> <td class="x36">Pranesh Prakash</td> <td class="x51">ICANN is unique in many ways. It is a global regulator that has powers of taxation to fund its own operation. ICANN is not a mere corporation. For such a regulator, ensuring fair process (what is often referred to as "natural justice") as well as substantive human rights (such as the freedom of expression, right against discrimination, right to privacy, and cultural diversity), are important. Given this, the narrow framing of "free expression and the free flow of information" in Option 1, we believe Option 2 is preferable.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r23"> <td class="x60" style="height:110.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t24">1</td> <td class="x36">RySG (Registries Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">As between the two alternative statements of a commitment to Human Rights in paragraph 151, the RySG prefers the second, i.e.: o Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights. Whatever “commitment” language is adopted, contracted parties should not be called upon to be HR police. Further, the RySG calls for more specificity in the human rights committed to in ICANN’s limited, technical mandate.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x55">1</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:262.2pt" id="r24"> <td class="x60" style="height:262.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t25">1</td> <td class="x36">The Heritage Foundation</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">In short, there is no clear delineation of where internationally recognized human rights start or end. Indeed, it is a fundamental tenant in the United Nations and among the majority of human rights advocates that human rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. If the CCWGAccountability endorses a broad commitment to human rights, it is likely that the human rights community will interpret this as a commitment by ICANN to all human rights even if they are not thought by the CCWG-Accountability to be within the mission and operation of the organization.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br />We believe that this perspective will lead civil society, which has repeatedly urged ICANN to use revenues from it gTLD sales to finance a diverse set of charitable and development priorities, to demand that ICANN take affirmative action to realize human rights commitments beyond what much of the multi-stakeholder community likely anticipate or would consider reasonable.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br />The caveat in the examples that the human rights commitment would be within the mission and operation of ICANN, in our opinion, would not be a sufficient limitation to restrict such efforts. </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r25"> <td class="x60" style="height:124.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t26">1</td> <td class="x39">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">We support the protection of internationally recognized fundamental human rights. We greatly value the primarily technical mission of ICANN, and as a result we urge the CCWG to take a cautious approach to the possible inclusion of any human rights-related commitment so that it does not have the effect of extending ICANN’s important core mission. If the CCWG comes to consensus on the need to include reference to human rights, we suggest following existing human rights instruments.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span>(see full submission for details)</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r26"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t27">23</td> <td class="x62"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x183">0</td> <td class="x183">4</td> <td class="x183">17</td> <td class="x183">8</td> <td class="x183">12</td> <td class="x183">2</td> <td class="x183">7</td> <td class="x183">2</td> <td class="x183">7</td> <td class="x183">6</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r27"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t28"></td> <td class="x62"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x184">0%</td> <td class="x184">17%</td> <td class="x184">74%</td> <td class="x184">35%</td> <td class="x184">52%</td> <td class="x184">9%</td> <td class="x184">30%</td> <td class="x184">9%</td> <td class="x184">30%</td> <td class="x184">26%</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt;mso-xlrowspan:2" id="r28"> <td class="x28" style="height:27.6pt"></td> <td class="x64"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td colspan="6" class="x60" style="mso-ignore:colspan"></td> <td colspan="4" class="x69" style="mso-ignore:colspan"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r29"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t29"></td> <td class="x64"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:0pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:255.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:93pt"></td> <td style="width:93pt"></td> <td style="width:93pt"></td> <td style="width:93pt"></td> <td style="width:93pt"></td> <td style="width:93pt"></td> <td style="width:86.25pt"></td> <td style="width:86.25pt"></td> <td style="width:86.25pt"></td> <td style="width:86.25pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="8" data-sheet-name="IRP"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1824pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x28" id="c0" style="mso-width-source:userset;width:0pt;mso-width-alt:0pt"></col> <col class="x64" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:409px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:337px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:436px"></col> <col class="x60" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x28" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:108px"></col> <col class="x28" span="5" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r0"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t1"><a name="RANGE!A1"></a></td> <td colspan="2" class="x276" style="border-right:2px solid windowtext">SUMMARY</td> <td class="x70" style="width:252.75pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:327pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:81pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:77.25pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:103.95pt" id="r1"> <td class="x28" style="height:103.95pt;overflow:hidden" id="t2"></td> <td colspan="3" class="x275" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext">On Independent Review Process: <br />Submissions were supportive of the IRP enhancements proposed.<br />• 35 of 92 submissions specifically addressed the issue (see comments below). Of the 35 specific submissions 24 were in support of the proposal, 3 were in disagreement, 16 had concerns, 8 had new ideas and 2 were neutral.<br />• 20 of the 92 submission generally supported the proposal without specifically mentioning this point. (see Overall Support tab)<br />• 3 of the 92 submissions were against the proposal overall without specifically mentioning this point. (see Overall Disagreement tab)<br />• Specific recurring comments included 9 submissions requiring more information, 7 that were concerned with costs and funding, 6 that were concerned with who has standing to use the IRP and 5 requiring participation in the process as a requirement for IRP.<br /></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> </tr> <tr class="x50" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:46.05pt" id="r2"> <td class="x59" style="height:46.05pt;overflow:hidden" id="t3"></td> <td class="x46">Independent Review Process</td> <td class="x47">Support areas</td> <td class="x47">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x47">Issue areas</td> <td class="x48">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x48">New Idea</td> <td class="x48">Concerns</td> <td class="x48">Agreement</td> <td class="x48">Diagreement</td> <td class="x48">Neutral</td> <td class="x65">More information</td> <td class="x65">Participate in comm process</td> <td class="x65">Costs</td> <td class="x65">Standing issues</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:165.6pt" id="r3"> <td class="x28" style="height:165.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t4">1</td> <td class="x36">AFRALO (African Regional At-Large Organization)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• The “IRP sub-group” is mentioned repeatedly in this section, while no definition (composition, mission, term, etc.) of this subgroup is provided. <br />• Timeline for IRP: The period of time for complainants to file their complaint and the total period of time for the IRP to issue its final report should be clearly fixed, and not left for further decision.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>This is to avoid any possible gaming, unpredictability, corruption or other unfair result of the IRP. <br />• The panel shouldn’t issue corrective decisions, but decisions to override the ICANN action (or no action) that the board is obliged to accept and revise its decision accordingly. The corrective decisions are the sole right of the ICANN Board.</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:220.8pt" id="r4"> <td class="x28" style="height:220.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t5">1</td> <td class="x36">ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• Paragraph 268, Subsection 2b: The ALAC supports the ability of the IRP to reconcile conflicting “expert panel” decisions, but notes that such decisions will not simply be a judgement that the Bylaws were not followed. The proposal should allow for an IRP outcome that specifically addresses such issues. <br />• Paragraph 268, Subsection 18: The ALAC’s understanding of the IRP is that it is an evaluation of ICANN actions and a determination of whether the ICANN Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation were followed. The proposed text implies that the IRP will order that the breach be remedied, but will not dictate exactly what the remedy should be. The ALAC supports this, but believes that it must be explicit that the IRP cannot dictate specific courses of action. If this interpretation is not correct and the intent is that an IRP can dictate specific remedies, then the ALAC strongly objects. <br />• Paragraph 279, Internet Numbering out of scope for IRP: The rationale for this must be included.</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r5"> <td class="x28" style="height:110.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t6">1</td> <td class="x36">Avri Doria (endorsed by Joy Liddicoat &amp; Timothy McGinnis)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• One of the comments that has been made in discussions is that there is no redress mechanism that is applicable to the SMCM.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The question boils down to: what<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>if the SMCM makes a decision that is incompatible with ICANN’s mission or core values? <br /><br />• I recommend that the role of the IRP, in paragraph 268, be expanded to include “hearing and resolving claims that concern SMCM decisions.”</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r6"> <td class="x28" style="height:69pt;overflow:hidden" id="t7">1</td> <td class="x36">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">• The BC strongly supports the adoption of a binding independent review process. <br />• the IRP will order that the breach be remedied, but will not dictate exactly what the remedy should be. <br /></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• The BC continues to be concerned that the Reconsideration and Independent Review process proposed by the CCWG would allow parties to introduce new arguments without first vetting them through the community’s policy development channels.</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r7"> <td class="x28" style="height:69pt;overflow:hidden" id="t8">1</td> <td class="x36">CCAOI (Cyber Cafe Association of India)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• The Independent Review Process (IPR) needs to be clearly defined in<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>WS1 to allow the community to decide if they want to support it.(implies neutral on the proposal for IRP)<br />• Moreover further information what ICANN would fund for IRPs needs to be shared.</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r8"> <td class="x28" style="height:179.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t9">1</td> <td class="x36">CCG-NULD (Centre for Communication Governance National Law University Delhi)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The appeal to the IRP panel’s decision to a larger panel is based on inadequately defined standards, and these need to be clearly stated. This would ensure the development of predictable, clear and coherent body of law that can be relied upon. The efficient functioning of the IRP and appeals process is dependent on the development of adequate supporting transparency mechanisms such as the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP). However, a review and enhancement of the DIDP is recommended only as part of Work Stream 2. We recommend that the reforms in the IRP be supported with appropriate amendments in the Supplementary Procedures for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Independent Review Process that provide clearly stated parameters for operation of the reformed IRP.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;white-space:nowrap;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r9"> <td class="x28" style="height:96.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t10">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD Australia (auDA)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• The CCWG's revised IRP provisions are one example of a change that will be underpinned by Fundamental Bylaws. Further, community members (including the ICANN Board) are being asked to express a position on a structure that will pass judgement on their actions and bind them to its findings. <br />• As such, the community must have a greater level of detail when determining whether to support this change.</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r10"> <td class="x28" style="height:151.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t11">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD Canada (CIRA)</td> <td class="x51">• Supports the proposed creation of “a standing, independent – review – panel of skilled jurists/arbitrators who are retained by ICANN and can be called upon over time and for various unrelated issues to resolve disputes regarding whether ICANN is staying within its limited technical Mission and acting in accordance with ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and/or Bylaws.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br />• Endorses the proposal’s statement that “decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or revocations would be excluded from standing, until the ccTLD community, in coordination with other parties, has developed relevant appeals mechanisms.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r11"> <td class="x28" style="height:110.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t12">1</td> <td class="x39">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x51"><br />• Afnic is convinced that the proposal put on the table by the CCWG – accountability is necessary and sufficient to allow the IANA stewardship transition. Some points may still have to be refined or explained better, before going to the Board, which we will point out in the document.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;white-space:nowrap;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• At this stage, we would like to emphasize that the “reasonable efforts” envisaged in the document, par. 12 of the IRP presentation, are far from satisfactory. Afnic would like to see, in the proposal sent to the Board, a binding proposal instead. <br />• We suggest that at least one independent expert shall be chosen in each of the ICANN region, and that at least the panel should include three women and three men. This proposal wouldn’t change the size of the standing panel (7).</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r12"> <td class="x28" style="height:110.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t13">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x54">• InternetNZ supports the improvements to Independent Review set out in the Proposal, and notes these improvements are dependent on the existence of a membership system within ICANN. Without such, the ICANN Board as a matter of fiduciary responsibility cannot agree to the incorporation of a system which gives independent decision-making to another party. The loss of such improvements would seriously weaken ICANN’s soon-to-improve accountability.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r13"> <td class="x28" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t14">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD Norway (Norid)</td> <td class="x51">Supoports CENTR comments</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:165.6pt" id="r14"> <td class="x28" style="height:165.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t15">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x51">• General support for the proposal (IRP proposal)<br />• Welcomes the introduction of “settlement efforts” as part of the appeals mechanisms (section 5 paragraph 268 point 16, page 41).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span><br />• Welcomes periodic review of the review processes<br />• The introduction of clear processes, rules and timescales<br />• The introduction of precedential weight to ensure coherence between decisions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Consistency in decisions is important for justice to be done and to be seen to be done:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>should either party be able to appeal on grounds of inconsistency?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>It would be appropriate for the Panel to explain decisions how precedence had been considered.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r15"> <td class="x28" style="height:110.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t16">1</td> <td class="x36">CENTR (European Association of National Internet Domain Registries)</td> <td class="x51">• Fully supportive of “a standing, independent – review – panel<br />•<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Endorses that “decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or revocations would be excluded from standing<br />• Remain concerned about independence, appointment and funding.<br />• Regular reviews<br />•<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Concern about meeting CWG requirements re IRP applicable to PTI decisions</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r16"> <td class="x28" style="height:41.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t17">1</td> <td class="x36">CWG-Stewardship</td> <td class="x51">• The CWG believes that the CCWG-Accountability draft proposal adequately satisfies this CWG-Stewardship requirement.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:248.4pt" id="r17"> <td class="x28" style="height:248.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t18">1</td> <td class="x41">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x54">• Strongly support the core values and principals set out in the proposal for the IRP<br />• timeframe for initiation and realisation of standing for the IRP are still to be determined - suggest that a tiered timeline<br />• agree that a diverse representation of legal background and training is a requirement for the selection of potential panellists (diversity) – suggest extremely high standard be applied<br />• Support 5 year term limit with no reappointment<br />• caution against outsourcing the IRP to the same extent as for example the current UDRP process.<br />• Supports the community playing an important role in e valuation and selection of panelists.<br />• support the suggestion of the CCWG that the decision making process of the IRP should be precedential<br />• Issue of accessibility vs ability to finance an IRP complaint needs to be addressed.<br />• support the examination of the DIDP process as part of the Work Stream 2 effort</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r18"> <td class="x28" style="height:69pt;overflow:hidden" id="t19">1</td> <td class="x36">Dyn</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• Dyn understands, however, that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good, and that consensus often means that nobody thinks the answer is just right, so we might otherwise be willing to live with these flaws.</td> <td class="x51">• It is really hard to see why the various appeal and reconsideration functions cannot be streamlined into a single mechanism that ordinary humans could understand</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:193.2pt" id="r19"> <td class="x28" style="height:193.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t20">1</td> <td class="x39">Edward Morris</td> <td class="x51">• I generally support the enhancements proposed for the Independent Review Process (IRP) in the Draft proposal. The increased scope for an IRP (to include Board and staff action / inaction a well as violations of ICANN’s mission, commitments and core values), the easing of the standing requirement so that community components are extended such rights as a matter of form, and the right of appeal of an IRP decision to a full panel sitting en blanc, are all positives.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• Accessibility and affordability needs to be for WS1 (see original comment for details). <br />• Concern regarding Alleged Frivolous / Vexatious Actions. Suggest CCWG to provide a system whereby a Complainant may have an initial determination made through an early warning system about whether their proposed Action is or is not deemed not to be frivolous before costs accrue for the Complainant. <br />• Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP): The CEP is the most obtuse, dark, fundamentally nontransparent and unsound component of all of ICANN’s accountability mechanisms. It should have no place in a truly transparent and accountable ICANN (see original comment for details<br />• Conflicts of interest proposals for arfe not sufficient. (see original comments for details)</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r20"> <td class="x28" style="height:179.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t21">1</td> <td class="x36">Google</td> <td class="x51">• Support for creating a process for meaningful review of ICANN Board or staff actions through a standing, independent group of experts</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• The CCWG’s proposal allows review of ICANN actions only to the extent that they “exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission and/or violate ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws. This limited scope of review leaves parties without a remedy if ICANN acts within the scope of its Mission, Articles, and Bylaws, but makes a fundamentally irrational decision.<br />• individual parties seeking review should be required to participate in any ICANN public comment process directly related to the subject being brought for Independent Review.<br />• panels should review ICANN action under an abuse of discretion standard, rather than the<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>de novo<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>standard currently contemplated by the Proposal.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>In this model, failure to follow processes would qualify<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>per se as an abuse of discretion.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r21"> <td class="x28" style="height:124.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t22">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of Brazil</td> <td class="x51">• Brazil reiterates the importance that decisions made by the IRP should be binding on the ICANN organization and effectively independent from national courts so that they could not be overruled by national courts where ICANN is legally established (support for proposal)<br />•<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Furthermore, we consider it will be essential to clearly define steps with firm deadlines in the context of the work of the future Cross Community Working Group to be established with the mandate to detail the structure and procedures of the IRP.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• We share the concern expressed by Spain, on the other hand, regarding the fact that the proposed provisions would prevent governments as well as other entities from participating in an IRP and therefore call for appropriate adjustments in that regard.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;white-space:nowrap;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:207pt" id="r22"> <td class="x28" style="height:207pt;overflow:hidden" id="t23">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of France</td> <td class="x51">• We do understand that the CCWG 2nd draft proposal “does not establish a new international court or a new body of international law”, that “it is not a Treaty function” and that, contrary to the current IRP, the CCWG intended to make decisions of the new IRP unambiguously binding on ICANN itself, a first new feature that we totally support.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(support for the proposal)<br />• The French government also takes the opportunity to reassert its support to the second new feature of the IRP, that is the ability to judge on the substance of complaints (notably vis-à-vis ICANN policies) rather than just on the conformity of the procedures followed by the Board (vis-à-vis ICANN Bylaws).<br />• The French Government calls for the strictest conflict of interest policy to be implemented at Board, IRP and “SO/AC Membership Model” levels.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r23"> <td class="x28" style="height:82.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t24">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of India</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• There is a risk that if ICANN will be funding the review panel directly, then the IRP might be biased in its findings.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Independence may be impacted even after limiting the term to the maximum of five years.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>As reflected in previous comments to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), such financial dependence might affect the true independence of the panel.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r24"> <td class="x28" style="height:55.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t25">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of New Zealand</td> <td class="x51">• We are broadly supportive of the recommendations put forth in the 2nd Draft Proposal.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• While we acknowledge the commitment of the ccNSO in developing a clearer process for ccTLD delegation/redelegation, we do not consider a potential PDP is sufficient rationale for excluding ccTLD delegation/redelegation from the IRP.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r25"> <td class="x28" style="height:96.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t26">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of Spain</td> <td class="x51">• We applaud the enhancements put forward for the refurbished IRP, which will contribute to improve the community’s power to appeal ICANN’s decisions, including the provisions on geographic, legal and cultural diversity, translation services, independency of panellists (term limits and post-term prohibitions), and initial nomination of panellists by the community.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• We regret though, that our request to expand the standard to be a party of an IRP has not been taken into account. The “materially affected” clause actually prevents governments as well as other entities from participating in an IRP as decisions that may affect them might have not been implemented yet and thus, have not caused any material harm at the time of filing the complaint.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r26"> <td class="x28" style="height:69pt;overflow:hidden" id="t27">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of the United Kingdom</td> <td class="x51">• We believe the CCWG second draft proposal to be comprehensive and well-structured. The UK Government supports in particular: …. the proposals to enhance the Independent Review Process including<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>making its decisions binding on the Board</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r27"> <td class="x28" style="height:138pt;overflow:hidden" id="t28">1</td> <td class="x36">i2Coalition (Internet Infrastructure Coalition)</td> <td class="x51">• The i2Coalition appreciates the work of the CCWG, and we broadly support the proposal’s direction.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>In particular, we appreciate that the CCWG shares two of our key goals: (1) ensuring that ICANN remains focused on its core mission of coordinating the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers and ensuring the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems, and (2) creating a binding mechanism by which actions outside of or in contravention of ICANN’s bylaws can be challenged.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• The i2Coalition has some concern the IRP process, as currently proposed by the CCWG, would allow parties to bring new arguments to the IRP without first vetting them through the community’s policy development channels.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We are concerned that the process does not create the right incentives: it invites parties to stand on the sidelines during the policy development process and bring their concerns to the IRP after policy development has concluded.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Such an approach could create operational inefficiency and undermine the bottom-up, consensus-based process for developing policy within ICANN.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r28"> <td class="x28" style="height:110.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t29">1</td> <td class="x36">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x51">• ICANN Board supports the ability for the community and individuals/entities to seek an independent review of Board actions to ensure that ICANN does not exceed the scope of its limited technical Mission and complies with its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.<br />• Agreement (Supports or Supports with some changes) on 18 points - please see below for a summary or the response by the Board for full details.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">• 25. Accessibility and Cost<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268, clause 19) – Disagrees (ICANN will fund the costs of Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism (MEM) binding arbitration, including legal fees. Because of the availability of a funded MEM through which the community empowerment tools can be enforced, the Board recommends that the more individualized IRP proceedings should be subject to the current cost-shifting process.)</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r29"> <td class="x28" style="height:69pt;overflow:hidden" id="t30">1</td> <td class="x36">Intel</td> <td class="x51">Intel supports the proposed IRP. We believe a liberal approach to who may petition the panel, in combination with the ability of the Panel to provide for loser pays/fee shifting in the event it identifies a challenge as frivolous strikes the right balance between due process and mitigation of delaying tactics.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r30"> <td class="x28" style="height:124.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t31">1</td> <td class="x39">Internet Association </td> <td class="x54">• The Internet Association is pleased to comment on the “CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations.” We support the CCWG’s plan for enhancing ICANN’s accountability and believe these changes are necessary given the U.S. Government’s intent to relinquish its historical stewardship role.<br />• Supports the proposal including Implementation, independence of panelists, it being binding, precedence and the possibility of appealing rulings.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• Recommends participation as a requirement for IRP (The requirement to comment publicly would not apply to instances where ICANN simply contravenes existing policy or pursues implementation without seeking public comment.)</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:165.6pt" id="r31"> <td class="x28" style="height:165.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t32">1</td> <td class="x39">IPC (Intellectual Property Constituency)</td> <td class="x54">• The IPC generally supports the changes to the IRP as well.<br />• Concern - First, it is important to maintain the ability for stakeholder groups, constituencies and other subsets of larger stakeholder organizations to challenge Board decisions even if the majority does not support such a challenge.<br />• Concern - Second, it is important to have checks and balances available to avoid or temper situations where the majority attempts to commence an action on behalf of the “community” where a minority does not support such actions.<br />• Recommend - (j) provide for interim remedies available to the Community pending a reconsideration or IRP which suspends implementation by the Board of a “captured” policy</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:248.4pt" id="r32"> <td class="x28" style="height:248.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t33">1</td> <td class="x36">Jacob Malthouse</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">• Process timelines are either vague, non-binding or have been extended<br />• Perhaps as a result of their vagueness, the proposed mechanisms are not described 'end-to-end' anywhere.<br />• The report does not describe a process, with clear guidance and thresholds, for the Board, mediator or a panel to determine whether complaints are spurious, repetitive or anti-competitive. There is no avenue for expediting complaints or for dismissing them early in the process. While ICANN, the Board or a panel could in theory dismiss complaints, in practice they have not done so.<br />• A 'surge' in complaints as a result of a program or policy implementation by ICANN - such as an expansion of the number of generic top-level domains - does not appear to be addressed in the stress tests. This means that the maximum number of complaints that could be addressed by the Board, mediation or by the standing panel at any given time is not explored. A "pile-up" of extended, repetitive processes that impacts the Board, third-parties and policy making appears a serious risk.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:372.6pt" id="r33"> <td class="x28" style="height:372.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t34">1</td> <td class="x41">Jan Scholte (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x51">• General support for the proposal<br />• Concerns - For example, could the Board use the IRP to challenge the Community Mechanism for overstepping its mandate or violating its rules and procedures? Or could a new SO or AC which is refused participation in the Community Mechanism (para 309) appeal this exclusion to the IRP? In general there is a concern that the proposal gives the Community Mechanism substantial powers without fully thinking through how the new body will be accountability in the exercise of those powers.<br />• Creating a separate appeals mechanism for ccTLDs adds further complexity to an already labyrinthine institutional apparatus for governance of the DNS. Is it absolutely necessary?<br />• Perhaps some reflection is wanted regarding the degree of privilege to be accorded to registries (country code and generic) relative to other stakeholders in the new ICANN accountability arrangements. For example, why does para 105 make specific mention of TLD manager access to the IRP, when non-commercial users, intellectual property stakeholders and others might also have complaints? Similarly, why does para 132 suggest that only ccNSO and GNSO would be empowered to address matters escalated by the CSC? Prima facie the registries and registrars are the stakeholders most likely to have CSC-related complaints, but why close the door in advance to others who might in certain contexts have well-grounded grievances?</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:234.6pt" id="r34"> <td class="x28" style="height:234.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t35">1</td> <td class="x36">LINX (London Internet Exchange)</td> <td class="x51">• LINX strongly supports the main pillars of the CCWG proposal, which are the very essence of accountability: …..That there be an independent body, the IRP, to hear complaints that ICANN has acted inconsistently with its own governing documents.<br />• We welcome the CCWG’s proposal that the community would keep the rules of procedure of the IRP under review, and make other recommendations for reform.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br />• We support the CCWG proposal that all costs other than the complainants own costs should be met by ICANN. <br /></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• 13. In our view it is essential that materially affected parties have the right to complain to the IRP that they have been harmed by an ICANN policy, and that that policy is improper by reason of being outside the scope of ICANN’s Mission, and so must be set aside.<br />• 14. We do not consider it acceptable to limit this right to complain to those “directly affected”,<br />• 15. Nor do we consider it sufficient to empower a collective community entity the right to raise such a complaint<br />• We do not agree with those that say that extending this right to all materially affected parties creates an unprecedented and unacceptable exposure to ICANN.<br />• 18. We believe that materially affected parties should have the right to complain, especially when the basis of that complaint is that ICANN has acted outside the scope of its Mission. As most entities do not closely track ICANN activities (nor do they have any reason to do so) this right would be empty if a fixed deadline were chosen.<br />• For a complete list of issues please consult the response.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:262.2pt" id="r35"> <td class="x28" style="height:262.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t36">1</td> <td class="x36">RySG (Registries Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x51">supports proposal,</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">• While the RySG supports this proposal in general, more time is warranted to a) consider the ICANN Board’s recent interventions (and comments) regarding the draft proposal and b) stress test proposed IRP changes. <br />• The RySG considers an enhanced Documentary Information Disclosure Policy as an essential component of the rules relating to the conduct of the enhanced Independent Review Process. The enhancement articulated in paragraph 268, subparagraph 21 (“Transparency”) under Section 5.1 should not simply be recommended but instead should be made mandatory for IRP and other appeals processes. <br />• The enhanced IRP will not be up and running until well into, or following the completion of, WS2. How will there be an assurance that ICANN will follow through with its commitments pending the enhanced IRP (short of having to remove board members or recall the entire board)? The RySG suggests one possible idea would be to create a contract between ICANN and any SO or AC that elects to be a party that would allow for specific performance remedies to follow through with the transition plan arrangements.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;white-space:nowrap;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:345pt" id="r36"> <td class="x28" style="height:345pt;overflow:hidden" id="t37">1</td> <td class="x39">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x51">• In general, USCIB agrees with the proposed improvements<br />• We suggest a permissive approach to who may petition the panel, coupled with the ability of the Panel to provide for loser pays/fee shifting in the event that it identifies a challenge as frivolous. Furthermore, participation in related ICANN public comment processes that are directly related to the issue under review should be a prerequisite for parties seeking relief before an IRP. This allows for a good balance between enabling open access to due process and mitigating delay tactics.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br />• However, in view of the additional detailed work required to implement the IRP enhancements, USCIB encourages the CCWG to include a deadline and procedures to ensure prompt selection of the special Cross-Community Working Group that will be convened for this purpose. It is critically important this group begin work on the IRP rules of procedures as soon as possible so they are completed within the proposed nine-month window for Work Stream 1 implementation. <br />• Finally, with respect to enhancements for both the Independent Review Panel and the Reconsideration Process, USCIB recommends providing definitions of “materially affected” and “materially harmed” to clarify if such terms refer to economic harm or would include broader concepts of harm to an entity. Such clarity is important to discourage entities for pursuing remedial action based on inchoate allegations of harm.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r37"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t38">34</td> <td class="x88"></td> <td class="x89"></td> <td class="x89"></td> <td class="x89"></td> <td class="x183">0</td> <td class="x183">8</td> <td class="x183">16</td> <td class="x183">24</td> <td class="x183">3</td> <td class="x183">2</td> <td class="x183">9</td> <td class="x183">5</td> <td class="x183">7</td> <td class="x183">6</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r38"> <td class="x28" style="height:27.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t39"></td> <td class="x261"></td> <td class="x262"></td> <td class="x262"></td> <td class="x262"><br /></td> <td class="x263">0%</td> <td class="x263">24%</td> <td class="x263">47%</td> <td class="x263">71%</td> <td class="x263">9%</td> <td class="x263">6%</td> <td class="x263">26%</td> <td class="x263">15%</td> <td class="x263">21%</td> <td class="x263">18%</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r39"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t40"></td> <td class="x259"></td> <td class="x260"></td> <td class="x260"></td> <td class="x260"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r40"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t41"></td> <td class="x259"></td> <td class="x260"></td> <td class="x260"></td> <td class="x260"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> <td class="x267"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r41"> <td class="x60" style="height:409.5pt;overflow:hidden" id="t42"></td> <td class="x264">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x265">• ICANN Board supports the ability for the community and individuals/entities to seek an independent review of Board actions to ensure that ICANN does not exceed the scope of its limited technical Mission and complies with its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">    </span><br />• 10 Purpose of the IRP<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268) – Supports with some changes (MEM)<br />• 11 Role of the IRP<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268) - Supports with some changes (expert panels, MEM)<br />• 12. A Standing Panel<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268) – Supports<br />• 13. Initiation of an IRP<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268) - Supports with some changes (MEM)<br />• 14. Possible Outcomes of the IRP<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268) - Supports with some changes (MEM would be binding)<br />• 15. Standing<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268) - Supports with some changes (MEM keep current 30 day period until agreed otherwise by the community)<br />• 16. Community IRP<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1) - Supports with some changes (MEM)<br />• 17. Exclusions; ccTLD Delegation/Redelegation and Numbering Resources –<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268, clause 8 and 9) - Agreed.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(similar to IAB request)<br />• 18. Standard of Review<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268, clause 10) - Supports with some changes (return to pre-April 2013 standard for now – continue consideration of the standard in the reviews.)<br />• 19. Composition of Panel and Expertise, Diversity and Size<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268, clause 11, 12, 13) - Agreed. The Board recommends that no Standing Panel be empanelled until the scope of the IRP is clarified.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The Board agrees with the CCWG-Accountability’s recommendation to require 3-member decisional panels.<br />• 20. Independence<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268, clause 14) – Agreed.<br />• 21. Recall or Other Accountability<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268, clause 15) – Agreed (The ICANN Board supports 5-year terms and agrees that a recall process should be developed to ensure accountability.)<br />• 22. Settlement Efforts<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268, clause 16) – Agreed (Agreed. We note that the CCWG-Accountability Proposal does not contain a lot of detail on how the mediation piece would fit into the timelines, and other process points, but agree with the CCWG-Accountability that these details can be worked through.)<br />• 23. Decision Making<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268, clause 17) – Agreed<br />• 24. Decisions<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268, clause 18) - Agreed. Decisions should be binding unless there is a conflict with the Board’s fiduciary responsibilities.<br />• 26. Time for Resolving IRPs<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268, clause 19) – Agreed<br />• 27. Implementation<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268, clause 20) – Agreed (The Board agrees that IRP provisions should be adopted as Fundamental Bylaws, and also agrees that detailed rules will need to be developed.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>As an initial step, the Board recommends rolling back the modification of standard of review to the standard that was in place before 2013.)<br />• 28. Transparency<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268, clause 21) – Agreed (revise DIDP)<br /></td> <td class="x265">N/A</td> <td class="x266">• 25. Accessibility and Cost<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(Section 5.1, paragraph 268, clause 19) – Disagrees (ICANN will fund the costs of Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism (MEM) binding arbitration, including legal fees. Because of the availability of a funded MEM through which the community empowerment tools can be enforced, the Board recommends that the more individualized IRP proceedings should be subject to the current cost-shifting process.)</td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:0pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:306.75pt"></td> <td style="width:252.75pt"></td> <td style="width:327pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:81pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="9" data-sheet-name="RFR"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1704pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x28" id="c0" style="mso-width-source:userset;width:0pt;mso-width-alt:0pt"></col> <col class="x44" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x32" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x32" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x32" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x60" span="6" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:143px"></col> <col class="x60" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:134px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r0"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t1"><a name="RANGE!A1"></a></td> <td colspan="2" class="x276" style="border-right:2px solid windowtext">SUMMARY</td> <td class="x32" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x32" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:107.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:107.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:107.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:107.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:107.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:107.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:100.5pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:78pt" id="r1"> <td class="x28" style="height:78pt;overflow:hidden" id="t2"></td> <td colspan="3" class="x275" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext">There was no significant disagreement with the proposal for RFR.<br />• 11 of 92 submissions specifically addressed the issue (see comments below). Of the 11 specific submissions 8 were in support of the proposal, 1 was in disagreement and 10 had concerns.<br />• 20 of the 92 submission generally supported the proposal without specifically mentioning this point. (see Overall Support tab)<br />• 3 of the 92 submissions were against the proposal overall without specifically mentioning this point. (see Overall Disagreement tab)<br />• Specific recurring comments included 3 submissions requiring participation in the process as a requirement for RFR.<br /><br /></td> <td class="x32"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> </tr> <tr class="x23" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:36pt" id="r2"> <td class="x59" style="height:36pt;overflow:hidden" id="t3"></td> <td class="x33">Request for Reconsideration </td> <td class="x34">Support areas</td> <td class="x34">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x34">Issue areas</td> <td class="x48">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x48">New Idea</td> <td class="x48">Concerns</td> <td class="x48">Agreement</td> <td class="x48">Diagreement</td> <td class="x48">Neutral</td> <td class="x65">Participation required</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r3"> <td class="x60" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t4">1</td> <td class="x39">Edward Morris</td> <td class="x37"> RFR (reservation about the Ombudsman)</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r4"> <td class="x28" style="height:96.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t5">1</td> <td class="x39">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x37">• Finally, with respect to enhancements for both the Independent Review Panel and the Reconsideration Process, USCIB recommends providing definitions of “materially affected” and “materially harmed” to clarify if such terms refer to economic harm or would include broader concepts of harm to an entity. Such clarity is important to discourage entities for pursuing remedial action based on inchoate allegations of “harm.” </td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r5"> <td class="x28" style="height:151.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t6">1</td> <td class="x36">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x37">General Support</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">The BC suggests that the CCWG carefully consider whether additional safeguards--such as requiring parties or their trade associations to participate in a public comment process for instances in which there is a challenge to an existing community-developed policy or where ICANN has sought public comment on implementation of an existing policy--could prevent these eventualities while still preserving an accessible review mechanisms. The requirement for prior public comment participation would not apply to instances where ICANN simply contravenes existing policy or pursues implementation without seeking public comment.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x30" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r6"> <td class="x28" style="height:151.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t7">1</td> <td class="x36">CENTR (European Association of National Internet Domain Registries)</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">• We note the inclusion of a reference to the removal of ccTLD delegation and redelegation decisions in Reconsideration Process Enhancement” to the letter that the CWG Stewardship sent to the CCWG on the exclusion of ccTLD delegations and redelegations from “any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG-Accountabilitysection 5.2 “”. However, the CCWG proposal is silent on the significance of this paragraph in this context. Considering that exclusion or inclusion of these issues in the reconsideration mechanism was never discussed by the CWG nor its Design Team B which looked at the larger issue, CENTR requests that this is not included.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x68"></td> <td class="x68"></td> <td class="x68"></td> </tr> <tr class="x30" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r7"> <td class="x60" style="height:27.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t8">1</td> <td class="x36">Giacomo Mazzone</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">concerns with RFR process and context; - please see the response for details</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> </tr> <tr class="x30" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r8"> <td class="x60" style="height:27.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t9">1</td> <td class="x36">Just Net Coalition </td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x40">Does not support the process - Cancel current process and proceed with Tunis Agenda and Delhi decleration</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x30" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r9"> <td class="x60" style="height:110.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t10">1</td> <td class="x36">CCAOI (Cyber Cafe Association of India)</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">Moreover, there is no avenue to expedite or dismiss complaints early in<br />process. The timelines are vague, non binding or have been extended. For<br />example there is a broadened disclosure process and a 6 months<br />reconsideration process. Moreover the proposed mechanism is not end to end<br /></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> </tr> <tr class="x30" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r10"> <td class="x60" style="height:179.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t11">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD Canada (CIRA)</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">We note a reference in section 5.2 (Reconsideration Process Enhancement) to the April 15, 2015 letter from the CWG-Stewardship regarding exclusion of ccTLD delegation and transfer from the enhanced appeal mechanism. However, the CCWG proposal is silent on the significance of this paragraph in the context of section 5.2, as this section deals not with the enhanced appeal mechanism, but rather with reconsideration process enhancement.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Consideration of excluding ccTLD delegation and transfer decisions from the reconsideration process was never discussed by the CCWG’s Design Team B (which examined the issue of ccTLDs and the appeal mechanism) or the CWG-Stewardship. CIRA therefore requests that the CCWG proposal not make this exclusion from the reconsideration process.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x68"></td> <td class="x68">1</td> <td class="x68">1</td> <td class="x68"></td> <td class="x68"></td> <td class="x68"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:165.6pt" id="r11"> <td class="x60" style="height:165.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t12">1</td> <td class="x36">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x37">Note: there are some practical details that need to be considered before a rebuttal should be included as part of the process. Those include<br />questions such as: what are the limitations of the scope of a rebuttal? How would it be limited so as not to be an opportunity to introduce<br />new arguments? How does it impact the timeframe? How can it have safeguards so as to not delay? What are the Board’s obligations in<br />considering a rebuttal?<br />The Board notes that the inclusion of the rebuttal process, and clarity around it, may impact the timelines presented.</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x40"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r12"> <td class="x60" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t13">1</td> <td class="x36">i2Coalition (Internet Infrastructure Coalition)</td> <td class="x37">Overall support</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">IRP and Reconsideration require public comment first; </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x30" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r13"> <td class="x60" style="height:41.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t14">1</td> <td class="x231">Internet Association </td> <td class="x254">Support for proposal;Reconsideration (with rebuttal; Ombudsman as initial review only if independent of ICANN Legal + participation); </td> <td class="x234">N/A</td> <td class="x234">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:23.55pt" id="r14"> <td class="x204" style="height:23.55pt;overflow:hidden" id="t15">11</td> <td class="x251"></td> <td class="x213"></td> <td class="x213"></td> <td class="x213"></td> <td class="x211">0</td> <td class="x211">0</td> <td class="x211">10</td> <td class="x211">8</td> <td class="x211">1</td> <td class="x211">0</td> <td class="x211">3</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:23.55pt" id="r15"> <td class="x204" style="height:23.55pt;overflow:hidden" id="t16"></td> <td class="x251"></td> <td class="x213"></td> <td class="x213"></td> <td class="x213"></td> <td class="x212">0%</td> <td class="x212">0%</td> <td class="x212">91%</td> <td class="x212">73%</td> <td class="x212">9%</td> <td class="x212">0%</td> <td class="x212">27%</td> </tr> <tr class="x21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r16"> <td class="x21" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t17"></td> <td class="x21"></td> <td class="x21"></td> <td class="x21"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x21"></td> <td class="x21"></td> <td class="x21"></td> <td class="x21"></td> <td class="x21"></td> <td class="x21"></td> <td class="x21"></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:0pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:107.25pt"></td> <td style="width:107.25pt"></td> <td style="width:107.25pt"></td> <td style="width:107.25pt"></td> <td style="width:107.25pt"></td> <td style="width:107.25pt"></td> <td style="width:100.5pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="10" data-sheet-name="Model"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1869pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x64" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x57" span="4" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x53" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:113px"></col> <col class="x53" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x53" span="5" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:117px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.05pt" id="r0"> <td colspan="2" class="x278" style="border-right:2px solid #000000;height:11.55pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">SUMMARY</a></td> <td class="x70" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:84.75pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:87.75pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:139.05pt" id="r1"> <td colspan="3" class="x280" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext;height:138.3pt">On the Sole Member Model: <br />• There is support and appreciation for the enforceability of community powers.<br />• Comments indicated preference for simplicity. <br />• Lack of consensus on the voting allocations, and composition of the community within the Model (e.g. role of Advisory Committees). Further detail is provided in the two subsequent sections below. <br />• Comments expressed concern over the possible duality of the governmental role in the Model. Further detail is provided in the “government role” and “stress tests” sections below. <br />• Further detail needed of the process surrounding the Community Forum <br />• Indications from commenters that full support and, in some cases determining a position, would not be achievable until further detail and clarification were provided. <br /></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr class="x50" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:104.4pt" id="r2"> <td class="x46" style="height:102.9pt">Model</td> <td class="x47">Support areas</td> <td class="x47">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x47">Issue areas</td> <td class="x75">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x75">New Idea</td> <td class="x75">Concerns</td> <td class="x75">Agreement</td> <td class="x75">Disagreement</td> <td class="x75">Neutral</td> <td class="x76">Improvement since 1st</td> <td class="x76">Prefers Designator</td> <td class="x76">Prefers Other</td> <td class="x76">Opt-in/ Opt-out?</td> <td class="x76">Need for legal enforcement / empowerment</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r3"> <td class="x36" style="height:81.3pt">ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Generally supportive but would of wanted less enforcability but details issues with all major sections of the report - numerous comments.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Also,<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>"There must be a minimum number of ACs and SOs that are “opted in” in order for the CMSM to be allowed to function. Any less than three implies that ICANN may be captured."</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r4"> <td class="x36" style="height:67.5pt">Avri Doria (endorsed by Joy Liddicoat &amp; Timothy McGinnis)</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model (concerns with equal footing); “The reference SMCM allocations would not be a change in power balance of among the ICANN community… Creation of the SMCM must not be implemented in a way that weakens the fundamental multistakeholder nature of ICANN.”</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r5"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"The CCWG’s proposed Community Mechanism as Sole Member may not be the right body to launch a Separation Working Group, since the protocol community (IETF) may not be represented."</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r6"> <td class="x36" style="height:67.5pt">Brian Carpenter</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">“I would need a lot more concrete evidence that the names community can actually behave like a *community* instead of a greedy rabble before giving this proposal the green light. Rather than writing long reports and paying lots of money to lawyers, form the community already!”</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:207pt" id="r7"> <td class="x36" style="height:205.5pt">CAICT (China Academy of Information and Communication Technology)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">According to our understanding, in the new accountability framework, ICANN Board will continue to seek advice from GAC and seriously consider them in terms of public policies. In addition, the new accountability framework puts forward a Sole Membership Model with a set of voting system for the community so that the community has the power to influence the decisions from the ICANN Board. However, GAC hasn't made a decision on whether to support this model or not. Since the DNS Root Zone Management involves the Internet public<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>policies of all countries, we suggest that the accountability proposal shall further clarify the dispute resolution process<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>with regard to public policies. For instance, other than the<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>voting system, is it possible to borrow the GAC Early Warning<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Mechanism in the new gTLD program? This way, when it comes<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>to public policies, GAC can also offer their suggestions through a necessary mechanism. </td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r8"> <td class="x39" style="height:53.7pt">Carolina Aguerre &amp; Eduardo Santoyo</td> <td class="x51">The Sole Member Model provides a good solution to for the implementation of a Community Mechanism, but as it had been already noted in several other submitted comments to this second draft proposal, there is concern about the distribution of votes.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">voting (see next sheet)</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r9"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">CCAOI (Cyber Cafe Association of India)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"The proposed Membership Model needs further detailing such as the issue on how members would arrive at decision."</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r10"> <td class="x36" style="height:81.3pt">CCG-NULD (Centre for Communication Governance National Law University Delhi)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">SOACs participating in the sole member need their accountability reviewed prior to being given those powers in the sole member. "While the merits of a membership model align with the powers sought to be vested with the Community, the proposed Single Member Model seems ambiguous and complicated for reasons elaborated below."</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r11"> <td class="x36" style="height:81.3pt">ccTLD Australia (auDA)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">proposal overly complex, lacks important details and may not meet NTIA requirements, implementability which could hinder operations or cause paralysis, issues around the delicate balance bet SOs and ACs, issues around the role of the GAC; "We cannot offer support, nor offer our full consideration, until additional detail is provided and areas of uncertainty are resolved"</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r12"> <td class="x39" style="height:67.5pt">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x51">Supports Sole Member Model: "One of the main reasons why Afnic strongly supports this proposal is that not giving a legal<br />existence to member(s) within ICANN would necessarily re-open the question of the jurisdiction ICANN has to comply with, before the finalization of the proposal, i.e. in work stream one"</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">number of SO/ACs participating in CMSM needed</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r13"> <td class="x39" style="height:95.1pt">ccTLD Canada (CIRA)</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model is an improvement on first model proposed</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"We find the dilution of the authority and influence of the SO community that would result from the implementation of this mechanism to be problematic. The extent of this dilution cannot be adequately determined at this point, as the degree to which the AC community may choose to participate has yet to be determined. Greater clarity on this point will be required before the proposal can be finalized."</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r14"> <td class="x36" style="height:95.1pt">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x54">General support : "Without a model of this type, independent review cannot be assured, and the community powers set out in chapter 6 cannot be sensibly enforced. As such, we support it as an absolutely essential centrepiece of the Proposal.<br /> InternetNZ supports the opt-in opt-out nature of decision-making in the<br />CMSM"</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">ACs influence in model (should only be SOs)</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r15"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">ccTLD Norway (Norid)</td> <td class="x54">Sole Member Model is an improvement on first model proposed</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">supports CENTR comments (so, importance of non-ccnso cctlds)</td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r16"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Sole member model</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r17"> <td class="x36" style="height:50.7pt">CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology)</td> <td class="x51">General support: "CDT broadly supports the Sole Member Model (SMM) and finds it the most suited model for exercising the much needed community powers outlined in the proposal."</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r18"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">CENTR</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model is an improvement on first model proposed</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"importance of non-ccNSO members to be associated at all levels of the process, discussion and decision-making. The ccTLD regional organisations could be instrumental to ensure the full representation of non-ccNSO members.</td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r19"> <td class="x36" style="height:108.9pt">Centre for Internet and Society</td> <td class="x51">"The Sole-Member Community Mechanism (SMCM) that has been proposed seems in large part the best manner provided under Californian law relating to public benefit corporations of dealing with accountability issues, and is the lynchpin of the whole accountability mechanism under workstream 1. However, the jurisdictional analysis laid down in 11.3 will only be completed post-transition, as part of workstream 2. Thus the SMCM may not necessarily be the best model under a different legal jurisdiction."</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r20"> <td class="x36" style="height:122.7pt">Christopher Wilkinson</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"CCWG clearly seeks a significant shift in the balance of power within the ICANN organisation, in favour of the 'community' at the expense of the Board of Directors. Although this is quite understandable in the light of certain ICANN decisions in recent years, it is not atall clear that the proposed changes will achieve a desirable shift in the public interest. In particular, the proposed Single Membership Model risks becoming dominated, not by the community, but by a few representatives of the Supporting Organisations, notably GNSO."</td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r21"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">COA (Coalition for Online Accountability)</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model:" COA supports in principle the concept of a “community mechanism for legitimacy and enforceability” (see p. 8)"</td> <td class="x51">"believes that the Sole Member Community Mechanism could be an effective way of implementing this concept."</td> <td class="x51">Concerns with voting (see sheet on voting)</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r22"> <td class="x36" style="height:95.1pt">CWG-Stewardship</td> <td class="x51">"We believe that the powers provided by the CCWG-Accountability draft proposal as described above and the community empowerment mechanism described in the proposal together adequately satisfy these CWG-Stewardship requirements, including by ensuring that the community powers specified in the CWG-Stewardship final<br />transition proposal are legally enforceable."</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r23"> <td class="x36" style="height:150.3pt">Dyn</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model: "But the sole member model as currently proposed is a danger to the Internet.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>It moves accountability from a Board (and Board selection mechanism) that is far from perfect in design into a much narrower portion of the Internet community; and a portion whose accountability measures are little understood.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The report’s proposal, if implemented as outlined, will be impossible to change if there are any problems with it, because the new mechanism is precisely designed to foil bylaw changes that would be needed to fix it.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>It would be no improvement in accountability at all to create an unaccountable organization that cannot be removed"</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r24"> <td class="x39" style="height:67.5pt">Edward Morris</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model: "The single member model will not provide the same degree of accountability or democracy as the original proposition but it is vastly superior to any other proposal that has been offered during this nine month proposal and as a model has my full support."</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r25"> <td class="x39" style="height:33.3pt">Erman Öncel - Partnership Istanbul</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model (proposes another accountability assembly)</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r26"> <td class="x36" style="height:67.5pt">GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"At this point in time, GAC has not determined whether to participate or not in the "Community Mechanism" as a voting entity." </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r27"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">Government of Denmark</td> <td class="x81">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x82">N/A</td> <td class="x83"> adequate safeguards against all kinds of capture by any specific<br />stakeholder group, including in ICANN’s policy development and decision<br />making processes, must be in place in the new set-up.</td> <td class="x84"></td> <td class="x85"></td> <td class="x85"></td> <td class="x85">1</td> <td class="x85"></td> <td class="x85"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r28"> <td class="x36" style="height:95.1pt">Government of Egypt</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">importance of maintaining the stability of ICANN and its multistakeholder<br />bottom-up nature in any model proposed, as well as the<br />importance of stress-testing this model; </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r29"> <td class="x36" style="height:39.9pt">Government of Germany</td> <td class="x51">Supports sole member model but stresses importance of participation: "Germany thus sees a possible need for the GAC to advice not only the ICANN board but also potentiality the CMSM."</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:220.8pt" id="r30"> <td class="x39" style="height:219.3pt">Government of Kuwait</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The draft report is introducing the sole member model that limits the ICANN community and its powers to support organizations and advisory committees. Limiting the community to this model is a drawback to the openness of the ICANN, which in recent years and since the WSIS, took significant measures to broaden the participation and contributions to its work and activities were individuals, academics, and other stakeholders enriched its policies and processes. In addition, defining the ICANN community is a major question that needs to have a broad consensus from all stakeholders including the ICANN executive body. <br /><br />The Sole member model is neither an enhancement nor support to the multi-stakeholder model but rather it is a limitation to it and one step backward. This contradicts with a major condition of the NTIA announcement “Support and enhance the multistakeholder model”. </td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r31"> <td class="x36" style="height:81.3pt">Government of New Zealand</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Details issues regarding the role of governments in ICANN -- "We also support mechanisms to ensure advisory committees’ do not advise ICANN to act outside of its current authority. A decision to extend ICANN’s role is a significant change that should only be made through the formal process for amending fundamental bylaws."</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r32"> <td class="x41" style="height:26.1pt">Government of Norway</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model (supports GAC comments and reserves right for possible<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>gov role in model)</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r33"> <td class="x36" style="height:150.3pt">Government of the United Kingdom</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model: "The UK notes that the ICANN Board, while supporting the overall approach taken by the CCWG to empowering the community, has notified the CCWG of several significant concerns about the proposed Sole Membership model and what it perceives as associated risks through instituting such a major governance change. We look forward to considering, in particular with regard to its implications for the role of the GAC, the alternative model based on existing multi-stakeholder mechanisms which the Board has indicated it intends to describe in its main response to the CCWG proposal in the current round of public comments.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>"</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:372.6pt" id="r34"> <td class="x36" style="height:371.1pt">IAB (Internet Architecture Board)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Details issues with the sole member model, would prefer another approach and timing: <br /><br />"The IAB observes that the sole member model creates an entirely new<br />mechanism that is so far untested. Moreover, the new mechanism will<br />be highly resistant to change, because the sole member will be able to<br />veto bylaw changes that alter its behavior. Given ICANN's central<br />position in IANA functions, even after the transition, the untested<br />nature of this change bears scrutiny.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The IAB believes that, in<br />general, it is desirable to avoid changing many things all at once, on<br />the grounds that evolutionary change is less risky.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>A key reason why<br />the Internet -- both technology and administration -- has been<br />successful is that the community has followed a model of stepwise<br />changes, where those elements that are mature and well-understood are<br />adopted while other innovations are allowed to come to maturity.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We<br />embrace that tradition. Moreover, the current efforts are being<br />undertaken in a hurry, in order to meet the needs of the transition<br />timeline.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We believe that any large and seemingly-permanent change<br />must be undertaken with great care, and not in haste."</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:358.8pt" id="r35"> <td class="x36" style="height:357.3pt">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x51">There is great value in, and the Board agrees in principle with, the process of petitioning, discussion and decision among the multistakeholder community to achieve the community powers.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">The ICANN Board does not support this proposal. While the Board is supportive of a change in the balance of power among the community and the Board on operational matters, and agrees with the CCWG-Accountability Proposal elements that enhance those community powers, the Board believes that a Sole Member Model may introduce too much change and may lead to a delay in the IANA Stewardship Transition until that model has been working in practice.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>[…] To support and enforce the new community powers that are proposed within the CCWG-Accountability Proposal, the ICANN Board proposes for consideration an alternative called the Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism (MEM) that leverages the ICANN’s existing governance structure as well as the existing structure of SOs and ACs within ICANN. The MEM ensures that that the community has access to binding arbitration to enforce the new community powers, without requiring the formation of a member or a community voting mechanism. The binding arbitration will be enforceable under the laws of the State of California, and other courts as appropriate. Please see the MEM summary and FAQ for more details. The Board’s approach relies on the broader SO and AC multistakeholder model to reach ultimate decisions to influence operational matters, as opposed to the collection of whatever grouping of SOs or ACs that happen to be part of (or are eligible to be part of) the Sole Member at a particular time. This provides simplicity as well as predictability on the scope of the community that is able to take these decisions at any time.</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:165.6pt" id="r36"> <td class="x36" style="height:164.1pt">IGP (Internet Governance Project)</td> <td class="x51">"IGP supports the basic idea behind the Sole Member Community Mechanism as a means of community empowerment."</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">To support and enforce the new community powers that are proposed within the CCWG-Accountability Proposal, the ICANN Board proposes for consideration an alternative called the Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism (MEM) that leverages the ICANN’s existing governance structure as well as the existing structure of SOs and ACs within ICANN. The MEM ensures that that the community has access to binding arbitration to enforce the new community powers, without requiring the formation of a member or a community voting mechanism. The binding arbitration will be enforceable under the laws of the State of California, and other courts as appropriate. Please see the MEM summary and FAQ for more details.</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x86" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r37"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Intel</td> <td class="x51">Sole Member Model (better that UAs)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r38"> <td class="x39" style="height:95.1pt">Internet Association </td> <td class="x54">Sole Member Model: "We support the Sole Member Model, believing that it offers the right combination of simplicity and utility -- which was not found in previously considered models."</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">The Board’s approach relies on the broader SO and AC multistakeholder model to reach ultimate decisions to influence operational matters, as opposed to the collection of whatever grouping of SOs or ACs that happen to be part of (or are eligible to be part of) the Sole Member at a particular time. This provides simplicity as well as predictability on the scope of the community that is able to take these decisions at any time.</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r39"> <td class="x39" style="height:122.7pt">IPC (Intellectual Property Constituency)</td> <td class="x54">"The IPC generally supports the “Single Member Model.” However, the IPC is concerned that it is not explained in sufficient clarity and detail, especially the interplay between the “CommunityMechanism” and “Community Forum.” </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">"While the IPC strongly supports the Single Member recommendation, it is not yet clear whether the GAC and/or the ALAC will participate in that model. Therefore, the IPC reserves the right to provide further comment on the functioning of the model depending on whether or not one or<br />both of these Advisory Committees will participate as a voting body in the Sole Member. In this regard, the IPC believes that the resulting impact on the voting structure must be addressed prior to the adoption of a CCWG Final Report."</td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:220.8pt" id="r40"> <td class="x36" style="height:219.3pt">ISPCP (Internet Services Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">This model addresses the jurisdictional and legal issues that ISPCP raised in its comments to the first draft. </td> <td class="x51">"We make no comment on whether the Sole Member Model is the only or best way to achieve enforceability. [...] it is crucial that the reforms proposed by the CCWG remain simple and are enforceable." [...] "We remain silent on the question of whether to choose the Single Member Model, provided that the criteria for any successful model are met. Nonetheless, we have some concerns with proposed details of the implementation of the Single Member Model, as proposed"</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r41"> <td class="x36" style="height:95.1pt">IT Law Institute - Istanbul</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Serious concerns - sole membership model: "Sole membership model violates and ruins also “equality” between stakeholders of ICANN. If such a model would be accept, other stakeholders for example GAC would like to have to have same rights as community. Within the current framwork, there is an equal treatment for all stakeholders. That principle is very important in terms of ensure multistakeholder model and must be kept."</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r42"> <td class="x41" style="height:33.3pt">Jan Scholte (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Accountability of model in voting, Clarification of GAC role (see other sheets for detail)</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:165.6pt" id="r43"> <td class="x36" style="height:164.1pt">JPNIC (Japan Network Information Center)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"In our opinion, the enhanced community powers accommodated by a Single Designator Model are sufficient for checks and balances. We would not oppose to a Single Member Model proposed by the CCWG, if this model achieves community consensus in a timely manner, for the CCWG to finalise its proposal in line with the target timelines.<br />While it would not be a show-stopper in moving forward with the proposal, and we observe a high threshold is defined for community to exercise its powers, we would like to confirm the specific procedures for the community to take steps in making a decision to take ICANN to court. This must be designed with care to prevent instability to ICANN"</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:207pt" id="r44"> <td class="x39" style="height:205.5pt">Lee Andrew Bygrave (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x81">"I do have, however, serious concerns in respect of some of the "mechanics" of the Single Member Community Mechanism. One concern is the paucity of detail as to precisely how the voting procedures will work and how, if at all, the Community Forum proposed by Willie Currie (a proposal that I support) might function within or attendant to the SMCM. Another (more important) concern is the potential that the current division of powers of ACS and SOs becomes unduly skewed under the proposed voting-rights scheme. More work needs to go into elaborating -- and explaining -- the allocations of voting rights, especially in respect of the ACs. In particular, I am sceptical of allocating voting rights to the GAC. Such an allocation risks upsetting the delicately balanced arrangements that currently manage the exercise of governments' influence over ICANN and associated stakeholders."</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:289.8pt" id="r45"> <td class="x36" style="height:288.3pt">LINX (London Internet Exchange)</td> <td class="x57">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"Our support for membership models is not due to any particular attachment to membership per se, but rests on our understanding that that is the only way to provide for a power to petition the court to make the IRP available. We cannot support any model that does not include this power. [...]<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We are doubtful that it would be helpful, or indeed feasible, to attempt to redesign this in the interests of simplicity. In any case, given the choice between a complex structure that meets the minimum standard for enforceable accountability we describe above, and a simpler one that fails to do so, we must support accountability."</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r46"> <td class="x36" style="height:408pt">NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x51">"NCSG strongly supports empowering the bottom up community to create checks and balances on board action"</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x81">"While we support the powers given to the SMCM, the NCSG has several concerns about its resilience, operationalisation and structure. These concerns are serious enough and broadly supported enough to prevent us from supporting a transition based on a voting allocation that destabilizes the carefully constructed balance of interests in ICANN. Compared to other models that were considered, e.g., the designator or direct membership models, the accountability provided by the SMCM is very indirect. In the designator or direct membership models, each SO as a member could exercise powers in accordance with California law. But in the case of the sole member Community Mechanism (SMCM), that entity<br />must come to an agreement (i.e., a supermajority vote) with all other SOs and ACs before any powers can be exercised. In this regard, the SMCM actually dilutes accountability to the SOs. There are still some ambiguities about how the Community Mechanism would work, which creates some risk that the process could be gamed by ICANN or others" [...] "The NCSG agrees with the ICANN board’s concerns about the changing role and disproportionate influence given to advisory committees in the currently proposed SMCM. The CCWG’s proposed vote allocation would be a substantial departure from ICANN’s existing architecture. It would constitute a fundamental shift of power in ICANN toward advisory committees, and an unacceptable revision of ICANN’s bottom­up, multistakeholder model. NCSG also disagrees with the part of the plan that allows ACs or SOs to decide when or whether to join the SMCM. We believe the stability of the governance structure requires that the distribution of votes for specific actions should be known in advance, and that the reforms should only proceed when we know exactly which entities are and are not part of the SMCM. Given the importance of the SMCM in overall accountability, and the possibility that it might be used to disrupt the organization’s functioning, leaving participation in the mechanism open is not a good idea"</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x86" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r47"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">Nell Minow (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"I concur with ALAC’s comments on the sole member model, which is an example of my more pervasive concern that in many places the current proposal is explicit where it should be flexible and vague where it should be specific."</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r48"> <td class="x36" style="height:81.3pt">NRO (Number Resource Organization)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"While other accountability models which have been considered are also largely untested, we observe that the “Sole Member” model involves more extensive changes to ICANN structure than certain other models. Therefore the need for testing of the model, and the uncertainly about its success as an accountability model, must both also be greater in case of the “Sole Member” model.</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r49"> <td class="x36" style="height:67.5pt">The Heritage Foundation</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Details concerns about GAC controlling ICANN: " We strongly believe that an acceptable proposal must require the GAC to either choose to participate in the Sole Member or retain their privileged advisory role, but not have both opportunities to influence ICANN. "</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r50"> <td class="x41" style="height:108.9pt">US Chamber of Commerce</td> <td class="x87">Sole Member Model; "Throughout the CCWG process, based on extensive legal analysis and through the hard work of the multistakeholder community, it is clear that the member model proposed is the best, and quite likely the simplest, method to create meaningful new mechanisms for the community to hold ICANN accountable to stakeholders. [...] We strongly support the CCWG goal of binding accountability, and we may not be able to support a model similar to that contained in the Board proposal."</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r51"> <td class="x231" style="height:68.25pt">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x252">Sole Member Model: "Importantly, the CMSM model improves upon the earlier Designator models by eliminating the risk of “capture” by a constituent group. It also provides a flexible approach for SOs or ACs – or new SOs/ACs created at a later date – to opt in to participate in this Sole Member Model"</td> <td class="x194">N/A</td> <td class="x194">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r52"> <td class="x249" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x214"></td> <td class="x214"></td> <td class="x214"></td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">5</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">23</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">18</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">9</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">7</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">7</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">5</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">6</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">6</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">9</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r53"> <td class="x249" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x214"></td> <td class="x214"></td> <td class="x214"></td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">10.42%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">2.08%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">47.92%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">37.50%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">18.75%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">14.58%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">14.58%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">10.42%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">12.50%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">12.50%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">18.75%</td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:84.75pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td style="width:87.75pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="11" data-sheet-name="Voting-Forum"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1884pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x28" id="c0" style="mso-width-source:userset;width:0pt;mso-width-alt:0pt"></col> <col class="x64" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:112px"></col> <col class="x60" span="7" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:112px"></col> <col class="x28" span="3" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:112px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.05pt" id="r0"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.05pt;overflow:hidden" id="t1"><a name="RANGE!A1"></a></td> <td colspan="2" class="x278" style="border-right:2px solid #000000">SUMMARY</td> <td class="x70" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:84pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:84pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:84pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:84pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:84pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:84pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:84pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:84pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:84pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:84pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:84pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:97.95pt" id="r1"> <td class="x28" style="height:97.95pt;overflow:hidden" id="t2"></td> <td colspan="3" class="x275" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext">There is no clear support for the proposed voting allocation scheme of 5x5+2x2. <br />• 39 of 92 submissions specifically addressed the issue<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(see comments below). Of the 37 specific submissions 13 were in support of the proposal, 11 were in disagreement, 12 had new ideas, 7 had concerns and 2 were neutral.<br />• 20 of the 92 submission generally supported the proposal without specifically mentioning this point. (see Overall Support tab)<br />• 3 of the 92 submissions were against the proposal overall without specifically mentioning this point. (see Overall Disagreement tab)<br />• Specific recurring comments included 8 submissions requiring more information, 7 supporting GAC voting, 6 not supporting GAC voting and 6 requesting that the allocation of votes be based on the current Board allocation of seats. <br /></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> </tr> <tr class="x50" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:36pt" id="r2"> <td class="x59" style="height:36pt;overflow:hidden" id="t3"></td> <td class="x46">Voting/Forum</td> <td class="x47">Support areas</td> <td class="x47">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x47">Issue areas</td> <td class="x48">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x48">New Idea</td> <td class="x48">Concerns</td> <td class="x48">Agreement</td> <td class="x48">Diagreement</td> <td class="x48">Neutral</td> <td class="x65">Supports GAC Voting</td> <td class="x65">No GAC Voting</td> <td class="x65">More details needed</td> <td class="x65">Abstentions counting</td> <td class="x65">Board based allocation</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r3"> <td class="x28" style="height:179.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t4">1</td> <td class="x36">AFRALO (African Regional At-Large Organization)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• Paragraph 345-346 : We appreciate that absolute threshold is used for vote counting as mentioned in paragraph 345, as well as considering the no votes as abstentions. Nevertheless, we believe that non participation shouldn’t be counted as an abstention, and should be removed from the total number of electorate. They would be automatically added as soon as they recover their right of participation. <br />• Paragraphs 348 to 358 : Even if the community forum would make no decisions, it couldn’t be considered as informal or optional. It is a fundamental element of the process and must be an official and mandatory part of the exercise of the community powers. This will not add more complexity, but will better channel the community discussion prior to any final decision. </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:345pt" id="r4"> <td class="x28" style="height:345pt;overflow:hidden" id="t5">1</td> <td class="x36">ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x51">Section 6.1, SO/AC Membership Model: There must be a minimum number of ACs and SOs that are “opted in” in order for the CMSM to be allowed to function. Any less than three implies that ICANN may be captured. The value of three presumes the current number of SO/ACs and might need to change if the number of SO/ACs changes. This threshold would similarly need to be reviewed if the overall mix of SO/ACs changed – as might happen if, for example, the GNSO were to split into multiple SOs just as the DNSO did. <br />Paragraph 319-334: The ALAC supports the (5x5)+(2x2) model, with the understanding that should the<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br />ICANN<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Bylaws be altered to no longer have the SSAC members and Chair appointed by the ICANN Board, that the SSAC would be granted a weight of 5, commensurate with the importance of security and stability in ICANN’s mission.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br />The ALAC would also support the (7x5) model should there be any overall support for this position (and in fact, some within the At-Large Community strongly prefer this mechanism).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br />Under no condition would the ALAC support the (3x4)+(4x2) model where the ALAC and the GAC are given less weight than the SOs. <br />Paragraph 348-356, Community Forum: The description of the Community Forum, augmented by the phrase “would have no standing” in paragraph 354, denigrates this functional body. The description needs to be strengthened.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r5"> <td class="x28" style="height:179.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t6">1</td> <td class="x36">Avri Doria (endorsed by Joy Liddicoat &amp; Timothy McGinnis)</td> <td class="x51">I think that the membership allocation as defined in the reference implementation can work.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>I think that any apportionment model that attempts to mimic Board proportions for (s)elected Board Members excludes part of our diverse community and their diverse perspectives. I believe that such a narrow definition of community when discussing community powers would be harmful to the bottom up inclusive model that ICANN tries to achieve. I believe that when we start to judge that one stakeholder type, SO or AC, as less important and relevant to the stakeholder diversity and balance at ICANN, we attack a central tenet of our multistakeholder model and thus weaken the model. Creation of the SMCM must not be implemented in a way that weakens the fundamental multistakeholder nature of ICANN. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r6"> <td class="x28" style="height:124.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t7">1</td> <td class="x39">Carolina Aguerre &amp; Eduardo Santoyo</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">As noted in both CENTR’s and CIRA’s comments, this allocation is at odds with the current composition of the voting members on the ICANN Board which is the only other point of reference for vote distribution within the ICANN structure. Of the seven ICANN voting members chosen by the SO/AC community, six are SOs and one is an AC. As a result, the proposal represents a significant shift in authority in the ICANN community away from the SOs and in favour of the ACs. A justification for this shift is not provided in the proposal.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:207pt" id="r7"> <td class="x28" style="height:207pt;overflow:hidden" id="t8"></td> <td class="x39">CAICT (China Academy of Information and Communication Technology)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">We also suggest the accountability proposal to reconsider the legitimacy and rationality of the proposed votes in the community voting system. The accountability proposal needs to clarify what elements need to be considered in terms of votes<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>allocation and weight. We believe, in designing a voting system, the most important element that need to be considered is the representation of the global Internet community, instead of the representation of the ICANN community.Therefore, geographical balance should be an important element in terms of allocating the votes in the community; users' representation and the interests of developing countries should be properly<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>considered too. For instance, Internet users in Asia exceed 1.4 billion, accounting for 45% of the world users. If there's no votes or extremely limited votes for Asian representatives, then this voting system is not appropriate. </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r8"> <td class="x28" style="height:41.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t9">1</td> <td class="x36">CCAOI (Cyber Cafe Association of India)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Also, to ensure fair representation, the membership model needs to finalize the number of members from each SO and AC and their voting ratios.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r9"> <td class="x28" style="height:96.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t10">1</td> <td class="x36">CCG-NULD (Centre for Communication Governance National Law University Delhi)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">However, we submit that it is essential to spend some more time in evaluating accountability criteria for SO and AC at this stage, given the significant powers sought to be vested with them. Work Stream 2 will be finalized only in July 2016, at the earliest. Anticipating further delays, it is necessary that there be an accountability mechanism in place before participating SO and AC are given voting rights over community powers.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;white-space:nowrap;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r10"> <td class="x28" style="height:96.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t11">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD Australia (auDA)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">auDA believes that elements of the CCWG's proposal, such as the IRP, have developed to a point where the community may be able to offer conditional support assuming refinement in WS2. However, the same is not true for significant elements of the Community Mechanism as a Sole Member (CMSM), such as the Community Forum and voting arrangements. It is critical that this detail is provided now – not later </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:372.6pt" id="r11"> <td class="x28" style="height:372.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t12">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD Canada (CIRA)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">1. Allocation of the votes: The proposal would have the three SOs (the ASO, GNSO and the ccNSO) have five votes each, two ACs (the GAC and ALAC) have five votes each, and the RSAC and SSAC to have two votes each. This allocation is at odds with the current composition of the voting members on the ICANN Board, the only other point of reference for vote distribution within the ICANN structure. Of the seven ICANN voting members chosen by the SO/AC community, six are SOs and one is an AC. As a result, the proposal represents a significant shift in authority in the ICANN community away from the SOs and in favour of the ACs. A justification for this shift is not provided in the proposal.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We find the dilution of the authority and influence of the SO community that would result from the implementation of this mechanism to be problematic. The extent of this dilution cannot be adequately determined at this point, as the degree to which the AC community may choose to participate has yet to be determined. Greater clarity on this point will be required before the proposal can be finalized. 2. Enhanced Role for the GAC: CIRA also requests that special scrutiny be afforded to the GAC’s right to vote within the Community Mechanism, as identified in the proposal. This increase in authority, in addition to the special authority the GAC now enjoys in the provision of advice to the ICANN Board of Directors, could, in CIRA’s opinion, prompt concerns that the proposal may not entirely be consistent with the NTIA’s March 14, 2014 statement that it “will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r12"> <td class="x28" style="height:110.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t13">1</td> <td class="x39">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x51">Afnic agrees with the different powers given through the CMSM. Nevertheless, we feel that some refinements have to be brought before finalizing the proposal. Especially, the exact number of SO/AC willing to participate should be known for sure before the proposal is submitted.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The combined powers of the SO/AC (voting AND having special advisory powers -for the GAC for instance - , or exclusive PDP powers (for the SOs) has still to be further discussed. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r13"> <td class="x28" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t14">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD Norway (Norid)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Supports CENTR comments</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:372.6pt" id="r14"> <td class="x28" style="height:372.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t15">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x51">19. The proposal for an ICANN Community Forum (section 6.3) is good, and is in line with one of our comments in response to the first draft.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>A forum to promote discussion on the use of any of the community powers across the whole ICANN community should help the community as a whole to reach well‐considered decisions about using its powers and ensure a common understanding of shared issues and points of disagreement.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Opening the forum to a wider public would be helpful and providing an annual Public Accountability Forum could perhaps be used to encourage a wider range of views.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">    </span>22. We welcome the role of the Community Forum (section 7) as part of specific Community Powers, but recognise that timescales for most of these processes are very short (paragraphs 369‐372), which could limit the opportunity for meaningful discussions and inclusive participation.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>This could encourage gaming, or capture of, the process, or limit the opportunity for careful consideration of the issues.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Given that many of the issues will be complex, a slower pace might be more appropriate (and be more likely to lead to a better outcome).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>In particular, we find it hard to see how the Community Forum would be able to contribute effectively in such a short timescale.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Thought could be given to identifying appropriate deadlines for different circumstances.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>This could make the Community Forum role more useful and widen involvement beyond the few who are able to dedicate significant time to ICANN.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">     </span>:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>for such a serious step, time limits could be set in the light of how much community discussion had already taken place, perhaps also invoking the Community Forum prior to the formal process being launched. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">, Forum (timing issues)</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:276pt" id="r15"> <td class="x28" style="height:276pt;overflow:hidden" id="t16">1</td> <td class="x36">CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal, </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">However, there is a fundamental issue that needs revisiting, and that is the voting distribution as outlined in 319.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We do not support the reference model.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We find this model at odds with the CCWG’s own statement in 300 where the WG agreed that the mechanism to empower the community should be “…as restrained as possible in the degree of structural or organizing changes required in ICANN to create the mechanism for these powers.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>By allocating 5 votes to the SOs, the GAC and ALAC (and 2 for SSAC and RSSAC) the voting distribution fundamentally changes the balance between the SOs and ACs, as well as potentially enhancing the role and influence of the GAC.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The purpose of the CCWG’s work was to empower the overall community, not to disproportionately empower parts of the community over others in a manner that is a significant departure from the existing community model and accepted voting/representation models such as the direct selection of board members.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span>The reference model is a far cry from being “restrained … in the degree of structural or organizing changes…”.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">    </span>Given the above, CDT supports the third minority view (or a variant thereof) outlined in 334.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r16"> <td class="x28" style="height:409.5pt;overflow:hidden" id="t17">1</td> <td class="x36">CENTR (European Association of National Internet Domain Registries)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The current proposal is for the three SOs<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(ASO/GNSO/ccNSO) to have 5 votes each while two ACs, GAC, ALAC would have 5 each, with the RSAC and the SSAC having two each. The only other point of reference we currently have on voting is the composition of the voting members of the ICANN Board. Of the 7 ICANN voting members chosen by the SO/AC community, 6 are SO’s and 1 is an AC. Therefore, the proposal represents a significant shift of authority in favour of the AC community, a justifycation for which is not provided in the proposal. CENTR understands the principle of keeping the overall accountability mechanisms as much multistakeholder as possible. However, we would like to request that the CCWG further investigate and eventually document the voting mechanism as some of our members have expressed serious concerns regarding the lower weighting ratio attributed to those organisations that are mostly involved in the day-to-day ICANN business. <br /> <br />When reading that “the Sole Member would have no officers or directors and no assets”, we welcome the notion that no extra layers of unnecessary, bureaucratic administration are to be created, but fear that unfortunately a sort of “secretarial body” will be necessary. As a matter of fact, in the second draft we also read “those SOs and ACs make their decisions as to how to allocate their votes internally”. This implies the need to set coordination mechanisms internally and at inter-constituency level. In doing so, we recommend the establishment of a coordinating and secretarial body within the model, as well as a wise balance between the need of such mechanisms and the goal to maintain any new structure operational as well as keep it cost and time-effective. </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:289.8pt" id="r17"> <td class="x28" style="height:289.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t18">1</td> <td class="x36">COA (Coalition for Online Accountability)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The main concern remains the voting allocation within the Sole Member Model (see p. 51), which seems somewhat arbitrary and certainly is subject to abuse, especially when an issue mainly involves only one sector of the ICANN community. …..Any rigid and unchanging allocation of votes, such as the one contained in the Proposal, risks producing similar inequitable results, and invites gaming in the form of bidding and horsetrading for the votes of enfranchised parties who really have no little or no stake in the outcome.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Either more flexibility must be built into the system, or else the allocation should be adjusted to reflect more accurately the relative proportion of issues likely to be presented for action within the Sole Member Model. Another possibility would be to distinguish among “no votes, abstentions or non-participation,” which currently are “all [proposed to ] be treated the same way” (para. 346, page 52); the argument would be that<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>indifference should be treated differently from outright opposition in calculating whether thresholds had been achieved.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The Proposal is correct in suggesting that such alternatives could “add significant complexity,” but the flaws in the currently proposed vote allocation are sufficiently concerning that these other approaches should be given more consideration.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r18"> <td class="x28" style="height:82.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t19"></td> <td class="x36">China Organizational Name Administration Center (CONAC)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Most of the fees ICANN receives come from the registration fees paid by<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>registrants and collected by ICANN contracted registries and<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>registrars. Therefore we would like<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>to<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>suggest that while distributing the votes, please give more weight to the contracted parties who have closer relationship with<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>ICANN<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>than<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>others,<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>so<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>as<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>to<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>honor the<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>interests of registrants.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:303.6pt" id="r19"> <td class="x28" style="height:303.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t20">1</td> <td class="x41">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x54">General support for most of the proposal:</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">we strongly suggest that the CCWG reconsider the issue of voting weights in Work Stream 2 as we believe that the current proposed weighting is a fundamental shift in the balance of power within ICANN.<br /><br />We agree that in order to be functional the subdivision of votes must be available to adequately reflect the diversity of opinion in for example the GNSO where a mix of contracted, non contracted, commercial and non-commercial interests are present. - In particular our interpretation of the statement “Advisory Committees shall have no legal authority to act for ICANN, but shall report their findings and recommendations to the Board.” is that the current role set out for the AC’s, namely one of a dual responsibility, both acting in their bylaws derived capacity in advising the board of ICANN but also acting in a new role, having voting power equal to that of the Supporting Organisations of ICANN. We suggest that this dual role is without justification, and that the role of the AC’s may be unwittingly expanded into a core operational role that was not envisaged during their creation. - GAC voting - GAC will have to reach consensus on this<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>before proceeding and this may never occur - however the CCWG should conisder allowing the GAC to advise CMSM</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r20"> <td class="x28" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t21">1</td> <td class="x39">eco Association of the Internet Industry</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">If concerns remain about voting allocations it should be replaced with rogh consensus should maintain GAC as advisory only</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r21"> <td class="x28" style="height:69pt;overflow:hidden" id="t22">1</td> <td class="x39">Edward Morris</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">I do not believe any of the Advisory groups should have voting power within the Community Mechanism. Rather, structures should be set in place that would allow the Advisory Committees to advise the Community Mechanism much as they advise the Board and the greater ICANN community today. </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:358.8pt" id="r22"> <td class="x28" style="height:358.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t23">1</td> <td class="x36">GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">• At this point in time, GAC has not determined whether to participate or not in the "Community Mechanism" as a voting entity. <br /> <br />• However, the possibility that the GAC may, in the future and upon its sole decision, fully participate in the "Community Mechanism" as an entity entitled to 5 votes (on equal terms with the Supporting Organizations – SOs – and the At Large Advisory Committee – ALAC) should be included in the Final report of the CCWG in line with what is contained in Section 6.2 of the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br /> <br />• In case the GAC were to decide in the future to participate as a voting entity it would follow its own processes and the procedure foreseen under Section 6.2 of the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal, especially paragraphs 337 and following. <br /> <br /> <br />• Irrespective of whether or not the GAC would participate in the voting structure (and thus exercise its legitimate empowerment rights) at some time in the future, the GAC intends to fully participate in the ICANN Community Forum, outlined in Section 6.3 of the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal. The GAC will work with other SOs and ACs to develop agreed mechanisms for the full participation by and exchange of views among and between all SOs and ACs in the proposed Community Forum. </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:220.8pt" id="r23"> <td class="x28" style="height:220.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t24">1</td> <td class="x36">Google</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Clarify voting processes in the “sole member model” to avoid confusion, gridlock, or unpredictability in the exercise of community powers.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br /> <br />We commend the CCWG for including additional details about the voting processes necessary to initiate particular community powers.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>However, the proposal still lacks sufficiently clear guidance regarding two aspects of voting: how voting thresholds will be determined and on what basis Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees will be allowed to split votes. The community should not wait until it seeks to exercise these powers to clarify the thresholds for voting and procedures around vote­splitting, especially because we expect that the powers will be invoked only when there is disagreement or confusion in the community regarding broader substantive issues.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We urge the CCWG to clarify these matters as soon as practicable.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r24"> <td class="x28" style="height:69pt;overflow:hidden" id="t25">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of Brazil</td> <td class="x51">We therefore support the proposal regarding the voting distribution in the proposed mechanism, which – it must be recalled – intends to perform a substantial differentiated role vis-à-vis the Board´s functions, and therefore should not automatically mirror the procedures for setting up the Board. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r25"> <td class="x28" style="height:55.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t26">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of Denmark</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51"> adequate safeguards against all kinds of capture by any specific<br />stakeholder group, including in ICANN’s policy development and decision<br />making processes, must be in place in the new set-up.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r26"> <td class="x28" style="height:82.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t27">1</td> <td class="x39">Government of Italy</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The GAC should retain its current influence, within its prerogative,<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br />• whatever voting member or advisory committee<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br />• whatever decision-making process will be chosen by the GAC.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br /> <br />Any GAC advice shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and in adoption of policies. </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r27"> <td class="x28" style="height:41.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t28">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of New Zealand</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x64">We consider it is important to ensure the roles of operational and advisory communities continue to be clearly defined, and support the continuation of the GAC’s role as an advisory committee. </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r28"> <td class="x28" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t29">1</td> <td class="x41">Government of Norway</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Supports GAC position</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r29"> <td class="x28" style="height:96.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t30">1</td> <td class="x36">i2Coalition (Internet Infrastructure Coalition)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">5. The CCWG should consider giving the GNSO’s votes additional weight in the case of a budget veto. The i2Coalition encourages the CCWG to modify the voting criteria for a budget veto, giving additional weight to GNSO votes, on the practical grounds that it is this group that generates the revenue in the budget, and this group that will be responsible for bearing the cost of any budget increases, through an expansion of their fees. </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r30"> <td class="x28" style="height:124.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t31">1</td> <td class="x36">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x51">With respect to a decision on exercising a community power, the Board agrees with the process proposed, including the time periods set out. <br /><br /></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">However, the Board does not support the need for a Community Mechanism as a centralized place where the multistakeholder participants are to vote on a decision, nor the need for a Sole Member to act upon the decision. Instead, the Board recommends that the threshold to exercise a community power be set based upon the existing SO and AC structures.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>For example, a decision to exercise the community power could require at least two SOs to support exercising the community power, and no more than one AC providing advice against exercising the community power.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:207pt" id="r31"> <td class="x28" style="height:207pt;overflow:hidden" id="t32">1</td> <td class="x36">IGP (Internet Governance Project)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The CCWG proposal relies heavily on a Sole Member Community Mechanism (SMCM) to provide enforceable checks on the ICANN board. IGP supports the basic idea behind the Sole Member Community Mechanism as a means of community empowerment. We join many other stakeholders, however, in objecting to the specific voting allocations proposed and to the potential for a dramatic change in the role of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). We see in the CCWG’s proposed voting allocations a major change in the the nature of ICANN and a distribution that could undermine rather than improve the board’s accountability to its stakeholder groups.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">     </span>- IGP would accept a voting allocation in which all the SOs are given 10 votes and ALAC is given 5 votes. Neither GAC nor the specialized technical ACs should participate in the SMCM. (Please see comment for extensive details)</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r32"> <td class="x28" style="height:151.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t33">1</td> <td class="x39">Internet Association </td> <td class="x54">We understand there has been significant deliberation regarding the voting structure for the community mechanism. We find merit in many of the arguments put forward by those supporting minority opinions, but ultimately believe that the voting distribution proposed by the CCWG is both the most fair and the best representation of the multistakeholder approach. We also agree with the vote counting method proposed by the CCWG; a threshold must be achieved by meeting the specified percentage of “yes” votes based on the entire pool of possible votes. “No” votes, abstentions, and non-participation should be treated the same.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r33"> <td class="x28" style="height:41.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t34">1</td> <td class="x39">IPC (Intellectual Property Constituency)</td> <td class="x54">support and suggests (f) adjust voting weight in the Single Member Model to more accurately reflect community interests, including intellectual property interests, </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:317.4pt" id="r34"> <td class="x28" style="height:317.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t35">1</td> <td class="x36">ISPCP (Internet Services Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The unchanged proposal is made without analysis of the rationale behind the approaches presented. <br /><br />The weight proposed for the GNSO does not take into account the specifics of this supporting organization. All policies related to the gTLDs are made within ICANN, whereas policies related to the number part are developed at regional level and most of them are regional policies. In a similar way policies related to the ccTLDs are only related to delegation/re-delegation at top level.<br /><span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span>- The GNSO is a large and complex organization comprising a large diversity of players (Registrars, Registries, Business, IPC, NPOC, NCUC, ISPCP) each of them needing to be directly represented. ISPCP suggests that 7 seats be allocated to GNSO (1 Registries, 1 Registrars, 1 BC, 1 IPC, 1 ISPCP, 1 NCUC, 1 NPOC) in the community mechanisms decision body described in the document. <br /><br />By virtue of perennial experience we question whether the role of the GAC will allow them to act by voting. In particular, it cannot be excluded that GAC voting on operational issues like IANA functions may impact public policy matters. Therefore we recommend the GAC remaining in its incumbent advisory role – with influential participation but no voting.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r35"> <td class="x28" style="height:151.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t36">1</td> <td class="x41">Jan Scholte (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">However, it is not clear who, specifically, will cast votes on behalf of the various SOs and ACs. Nor is it clear how, specifically, the Community Mechanism will convene in order to take its votes. For example, will the Community Mechanism hold deliberative meetings before it takes its votes; or will the different SOs and ACs merely communicate their votes electronically to some kind of tallying point – and if so, how would that work? How more precisely would the proposed Community Forum (Section 6.3) fit into Community Mechanism processes? History surely teaches that voting procedures can be manipulated, so this issue presumably wants careful attention.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r36"> <td class="x28" style="height:179.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t37">1</td> <td class="x39">Lee Andrew Bygrave (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x51">General support with some concerns</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">One concern is the paucity of detail as to precisely how the voting procedures will work and how, if at all, the Community Forum proposed by Willie Currie (a proposal that I support) might function within or attendant to the SMCM. Another (more important) concern is the potential that the current division of powers of ACS and SOs becomes unduly skewed under the proposed voting-rights scheme. More work needs to go into elaborating -- and explaining -- the allocations of voting rights, especially in respect of the ACs. In particular, I am sceptical of allocating voting rights to the GAC. Such an allocation risks upsetting the delicately balanced arrangements that currently manage the exercise of governments' influence over ICANN and associated stakeholders.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r37"> <td class="x28" style="height:41.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t38">1</td> <td class="x36">NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">However, there is overwhelming rough consensus within NCSG that the voting allocations in the SMCM constitute a significant and untested change in the stakeholder balance in ICANN.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r38"> <td class="x28" style="height:409.5pt;overflow:hidden" id="t39">1</td> <td class="x36">Pranesh Prakash</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">It should be noted that there have been some responses that express concern about the shifting of existing power structures within ICANN through some of the proposed alternative voting allocations in the SMCM. However, rather than present arguments as to why these shifts would be beneficial or harmful for ICANN's overall accountability, these responses seem to assume that shift from the current power structures are harmful. This is an unfounded assumption and cannot be a valid reason, nor can speculation of how the United States Congress will behave be a valid reason for rejecting an otherwise valid proposal. If there are harms, they ought to be clearly articulated: shifts from the status quo and fear of the US Congress aren't valid harms. Thus, while it is important to consider how different voting rights models might change the status quo while arriving at any judgments, that cannot be the sole criterion for judgment of its merits.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r39"> <td class="x28" style="height:27.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t40">1</td> <td class="x36">Public Knowledge</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">current voting proposals could grant some groups like GAC too much power (see comment for details</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x93"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:220.8pt" id="r40"> <td class="x28" style="height:220.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t41">1</td> <td class="x36">RySG (Registries Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">• The RySG believes that the GAC’s ability to take up an allotment of community votes in the future as part of the CCWG proposal accountability process (see paragraph 337 under Section 6.2) should invoke a choice with regard to the particular issue at stake– that is, if the GAC chooses to take up voting on any specific issue it should then no longer be entitled to special Board deference for finding solutions to GAC advice on any such issue that the Board does not follow (bylaws art. XI, Section 2.1.j.). This should be made explicit in the CCWG proposal - o Fees from gTLD registrants fund over 95% of ICANN’s revenue and this fact should be taken into consideration when defining voting rights relating to budgets and strategic plans. A possible example: GNSO concurrence required on such matters.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>- • The CCWG should consider special weighted voting to apply when a proposed change affects SOs or ACs differently (e.g. changes to bylaws articles VIII, IX, X, or XI). </td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r41"> <td class="x28" style="height:55.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t42"></td> <td class="x269">ssac</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x54">We would like to reiterate our comments given in SAC071 , and specifically the comments and questions related to structures of any kind that require voting mechanisms that might arise of the work from the CCWG. </td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r42"> <td class="x28" style="height:124.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t43">1</td> <td class="x36">The Heritage Foundation</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>In our judgement the 2nd Draft Proposal does not go far enough in ensuring that governments remain unable to control ICANN. <br />In particular, we have a significant concern that the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) would both get 5 votes as part of the new Sole Member (id. ¶¶ 319-33) and retain its current privileged status as an advisory committee that can oblige the Board to “try, in good faith” to find a mutually acceptable solution in the case of disagreement about GAC advice (id. §10.3, ¶¶ 609-26).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span>(does not support being included in possible vote calculations)</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:23.55pt" id="r43"> <td class="x28" style="height:23.55pt;overflow:hidden" id="t44">37</td> <td class="x62"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x211">0</td> <td class="x211">13</td> <td class="x211">7</td> <td class="x211">13</td> <td class="x211">12</td> <td class="x211">2</td> <td class="x211">7</td> <td class="x211">6</td> <td class="x211">8</td> <td class="x211">2</td> <td class="x211">6</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:23.55pt" id="r44"> <td class="x28" style="height:23.55pt;overflow:hidden" id="t45"></td> <td class="x62"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x212">0%</td> <td class="x212">35%</td> <td class="x212">19%</td> <td class="x212">35%</td> <td class="x212">32%</td> <td class="x212">5%</td> <td class="x212">19%</td> <td class="x212">16%</td> <td class="x212">22%</td> <td class="x212">5%</td> <td class="x212">16%</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r45"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x64"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td colspan="7" class="x60" style="mso-ignore:colspan"></td> <td colspan="3" class="x28" style="mso-ignore:colspan"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r46"> <td class="x28" style="height:52.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t46"></td> <td class="x64"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x48">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x48">New Idea</td> <td class="x48">Concerns</td> <td class="x48">Agreement</td> <td class="x48">Diagreement</td> <td class="x48">Neutral</td> <td class="x65">Supports GAC Voting</td> <td class="x65">No GAC Voting</td> <td class="x65">More details needed</td> <td class="x65">Abstentions counting</td> <td class="x65">Board based allocation</td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:0pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:84pt"></td> <td style="width:84pt"></td> <td style="width:84pt"></td> <td style="width:84pt"></td> <td style="width:84pt"></td> <td style="width:84pt"></td> <td style="width:84pt"></td> <td style="width:84pt"></td> <td style="width:84pt"></td> <td style="width:84pt"></td> <td style="width:84pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="12" data-sheet-name="GAC"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1655pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x121" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:194px"></col> <col class="x115" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x115" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x115" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:681px"></col> <col class="x117" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:136px"></col> <col class="x117" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:145px"></col> <col class="x117" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:96px"></col> <col class="x117" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:99px"></col> <col class="x103" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:120px"></col> <col class="x103" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:96px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r0"> <td colspan="2" class="x281" style="border-right:2px solid windowtext;height:12.3pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">SUMMARY</a></td> <td class="x103" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:510.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:102pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:108.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:72pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:74.25pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:90pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:72pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:316.05pt" id="r1"> <td colspan="3" class="x283" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext;height:315.3pt">On stress test #18: A majority of contributors is in favor of stress test #18.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>It is considered key to ensuring a balance is struck: the proposed bylaw language will maintain the role of the GAC and its influence, yet satisfy a fundamental requirement from the United States Government that the transition not result in a “government-led” solution. Concerns in response to stress test 18 include: 1) It may limit GAC abilities in deliberations; 2) It is adding complexity and giving de facto veto power; 3) It conveys a mistrust of the way governments operate.<br /><br />On voting: confirmation is being sought on whether the GAC intends to participate in the mechanism or not. The following concerns were voiced: 1) Duality gives the GAC a privileged position; 2) Redefinition of the GAC's unique relationship with ICANN and the Board would be needed; 3) Increase of authority may not be consistent with NTIA's criteria; 4) The CMSM would introduce the need for a degree of uniformity that does not currently exist. In the specific case of the GAC, proposed changes would lead to a conflict between existing Bylaws relating to the committee's interactions with ICANN; 5) This is potentially a topic the GAC may never come to a consensus on; 6) Disregard for the delicate balance of the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance; 7) Extending the advisory role to adopt an operational function through the exercise of such a voting allocation would not be possible within a private sector-led, multi-stakeholder framework for legal and practical reasons. Suggestions made by contributors include: 1) removing GAC from voting scheme and maintaining its advisory role only; 2) Give GAC option to provide advice to CMSM; 3) Require the GAC to choose. Clarification was sought on GAC advice's relationship to community mechanisms using the following scenarios: (a) the GAC becomes a participant in the Community Mechanism alongside other SOs and ACs (although how 150+ governments would exercise 5 votes seems problematic); (b) the GAC takes an observer role in the Community Mechanism (although at the moment it is not clear what would be observed and how); (c) the GAC stays outside the Community Mechanism and pursues its established power of requiring the ICANN Board to consider GAC advice (although some governments might object that the creation of the Community Mechanism decreases their role); or (d) provision is made, on similar lines to the board, which require the Community Mechanism to consider GAC advice. <br /><br />On language: Specific comments were suggested on text: 1) Disagreement with deletion of paragrah 224 as it does not impose limitations; 2) Context needed on paragraph 225 deletion - without adequate justification the text should remain; 3) Paragraph 187 should be reconsidered in order explicitly to allow for such public interest considerations to be taken fully into account in ICANN decisions; 4) the proposed Bylaw revision (2nd Draft Proposal ¶ 619) should be further amended.</td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr class="x107" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:36pt" id="r2"> <td class="x104" style="height:34.5pt">GAC</td> <td class="x105">Support areas</td> <td class="x105">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x105">Issue areas</td> <td class="x106">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x106">New Idea/Suggestion</td> <td class="x106">Concerns</td> <td class="x106">Agreement</td> <td class="x106">Diagreement</td> <td class="x106">Neutral</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:94.05pt" id="r3"> <td class="x108" style="height:92.55pt">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x109">The BC supports the<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>outcome of Stress Test 18 and the proposal for a change to ICANN’s Bylaws, so that ICANN’s<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>obligation to “try and find a mutually acceptable solution”only applies where the GAC advice<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>was supported by consensus. The BC might not support a final CCWG proposal that failed to<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>include this bylaws change, particularly if the proposal also allows the GAC to vote in the Community Mechanism.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r4"> <td class="x108" style="height:150.3pt">CCG-NULD (Centre for Communication Governance National Law University Delhi)</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">The role of the GAC in the new model poses a different set of problems. The Bylaws provide that if the Board decides to take an action contrary to GAC advice, it must try to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no such solution can be found, it must provide, in writing, the reasons for not following GAC’s advice. Thus, even in the present structure, GAC has a privileged advisory status. This Committee is now being given the option to join the Community Mechanism with 5 votes. Members of GAC acknowledge that it is ‘first among equals’ and do not wish to let go of that status. ACs cannot have both voting and advisory rights. This is of particular significance for GAC, because of this privileged advisory role. Should it choose to opt into the community mechanism, it must not be allowed to retain its advisory position. It is our submission that as it is unfair for GAC to retain a privileged status in a multistakeholder model, the bylaws should be amended to give GAC the same advisory status as the other ACs, thereby creating a level playing field.</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:193.2pt" id="r5"> <td class="x108" style="height:191.7pt">ccTLD Australia (auDA)</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x122"></td> <td class="x122">auDA is particularly worried about the role of governments, given that the GAC has not taken a formal position and the inherently political nature of the IANA transition from the USG to the community. auDA is also concerned about the ways in which the CMSM, if implemented, could specifically impact upon the role of governments. Currently, ICANN's Bylaws afford the GAC a unique relationship with ICANN and the Board (as defined by Article XI of the Bylaws). Unlike the Policy Development Processes of the ccNSO and gNSO, and the advisory status of the ALAC, SSAC and RSSAC, the GAC has an exclusive, specific status, whereby the Board must acknowledge and respond to the GAC on matters of public policy. This arrangement was arrived at through considerable discussion and negotiation, over many years. However, it appears that the CMSM model could allow other sections of the ICANN community to exert influence on this relationship. Not all SOs and ACs engage with ICANN in the same way – though the CMSM would introduce the need for a degree of uniformity that does not currently exist. Further, in the specific case of the GAC, proposed changes would lead to a conflict between existing Bylaws relating to the committee's interactions with ICANN. This conflict would, at the very least, require immediate (WS1) consideration and the development of a proposal for the redrafting of this section of ICANN's Bylaws</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r6"> <td class="x108" style="height:81.3pt">ccTLD Canada (CIRA)</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">CIRA also requests that special scrutiny be afforded to the GAC’s right to vote within the Community Mechanism, as identified in the proposal. This increase in authority, in addition to the special authority the GAC now enjoys in the provision of advice to the ICANN Board of Directors, could, in CIRA’s opinion, prompt concerns that the proposal may not entirely be consistent with the NTIA’s March 14, 2014 statement that it “will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r7"> <td class="x114" style="height:53.7pt">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x109">The exact number of SO/AC willing to participate should be known for sure before the proposal is submitted. The combined powers of the SO/AC (voting snd having special advisory powers - for the GAC for instance - need to be discussed. </td> <td class="x116">N/A</td> <td class="x109">The opened discussions on stress test 18 and the power of the GAC, for instance, need to come to an end before this transmission in our view. </td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r8"> <td class="x108" style="height:150.3pt">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x116">InternetNZ strongly supports the proposed addition to Article XI s2 cl J as shown. Without this change, governments could agree to change GAC operating principles, offer advice on a narrow majority, and expect the same sort of treatment of that advice as is today offered to advice developed by consensus. While governments should and must remain free to determine how the GAC will operate, there is no justification in allowing what could amount to a selfselected increase in governmental influence in ICANN through not making this change. In our view, not making this change would put at risk the Proposal’s ability to meet the NTIA criteria. </td> <td class="x116">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r9"> <td class="x108" style="height:50.7pt">CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">It is unclear why the text at the end of 225 on advice from governments and public authorities has been deleted. Without adequate justification the text should remain.</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r10"> <td class="x118" style="height:122.7pt">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x116">We support the conclusion of Stress Test 18 with regards to requiring the GAC to issue consensus advice in order to enter into discussions between the Board and the GAC to find a mutually acceptable solution.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Conversely many GAC members may be interested in providing GAC advise to the CMSM in addition to its current role in providing advise to the board, we ask that the CCWG analyses this option as part of its continued deliberations on the role of AC’s within the voting structure and decision making process of the CMSM. </td> <td class="x109">We also note that the GAC is still divided on its participation in a voting role, the views of many governments as expressed through the GAC Input Document to the Paris meeting 3 displays a diverse set of views with regards to this issue. </td> <td class="x116">Without GAC consensus on its participation as a voting member of the CMSM it seems prudent to us to assume that the GAC will not utilise any voting rights afforded until such time as consensus is reached at an intergovernmental level on the matter. We suggest that this may be at the very least an extremely long and protracted process and given our own outreach within the governmental community we suggest that this may be a topic that the GAC may never come to a consensus position on, potentially removing them from the matrix of participating AC’s in the CMSM.</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r11"> <td class="x118" style="height:136.5pt">Danish Business Authority (DBA)</td> <td class="x109">We believe the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) should continue its advisory role - both towards the ICANN Board and the Community, i.e. via a formalized consultation process with the Community Empowerment Mechanism, including the Community Discussion Forum, written into the Bylaws. In order to ensure that the new set-up is accountable and legitimate, it is of outmost importance that the responsibility of governments with regard to public policy and the public interest is fully respected and their advice is duly taken into account by ICANN – both staff, the Board and the Community. </td> <td class="x116">N/A</td> <td class="x116">N/A</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r12"> <td class="x114" style="height:95.1pt">eco Association of the Internet Industry</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Should the CCWG Accountability chose to keep the voting scheme, we recommend to remove the GAC from it. It is our understanding that the GAC is always welcome to join community discussions and offer advice to the community. Such advice, in particular advice on public policy matters to the ICANN Board (which remains unaltered by this CCWG Accountability proposal) shall not be compromised by the GAC voting on operational issues. Where operational issues impact public policy, the GAC can and should issue advice. The GAC should maintain its unique advisory role. This will strenghen the multi stakeholder model with all stakeholders being valuable components in their respective roles.</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r13"> <td class="x108" style="height:408pt">GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x109">The possibility that the GAC may, in the future and upon its sole decision, fully participate in the "Community Mechanism" as an entity entitled to 5 votes (on equal terms with the Supporting Organizations – SOs – and the At Large Advisory Committee – ALAC) should be included in the Final report of the CCWG in line with what is contained in Section 6.2 of the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal. </td> <td class="x109"> The GAC expects the new framework to recognize the GAC’s role in providing public policy advice to the ICANN Board. At this point in time, GAC has not determined whether to participate or not in the "Community Mechanism" as a voting entity.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>In case the GAC were to decide in the future to participate as a voting entity it would follow its own processes and the procedure foreseen under Section 6.2 of the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal, especially paragraphs 337 and following. Irrespective of whether or not the GAC would participate in the voting structure (and thus exercise its legitimate empowerment rights) at some time in the future, the GAC intends to fully participate in the ICANN Community Forum. The GAC will work with other SOs and ACs to develop agreed mechanisms for the full participation by and exchange of views among and between all SOs and ACs in the proposed Community Forum. </td> <td class="x113">N/A</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r14"> <td class="x108" style="height:53.7pt">Government of Argentina</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Amendments proposed to the bylaws are not necessary. These changes make a specific reference to the way that GAC makes its decisions, and it may result in limiting the abilities of GAC for its internal deliberations. Member states participating in the GAC should be the ones to decide about their own decision-making rules.</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.05pt" id="r15"> <td class="x108" style="height:407.55pt">Government of Brazil</td> <td class="x109">The possibility that the GAC may, in the future and upon its sole decision, fully participate in the "Community Mechanism" as an entity entitled to 5 votes (on equal terms with the Supporting Organizations – SOs – and the At Large Advisory Committee – ALAC) should be included in the Final report of the CCWG in line with what is contained in Section 6.2 of the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109"> The GAC expects the new framework to recognize the GAC’s role in providing public policy advice to the ICANN Board. At this point in time, GAC has not determined whether to participate or not in the "Community Mechanism" as a voting entity.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>In case the GAC were to decide in the future to participate as a voting entity it would follow its own processes and the procedure foreseen under Section 6.2 of the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal, especially paragraphs 337 and following. Irrespective of whether or not the GAC would participate in the voting structure (and thus exercise its legitimate empowerment rights) at some time in the future, the GAC intends to fully participate in the ICANN Community Forum. The GAC will work with other SOs and ACs to develop agreed mechanisms for the full participation by and exchange of views among and between all SOs and ACs in the proposed Community Forum. The Brazilian government has consistently expressed its view that the way GAC´s advisory role is currently exercised is insufficient to factor in the perspective of governments in a relevant way within ICANN´s Board decision-making process. We have nonetheless indicated the willingness of not challenging this in the context of the elaboration of the transition proposal but rather to explore ways, in full respect of the multistakeholder format, through which governments roles and responsibilities in regard to public policy issues might be fully exercised in the post-transition period. it is clearly the responsibility of all those who take part in the present exercise in an informed way – in spite of differences of opinion in regard to the need for ST 18 or not – to duly transmit to those who are not direct participants the real nature of the discussion surrounding ST 18, in order to not add, in an artificial way, another layer of complexity to an effort which is already in itself extremely delicate. Second, the rationale used as justification for ST 18 is offensive and conveys a deep mistrust of the way governments collectively operate ("A majority of governments could thereby approve GAC advice that restricted free online expression, for example"). This is unacceptable to the Government of Brazil as ST 18 ignores, in essence, the fact that governments – as the representatives of their respective peoples –, collectively, were responsible for the development of the existing international Human Rights "regime", including, among other benchmark international instruments, the Human Rights Declaration and, more recently, the resolution stating that the same rights offline must also be respected online (which Brazil takes pride in having being the initiator, together with Germany). In the third place, ST 18 also ignores the fact that even though consensus might seem the most forceful and effective way to express government´s opinion (and by the same token the opinion of any particular group), it is not the only method (and certainly not the most common) employed by governments to make decisions. In some cases, intergovernmental decisions are made in the context of strong opposition of one single government (or a very small group of governments) which does not, in any way, affect the legitimacy and “representativeness” of such decisions. What ST 18 would actually seek would be to impose on GAC a decision-making process that would give a "de facto" veto power for any individual government (or very small group of governments) that may, even in cases where massive majority of governments would favor any given course of action (that might, by the way, involve the interests of a particular national company), be able to block the possibility of triggering the requirement that the Board must enter into negotiations to find a mutually acceptable solution to any conflict between possible Board action and GAC advice. It is striking that no similar ST is proposed in regard to other stakeholders, maybe out of the realization it would be laughable to expect that any particular group would have unanimity on a given issue. Besides, this appears to be, in the end, an artificial problem. The GAC has consistently sought – in some cases strenuously – to develop consensus advice and nothing suggests there is a trend in a different direction. In the light of the stated above, Brazil firmly rejects ST 18 and fails to see why approval of the IANA stewardship transition proposal should be held hostage of a decision in that regard. It is important, on the hand, to uphold the principle that each SO and AC should retain its autonomy in deciding about its internal operating procedures, without being, in principle, constrained by any external rule that might impose an obligation to frame its decision-making mechanism in any particular way. <br /><br /></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r16"> <td class="x108" style="height:150.3pt">Government of Egypt</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Expects the new model to recognize GAC’s important role in providing public policy advice, a unique and important characteristic of ICANN highlights the need for continuous assessment and evaluation of the whole model, including GAC’s role and participation to the empowered community model.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r17"> <td class="x108" style="height:408pt">Government of France</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Contrary to Core Value 7, the French Government cannot but express its deepest disappointment with the CCWG having maintained, in the 2nd draft proposal and as a solution to Stress Test 18 the exact same controversial amendment to Bylaws Article XI.2.1.j., in spite of the serious concerns repeatedly displayed by many GAC members since the publication of the initial proposal. By doing that, the CCWG did not just deliberately refuse to duly take into the concerns of Governments, it chose to annihilate all the efforts made by multiple other stakeholders to find alternative solutions to Stress Test 18, notably during the public comment period, at the ICANN53 meeting in Buenos Aires and at the CCWG F2F meeting in Paris. The French Government considers this as the worst signal that the CCWG could send to the global internet community regarding the risk of capture of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model. As stated above, specifying new terms of the GAC-Board relationship is in flagrant contradiction with what is specifically designated by the CCWG as a core value of ICANN. Core Value 7, in line with the 2013 NETmundial Statement and the 2005 Tunis Agenda, clearly establishes the sole responsibility of governments for internet-related public policies, regardless of their decision-making procedures. Therefore, since GAC decision-making procedures are, consistently with ICANN Bylaws, based on agreements between its members States, anything that might permit the Board to amend or even influence those internal decision-making rules would amount to inappropriate limitations on governments’ competencies, without regard nor respect for the delicate balance of the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance which ICANN expects to embody. In addition, this is also neglecting, perhaps negating, along with their results, the accountability mechanisms that are already in place at ICANN. Indeed, the French Government cannot help but wonder how the CCWG could not acknowledge that back in 2010, ATRT1 did contemplate recommendations by some stakeholders that GAC advice be consensus in order to trigger Bylaws provisions obligating the Board to response. It nonetheless also reported many concerns that were raised by other stakeholders, before concluding that “this would be automatically taken care of as soon as GAC and the Board agree on what constitutes GAC advice”. Which, in its turn, ATRT2 concluded was satisfactorily addressed and completed in 2013. Interestingly, there was agreement that a communiqué, a letter, an email, etc., constitutes GAC advice. In other words and for its part, the CCWG chose to ignore that it was naturally considered inappropriate to get involved into how GAC advice is negotiated. Lastly, the French Government still considers that linking Stress Test 18 to a risk of capture of ICANN by governments and NTIA’s requirement that no “government-led or intergovernmental organization solution would be acceptable”, makes no sense. We have to reassert that whatever the hypothetical evolution of GAC’s internal decision-making rules, GAC, as its name says, will remain in an advisory role to the Board. Logically, the risk of capture of ICANN by governments in the future is as low as it is now and in any case, it cannot lead to a “government-led or intergovernmental organization solution”. The French Government would like to underline that the previous criticisms do not address Stress Test 18 itself, but the amendment to Bylaws Article XI.2.1.j proposed by the CCWG as a solution for Stress Test 18. In fact, it is our view that much stronger responses have already been found to Stress Test 18 by the CCWG: 1/ First, the CCWG expressly stated its rightful intent to narrow ICANN’s mission in ICANN Bylaws. Thus, remote as the possibility raised by Stress Test 18 that “a majority of governments could approve GAC advice that restricted free expression” may have been, it is pushed even back further by making clear that ICANN will not deal with internet content issues, for instance. This is clearly one (of the multiple) valid solution(s) to Stress Test 18 that the CCWG nonetheless failed to mention. 2/ Secondly, the CCWG should know that the community empowerment mechanism provides the ICANN community with an oversight on the GAC-Board relationships. Even if the Board was to follow GAC advice that would happen to be unsupported by the community, the community as a sole member could challenge the Board’s action or inaction against such GAC advice through the proposed accountability mechanisms, which also appear as perfectly valid solutions to Stress Test 18. To our surprise, in the case of Stress Test 18, the CCWG 2nd proposal does not put forward the effectiveness of the very mechanisms which the CCWG was commissioned to design in order to enhance ICANN accountability, and which actually apply to most other stress tests. It is incomprehensible to us that the CCWG could maintain an unfortunate amendment to Bylaws Article XI.2.1.j as a solution for Stress Test 18 instead. It even seems irresponsible to us that the CCWG could aggravate the risk of delaying the IANA transition, in spite of all warnings that strict consensus will be needed among governments for GAC to approve the CCWG final proposal as a chartering organization. We therefore thank the CCWG for considering that the French Government shall formally object to any approval by GAC of a final proposal that would not leave Bylaws Article XI.2.1.j unchanged.<br /></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.05pt" id="r18"> <td class="x108" style="height:50.55pt">Government of Germany</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Germany is of the opinion that GAC should retain its status as an advisory body which needs to evolve and adapt alongside the new community mechanism. Its advice on public policy issues will need to be duly taken into account by ICANN, regardless of the specific organisational measures eventually proposed. Germany thus sees a possible need for the GAC to advice not only the ICANN board but also potentialty the CMSM. </td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:193.2pt" id="r19"> <td class="x114" style="height:191.7pt">Government of Italy</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">We believe that the full participation of governments on public policy issues should be allowed in the Community Empowered Mechanisms. GAC should have not less power than now in the new framework. The GAC should retain its current influence, within its prerogative, whatever voting member or advisory committee  whatever decision-making process will be chosen by the GAC. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:331.2pt" id="r20"> <td class="x108" style="height:329.7pt">Government of New Zealand</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. We consider the accountability measures proposed through Stress Tests 18, 33, and 34 are necessary to ensure that a balance is struck between ensuring each AC/SO can present its perspectives, while avoiding capture or the use of advisory powers to override ICANN’s multistakeholder, bottom-up decisions making process. In particular we acknowledge the balance struck in Stress Test 18, which recognises the role Governments fulfil within ICANN in articulating and protecting public interest, while avoiding a situation where split GAC advice is able to “paralyse” a decision-making process by requiring the ICANN Board to find a mutually acceptable solution between multiple parties. We consider the proposed measures under Stress Test 18 recognises the fundamental role of governments in international internet-related public policy issues, and that from time to time the GAC may wish to give advice that covers more than one point of view. However, it also ensures that where there is clear GAC consensus on a public policy issue, the ICANN Board must give due deference to this advice and try to find “a mutually acceptable solution” between the GAC and other parties. This separation of roles is also recognised in CCWG’s Stress test 35. We consider it is important to ensure the roles of operational and advisory communities continue to be clearly defined, and support the continuation of the GAC’s role as an advisory committee</td> <td class="x109">When considering the role of governments in internet governance, the Tunis Agenda recognises not only the need for governments to participate in internet governance discussions on equal footing, but also the value of the different perspectives and competencies stakeholders bring to a discussion. ICANN’s structure clearly recognises the Tunis Agenda’s vision of “enabling governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues” through the SO/AC model. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r21"> <td class="x118" style="height:408pt">Government of Norway</td> <td class="x109">The possibility that the GAC may, in the future and upon its sole decision, fully participate in the "Community Mechanism" as an entity entitled to 5 votes (on equal terms with the Supporting Organizations – SOs – and the At Large Advisory Committee – ALAC) should be included in the Final report of the CCWG in line with what is contained in Section 6.2 of the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal. </td> <td class="x109">The Norwegian Communications Authority would like to underline that we think it’s fundamentally important to avoid that ICANN is captured by any group of stakeholders, but we fail to see how Governmental Advisory Committee/GAC, in its role as advisor to the ICANN board, can capture ICANN decision making by its advice, - regardless of how this advice is categorized or expressed in the future.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The GAC expects the new framework to recognize the GAC’s role in providing public policy advice to the ICANN Board. At this point in time, GAC has not determined whether to participate or not in the "Community Mechanism" as a voting entity.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>In case the GAC were to decide in the future to participate as a voting entity it would follow its own processes and the procedure foreseen under Section 6.2 of the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal, especially paragraphs 337 and following. Irrespective of whether or not the GAC would participate in the voting structure (and thus exercise its legitimate empowerment rights) at some time in the future, the GAC intends to fully participate in the ICANN Community Forum. The GAC will work with other SOs and ACs to develop agreed mechanisms for the full participation by and exchange of views among and between all SOs and ACs in the proposed Community Forum. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x120"></td> <td class="x120" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:289.8pt" id="r22"> <td class="x108" style="height:288.3pt">Government of Spain</td> <td class="x109">Spain is satisfied with the new text provided for CV 7 as it no longer sets limits to the public policy advice that the GAC may give to the ICANN Board. In Commitment 5, the text “private sector lead” and a thorough description of what comprises that private sector have been included. Spain does not oppose to those additions, but since the proposed Commitments do not even once mention the governments’ role, out of fairness, respect for every actor’s role and avoid inconsistencies with the multistakeholder model, it is essential that the governments’ role is added as well in this Commitment. Hence, we put forward this text for Commitment 5 (additions in bold blue):<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>5.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development processes, led by the private sector, including business stakeholders, civil society, the technical community, and academia, that (i) seek input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process, while duly taking into account the public policy advice of governments and public authorities, whenever public interest is affected.<br /></td> <td class="x116">The GAC should be recognised and its role of protection of the public interest in ICANN’s multistakeholder environment should be guaranteed.</td> <td class="x123">We cannot agree with this stress test being included in the final report. ICANN Bylaws state clearly that the Board shall duly take into account Governments' advice "on public policy issues" (Article I Section 2.11, Article III Section 6.1.c and Article XI Section 2.j). This is the key point: the GAC brings the public policy perspective into ICANN. Let us not forget that the GAC advice to the Board is entitled to be “duly taken into account”, but is not anything further than an advice, since the GAC only has advisory powers. If the Board turns down a particular piece of GAC advice, then it has to enter into a process with the GAC to try and find a "mutually acceptable solution". Again, if this cannot be found, the Board is still free to do whatever feels appropriate, including simply not follow that GAC advice. Spain is against the idea of capture of ICANN by Governments or by any other stakeholder group, but we fail to see where the contingency or the risk of government capture lays in this case. One of the conditions put forward by the NTIA is that no other single country or intergovernmental body should take over the IANA stewardship role, but the assumption stated in the draft proposal that this ST 18 addresses that NTIA requirement is both unfounded and incorrect. It is extremely difficult to see why the GAC's operating principles or how the GAC makes decisions should have an effect on the IANA stewardship function, being only an advisory body that does not develop policies, unlike the GNSO. <br /></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x120" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x120"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:289.8pt" id="r23"> <td class="x108" style="height:288.3pt">Government of the United Kingdom</td> <td class="x109">We support the Community Forum concept as described in Section 6.3 of the proposal. The Forum needs to operate within appropriate time frames for the advisory committees including the GAC to be able to undertake their consultations at the national, regional and global levels. The UK Government supports the intention of Stress Test 18 as serving to obviate any risk of capture and is contributing to the current GAC review of the text as currently drafted. </td> <td class="x122">N/A</td> <td class="x122">This should not be perceived as creating an opportunity for governments to intervene in the manner of exercising a veto over a petition emanating from non-governmental sources. Rather, as in the current ICANN governance framework, the community should recognise the important benefits of governmental policy experts worldwide bringing their citizen-oriented, law-based perspectives to the community in order to engage with all stakeholders in a mutually supportive, open and cooperative manner.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We note the provision in section 6.2 of an allocation of community mechanism votes but at this time we would not support the GAC extending its advisory role to adopt an operational function through the exercise of such a voting allocation. For a combination of legal and practical reasons we do not believe that this would be possible within a private sector-led, multi-stakeholder framework. It is essential therefore for the GAC to be recognised by the community as having a vital role by providing formal advice on any public interest aspect of a petition before it may proceed to a community vote. We disagree with the text in paragraph 187 as currently drafted which we consider exerts a constraint on ICANN’s ability to act in the public interest. The GAC has always held that ICANN policy decisions must have regard for example to fair competition in the top level domains market, to require where appropriate public interest commitments to be embedded in gTLD registry agreements (in relation to highly regulated business sectors and child protection), and to recognise demonstrable community support for specific new gTLD applications which are in contention with wholly commercially-based applications. While correctly referring to ICANN’s essential technical mission, we recommend therefore that the text of paragraph 187 be reconsidered in order explicitly to allow for such public interest considerations to be taken fully into account in ICANN decisions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Similarly, we strongly recommend that paragraph 218 restores reference to enhancing consumer trust and choice. <br /></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x120" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x120"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r24"> <td class="x108" style="height:81.3pt">i2Coalition (Internet Infrastructure Coalition)</td> <td class="x109">The i2Coalition supports the findings of Stress Test 18. It agrees that the Bylaws should be amended to clarify that, with respect to instances in which the Board does not accept GAC advice, the Board is required to find a mutually acceptable solution only when GAC advice is supported by consensus, as is required by the NTIA to meet the criteria for transition. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x123">N/A</td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x120"> </td> <td class="x120"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r25"> <td class="x108" style="height:150.3pt">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x109">The Board notes the work involved in the development of Stress Tests which identified potential contingencies for which the CCWGAccountability<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>wished to demonstrate it had identified solutions. Most of those Stress Tests did not result in the identification of additional requirements beyond those already addressed in the proposal. However, there are two, reflected in Section 10.2 (incorporate ATRT2 recommendation to respond to advice from Advisory Committees) and Section 10.3 (Institutionalize current practice that Board consultation requirement applies only to consensus advice from the GAC) that stand apart. The Board fully supports these recommendations. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x124">N/A</td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x120"></td> <td class="x120"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:165.6pt" id="r26"> <td class="x108" style="height:164.1pt">ITI</td> <td class="x109">We strongly support the proposed change to Article<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>XI section 2 clause J of the ICANN Bylaws (paragraph 619) regarding "Stress<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Test #18."<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We believe the proposed revision provides essential clarity<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>regarding the appropriate role and weight that should be afforded to GAC<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>advice.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>ITI believes that it is appropriate for the ICANN Board of Directors<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>to assign additional weight and consideration to consensus policy advice from<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>GAC because such advice truly represents the considered views of all government<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>stakeholders.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>In contrast, if the GAC were to cease to become advisory -<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>because, for example, it reflected only the majority views of that community - we do not believe that such deference would be appropriate.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x124">N/A</td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x120"></td> <td class="x120"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r27"> <td class="x108" style="height:150.3pt">Intel </td> <td class="x109">Generally supports the proposal. Intel strongly supports the proposed bylaw change as written. The proposed bylaw language will maintain the role of the GAC and its influence, yet satisfy a fundamental requirement from the United States Government that the transition not result in a “government-led” solution. Moreover, advice that did not represent consensus among governments may not be actionable from a practical matter. While we recognize that the proposal does not yet have support of the GAC, Intel believes that the carefully crafted text represents the best chance of adoption by the global community and NTIA, and hence enabling a successful transition.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x124">N/A</td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x120"></td> <td class="x120"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r28"> <td class="x114" style="height:95.1pt">Internet Association </td> <td class="x116">Supports the proposal's direction. The Internet Association supports the findings of stress test 18.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We agree that the Bylaws should be<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>amended to clarify that, with respect to instances in which the Board does not accept Governmental<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Advisory Committee (GAC) advice the Board is required to find a mutually acceptable solution only when GAC advice is supported by full consensus. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x123">We note that NTIA has stated that such a change is<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>necessary to meet its criteria for the transition, and we believe it is particularly prudent given that the<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>GAC will gain additional rights through community powers of the sole member.</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:165.6pt" id="r29"> <td class="x114" style="height:164.1pt">IPC (Intellectual Property Constituency)</td> <td class="x116">Stress Test 18 has been the subject of much discussion and a good deal of criticism, much of it misplaced. In the view of some, Stress Test 18 inappropriately interferes with the GAC’s ability to set its voting thresholds. However, it does no such thing. It merely states that, if the GAC chooses to lower its voting thresholds from the current “consensus” requirement, its advice will no longer be entitled to the deference that consensus advice receives. The GAC is thus free to change its voting thresholds as it sees fit. It is eminently logical that a lower level of support in the GAC should translate to a lower level of deference for such advice. The IPC supports the approach of the CCWG with regard to the GAC voting thresholds and Stress Test 18.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x116">N/A</td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113">`1</td> <td class="x120"></td> <td class="x120"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r30"> <td class="x118" style="height:122.7pt">Jan Scholte (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">More clarity is wanted regarding the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) relationship to the Community Mechanism. Four options suggest themselves: (a) the GAC becomes a participant in the Community Mechanism alongside other SOs and ACs (although how 150+ governments would exercise 5 votes seems problematic); (b) the GAC takes an observer role in the Community Mechanism (although at the moment it is not clear what would be observed and how); (c) the GAC stays outside the Community Mechanism and pursues its established power of requiring the ICANN Board to consider GAC advice (although some governments might object that the creation of the Community Mechanism decreases their role); or (d) provision is made, on similar lines to the board, which require the Community Mechanism to consider GAC advice.</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r31"> <td class="x114" style="height:67.5pt">Lee Andrew Bygrave (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x109">General support with some concerns.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Concern is the potential that the current division of powers of ACS and SOs becomes unduly skewed under the proposed voting-rights scheme. More work needs to go into elaborating -- and explaining -- the allocations of voting rights, especially in respect of the ACs. In particular, I am sceptical of allocating voting rights to the GAC. Such an allocation risks upsetting the delicately balanced arrangements that currently manage the exercise of governments' influence over ICANN and associated stakeholders.</td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x120"></td> <td class="x120"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r32"> <td class="x108" style="height:408pt">NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">NCSG is also concerned about paragraph 224, which also seems to undermine ICANN’s commitment to a narrow mission. In this Principle, ICANN commits itself to recognize that “governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly take into account the public policy advice of governments and public authorities.” The prior version of this language said that ICANN would take governmental advice into account, but qualified it with the statement that it would react to such advice “in accordance with the bylaws and to the extent consistent with these fundamental commitments and core values.” NCSG believes that it was a serious mistake to delete that language. Some members of the GAC objected to this language because they thought that it limited the kind of advice they can offer. In fact, it does not impose any limitation on the GAC. The GAC and anyone else is free to offer any advice they like but ICANN’s board should only act on advice that is consistent with its mission, fundamental commitments and core values. As originally worded, this commitment clearly prevented ICANN. from acting on advice if it was inconsistent with its mission, commitments and core values. Now that restraint is gone. If “advice from public authorities” constitutes a get­out­of­jail­free card for the ICANN board, then ICANN can do anything, including abuse its powers and break its own bylaws. Note that the current language does not even specify that the advice ICANN will ‘duly take into account’ must be formal consensus advice from the GAC. Apparently, any public policy advice from any public authority or government will do. This is not an enhancement of ICANN accountability but an abdication of it. We therefore urge the CCWG to reinstate the original intent of paragraph 224 by amending it as follows: While remaining rooted in the private sector, including business stakeholders, civil society, the technical community, and academia, recognizing that governments and public authorities are also responsible for public policy and duly taking into account the consensus public policy advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee governments and public authorities while reacting in accordance with the Bylaws and in a manner consistent with these Fundamental Commitments and Core Values.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>It does not make sense to provide votes to most Advisory Committees. The GAC does not select board members and is barred from doing so by the current Bylaws. The GAC is not supposed to be a policy development entity, but a provider of advice to the board on the policies developed by the bottom up process. The legal status of a collection of national governments and intergovernmental organizations becoming part of an unincorporated association under the umbrella of ICANN seems extremely odd, and will probably prove to be unacceptable to the GAC itself. In the proposed voting allocation, ALAC and GAC, by themselves and without support from any SO, could:<br />● block any change in fundamental bylaws<br />● block an attempt to recall the entire board<br />● block the removal of a board member appointed by Nomcom<br />● block the rejection of a budget or operating plan by the rest of the community<br />The NCSG agrees with the ICANN board’s concerns about the changing role and disproportionate influence given to advisory committees in the currently proposed SMCM. There is an inconsistency between GAC’s status as a body whose advice is privileged in the bylaws with special board attention and its status as a voting member of the proposed Community Mechanism with the same rights as SOs. We agree with Heritage that GAC cannot have it both ways. If it is given any votes in the SMCM, it must give up its status as any entity whose formal advice can oblige the Board to try to find a mutually acceptable solution in the case of disagreement.</td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x120" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x120"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r33"> <td class="x108" style="height:122.7pt">Nell Minow (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">More clarity is wanted regarding the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) relationship to the Community Mechanism. Four options suggest themselves: (a) the GAC becomes a participant in the Community Mechanism alongside other SOs and ACs (although how 150+ governments would exercise 5 votes seems problematic); (b) the GAC takes an observer role in the Community Mechanism (although at the moment it is not clear what would be observed and how); (c) the GAC stays outside the Community Mechanism and pursues its established power of requiring the ICANN Board to consider GAC advice (although some governments might object that the creation of the Community Mechanism decreases their role); or (d) provision is made, on similar lines to the board, which require the Community Mechanism to consider GAC advice.</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:64.95pt" id="r34"> <td class="x108" style="height:63.45pt">Public Knowledge</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x116">The recommended voting structure may disproportionately empower certain routs such as the Government Advisory Committee. These new voting allocations would empower the GAC beyond their advising role. Taking consideration NTIA's concern, we ask if there are other forums that could be put in place to better balance the voting structure in favor other stakeholders with a special focus on the technical community. </td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x120" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x120"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:262.2pt" id="r35"> <td class="x108" style="height:260.7pt">RySG (Registries Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x109">General support for the proposal. The RySG specifically concurs with and strongly supports retaining Stress Test 18 in the draft proposal (see<br />Section 10.3 starting page 84, paragraphs 609 – 626). ICANN Board’s obligation (together with the GAC) to seek a mutually acceptable solution to un-accepted GAC advice will continue exactly as it has up to the present, namely only when the GAC advice in question is supported by consensus among governments as defined in GAC Operating Principle 47. Thus GAC consensus advice continues to be given deference than advice from any other Advisory Committee 0n public policy matters. (ST18 is not addressed to the GAC but to the Board – it clarifies how the Board should treat the different types of GAC advice.) Stress Test 18 seeks to formally adopt present practice while recognizing that GAC remains free to determine how it renders advice on public policy matters. The RySG believes that the amendment prompted by Stress Test 18 is necessary for the transition and will work to reinforce the functioning of the multi-stakeholder ICANN community.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x116">The RySG believes that the GAC’s ability to take up an allotment of community votes in the future as part of the CCWG proposal accountability process (see paragraph 337 under Section 6.2) should invoke a choice with regard to the particular issue at stake– that is, if the GAC chooses to take up voting on any specific issue it should then no longer be entitled to special Board deference for finding solutions to GAC advice on any such issue that the Board does not follow (bylaws art. XI, Section 2.1.j.). This should be made explicit in the CCWG proposal.</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:289.8pt" id="r36"> <td class="x114" style="height:288.3pt">SIIA (Software &amp; Information Industry Association)</td> <td class="x109"> We supported the Administration when it emphasized that it would not accept a proposal “that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental solution.” SIIA also strongly supports the principles for the transition that the Administration articulated. SIIA strongly supports the proposed accountability measures described in Stress Test 18. Section XI of ICANN’s bylaws obliges the ICANN Board to give “due deference” to GAC advice. This includes a requirement to find a “mutually acceptable solution” to the advice proffered by the GAC. In order to ensure that the transition does not, in practice, lead to a “government-led or intergovernmental solution,” it is important to ensure that the Section XI ICANN obligation only enter into force when GAC advice is developed through consensus – in other words, when it is truly advice and not a reflection of split voting. The accountability measures proposed in Stress Test 18 would amend Article XI Section 2 and oblige the ICANN Board to give due deference only to GAC consensus advice and indicate the definition of consensus that the GAC uses presently. The GAC would still be free to change how it develops advice, but the Board’s obligations would only enter into force upon receipt of consensus advice.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x120"></td> <td class="x120"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r37"> <td class="x108" style="height:408pt">The Heritage Foundation</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. Retain Stress Test 18 in the CCWG-Accountability Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations.</td> <td class="x122">We understand, and appreciate, that the members of the GAC have yet to determine a unified position on the question of their continuing role. We also recognize that ambiguity in the development of the 2nd Draft Proposal may aid in moving the process forward. But that ambiguity cannot be sustained as the Draft becomes a “Final” proposal to the Board and the community. It must be resolved.</td> <td class="x122">We submit this comment to address a single issue of grave concern, one that, if left unaddressed could prevent a successful transition of the IANA function from occurring: the issue of the role of governments in any revised ICANN governance structure. Resolving that issue is critical to fulfillment of the NTIA’s requirement that the transition proposal not “replace[] the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution.” Id. ¶24. In our judgement the 2nd Draft Proposal does not go far enough in ensuring that governments remain unable to control ICANN. In particular, we have a significant concern that the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) would both get 5 votes as part of the new Sole Member (id. ¶¶ 319-33) and retain its current privileged status as an advisory committee that can oblige the Board to “try, in good faith” to find a mutually acceptable solution in the case of disagreement about GAC advice (id. §10.3, ¶¶ 609-26). In our view, this dual role for governments is unacceptable and would provide them enhanced authority within the post-transition ICANN. We strongly believe that an acceptable proposal must require the GAC to either choose to participate in the Sole Member or retain their privileged advisory role, but not have both opportunities to influence ICANN. In addition, the draft proposed Bylaw revision, id. ¶ 619, needs to be clarified to make it certain that the Board controls the definition of the quantum of agreement that constitutes consensus within the GAC that triggers the Board’s good faith negotiation obligation. It is also unacceptable to leave it within the power of the GAC to redefine consensus (which it is free to do for its own internal purposes) in a manner that binds the Board. We are deeply concerned that many governments see the IANA transition as an opportunity to enhance their role in management of the network. Efforts to delete Stress Test 18 in GAC and CCWG discussions cannot be interpreted as anything other than an attempt to remove an impediment to enhancing the authority of governments in a posttransition ICANN. The role of governments in the governance of the Internet is as contentious as it is vital to get right, and in our view ICANN must find a model by which governments act in an advisory capacity. This will induce responsibility, and allow different territories to weigh in on the governance of the Internet without allowing geopolitics to interfere with the stable, secure, and resilient operation of the online space. The Internet is a non-partisan space, and should remain so. Accordingly, we recommend the following:<br /> The Sole Member reference model should be revised to make clear that the GAC is entitled to join and participate and exercise its 5 votes if, and only if, the Bylaws are amended to delete the current final sentence of Article XI, section 2, clause j, viz. “[t]he Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.”<br /> In addition, and assuming that the GAC chooses not to join the Sole Member but rather seeks to retain its current advisory role, the proposed Bylaw revision (2nd Draft Proposal ¶ 619) should be further amended as follows (with the 2nd Draft proposal in bold and further proposed amendments in underlined italics): j: The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. With respect to Governmental Advisory Committee advice that is supported by consensus (a decision adopted by Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. This change would incorporate the current definition of consensus under GAC Operating Principle 472 into the Bylaws for the purposes of Article XI, Section 2, clause j. The GAC would remain free to redefine consensus as it sees fit or to provide non-consensus advice to the Board, but the Board would only be obligated to duly take into account and find a mutually acceptable solution when GAC advice is adopted by general agreement without objection as is currently the case under GAC principles.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">                                                                                                             </span> Finally, the community must resist with all of its power any effort to find an “enhanced” role for governments in ICANN’s governance. Since no formal proposal for such a role is presented in the 2nd Draft Proposal, we make no recommendation for a change or modification of the report. In light, however, of the publicly stated view of some nations that a greater role is desirable, it is imperative for the community to reaffirm its opposition to that idea in the strongest possible terms. In our view, unless these changes are made, the proposal would provide governments an enhanced authority within the post-transition ICANN and violate the NTIA’s requirement that the transition proposal not “replace[] the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution.”</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:289.8pt" id="r38"> <td class="x114" style="height:288.3pt">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x109">USCIB believes the GAC should continue to perform its advisory role on public policy issues to the ICANN Board. However, it is critical that the GAC provide such advice based on consensus. A numerical vote would deprive GAC advice of its current legitimacy. Thus, USCIB supports the proposed accountability measure @615-616, which would amend Article XI of ICANN Bylaws to require ICANN to find a mutually acceptable solution for GAC advice only where such advice is supported by GAC consensus. We believe this is consistent with the first Accountability and Transparency Review Team’s (ATRT) Recommendations pertaining to the GAC. The proposed accountability measures to Stress Test #18 also are appropriate and necessary to meet the requirement that the IANA transition not yield a government-led or intergovernmental replacement for NTIA’s current stewardship role. We further agree with the rationale used in assigning voting weights for the SOs and ACs as outlined<br />@319, in which the ASO, ccNSO, GNSO, At Large, and GAC communities each receive 5 votes, with the SSAC and RSSAC each receiving 2 votes. In terms of administration of the voting system, the straight forward “absolute thresholds” (@345-346) are preferable to a more complex formulation. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">USCIB believes the GAC should continue to perform its advisory role on public policy issues to the ICANN Board.</td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x113" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x120"></td> <td class="x120"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r39"> <td class="x177" style="height:16.65pt"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">9</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">7</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">14</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">22</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">14</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">4</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r40"> <td class="x177" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">25.00%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">19.44%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">38.89%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">61.11%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">38.89%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">11.11%</td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:145.5pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:510.75pt"></td> <td style="width:102pt"></td> <td style="width:108.75pt"></td> <td style="width:72pt"></td> <td style="width:74.25pt"></td> <td style="width:90pt"></td> <td style="width:72pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="13" data-sheet-name="Budget"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1731pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x64" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x57" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x53" span="3" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x53" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:115px"></col> <col class="x53" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x53" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:110px"></col> <col class="x53" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:117px"></col> <col style="width:61px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r0"> <td colspan="2" class="x285" style="border-right:2px solid windowtext;height:12.3pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">SUMMARY</a></td> <td class="x70" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:86.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:82.5pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:82.5pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.95pt" id="r1"> <td colspan="3" class="x275" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext;height:82.2pt">On the Power to veto the Budget, Operating, and Strategic Plans, comments were in support of the Power. However, many submissions expressed concern over the possibility of paralysis should the Budget be vetoed too often and too easily. 6 submissions specifically called for a maximum of 2 vetoes. In terms of protections of the Power, some submissions called for a higher voting threshold, a line item veto, or increased rationale in vetoing the budget. 2 submissions from the private sector suggested that the GNSO carry more weight in Budget decisions. Finally, 6 submissions expressed concern and lack of clarity regarding the interdependency between PTI and ICANN. </td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr class="x50" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69.6pt" id="r2"> <td class="x46" style="height:68.1pt">Budget</td> <td class="x47">Support areas</td> <td class="x47">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x47">Issue areas</td> <td class="x75">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x75">New Idea</td> <td class="x75">Concerns</td> <td class="x75">Agreement</td> <td class="x75">Disagreement</td> <td class="x75">Neutral</td> <td class="x76">Max. 2 vetoes?</td> <td class="x76">Line item veto?</td> <td class="x76">Protections for IANA Budget</td> <td class="x76">Higher threshold</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r3"> <td class="x36" style="height:122.7pt">AFRALO (African Regional At-Large Organization)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"Paragraph 378: We recommend that in no circumstance should overall budget veto be allowed but certain parts of the budget can be vetoed when necessary without delaying execution of the other parts.<br />We have big concerns about the rejection of budget items concerning a particular SO or AC by the community. We believe that the board who has the responsibility to balance the needs and priorities among the various ICANN constituencies should continue to do so."</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:193.2pt" id="r4"> <td class="x36" style="height:191.7pt">ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Given the apparent view of some community members that particular groups should have lesser status than others, it could follow that these groups should also be denied financial support. The Board is given the responsibility of balancing the various needs and priorities of the constituent parts of ICANN and should be given the discretion to do so. <br /><br />Request for additional clarity on what the budget enhancements will involve. <br /><br />Paragraph 381 leads off with “Accordingly, this new power would give the community…”. In fact, the appropriate lead words should be “If, despite an open and transparent process, the community’s direction is ignored, this new power would give the community…”. </td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r5"> <td class="x36" style="height:177.9pt">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">“[…] concerned that the CCWG’s proposal may not strike the right balance between oversight and efficiency. Under the current proposal, if the community vetoes the budget twice, the prior year’s budget is adopted. But over time, such an approach could render ICANN ineffective in accomplishing its core mission. For example, security and stability improvements may require additional resources to implement, and allowing salaries to stagnate for years at a time may impede ICANN’s ability to hire and retain key staff members. As such, the CCWG should consider a limit to the total number of consecutive vetoes that the community could adopt before it must resort to other methods of community empowerment, such as recalling board members or seeking independent review of board action.”</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r6"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">ccTLD France (afnic)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">refinements needed before final</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r7"> <td class="x36" style="height:95.1pt">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x54">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">PTI/IANA budget: "clarifying that in respect of the IANA Budget, the veto power being separate from ICANN’s budget is intended to mean that any veto of the ICANN Budget would not prevent ICANN funding increased or decreased IANA budget requirements. That is, even though the source of funds for the IANA budget is ICANN, the IANA budget is treated as a cost centre outside the ICANN budget for this purpose. "</td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r8"> <td class="x36" style="height:122.7pt">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x81">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Budget issues vs PTI: "Defining the PTI budget is the responsibility of the PTI Board working with its customers.  Hence the community right to veto the IANA budget should be very carefully defined to that this is at PTI level (eg, the PTI has not prepared a budget in line with customer expectations or requirements) or at the ICANN level should it refuse to provide the PTI with the resources it needed and which had been defined in a process with IANA customers.  Undefined dual accountability could cause confusion or lead to repeated challenges."</td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r9"> <td class="x36" style="height:122.7pt">CWG-Stewardship</td> <td class="x51">CWG reqs = yes: "The CWG-Stewardship acknowledges that the community’s ability to veto the ICANN Budget and/or the IANA Budget will meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements and that community approval is not required. [...] CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group) is required to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review; this process could also include the process to determine a caretaker budget if the IANA Budget is subject to a veto in the first year<br />following the transition. "</td> <td class="x51">Budget</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:345pt" id="r10"> <td class="x41" style="height:343.5pt">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x54">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">PTI/IANA budget (and relation to CWG requirements); "As per our interventions at the Paris meeting we suggest the following budget process:<br />1. PTI Formulates its budget for the next fiscal year using its internal processes<br />1.1. These processes will include detailed input from the ICANN staff members who sit on PTIs board and will be privy to the financial status of the parent entity at any given time<br />1.2. The independent directors on PTIs board will also be involved in this budget formulation process<br />1.3. Community input may be then solicited via the CSC or another PTI level mechanism to ensure that the community and the direct customers of the PTI have no concerns as to cost overruns or unnecessary spending as part of the next fiscal years budget for PTI<br />2. PTI budget is sent to the parent entity for approval, this approval should be automatic except in the case of extreme unexpected financial crisis in the parent entity in which case the budget may be returned to PTI for an emergency reconsideration process<br />3. ICANN is compelled via a binding agreement or other legal instrument to honour PTIs budget request<br />4. This process will be ring fenced and explicitly not subject to the ICANN budget veto and/or reconsideration process as suggested by the CCWG"</td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r11"> <td class="x39" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Edward Morris</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:331.2pt" id="r12"> <td class="x39" style="height:329.7pt">Erman Öncel - Partnership Istanbul</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"First of all, one may rightly argue that granting the community the power to veto strategic/operational plans and budgets of ICANN brings the risk of slowing down or impeding ICANN's decision making and executive processes. Since the community is comprised of numerous members from different groups, having these members convene and decide on important managerial or executive decisions may be very time consuming. Moreover, in order for entities to function and fulfill their purposes while maintaining transparency and accountability, a balance must be struck between the utilization of managerial/executive mechanisms and supervisory/accountability mechanisms. In that sense, granting the community the power to veto strategic/operational plans and budgets of ICANN may be considered as crossing the line towards interfering with the management rather than enhancing accountability.<br /> <br />In addition, if the decisions such as those relating to strategic/operational plans and budgets, which are very crucial for ICANN are adopted under the influence or by the interference of the community, it may then be difficult hold anyone responsible when the final decisions turn out to be wrong, since the community cannot be addressed as a pre-determined executive body. In such cases, the board of ICANN may refuse to assume any liability."</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:220.8pt" id="r13"> <td class="x36" style="height:219.3pt">Google</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"supports separate the IANA budget from the rest of ICANN’s budget <br /><br />However, we continue to believe that the ability of the community to veto ICANN’s strategic plan and budget should be limited. Put simply, we do not believe that the community mechanism should be able to veto the strategic plan and budget over multiple iterations. An infinite number of vetoes can render an organization unable to carry out its mission, and the global multistakeholder community cannot afford such organizational paralysis. <br /><br />We also believe that similar ends could be achieved if, as part of Work Stream 2, the CCWG put in place mechanisms to enhance transparency and community involvement in the process of developing the ICANN budget before it is approved by the ICANN Board."</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr class="x64" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r14"> <td class="x36" style="height:177.9pt">Government of the United Kingdom</td> <td class="x51">“[…] would be undertaken only when absolutely necessary, with full community support, after all other existing procedures have been exhausted, and with the aim of addressing and correcting any fundamental failure at the core of the organisation or to prevent any manifest risk of capture of policy development for specific commercial or other advantage. <br /><br />“[…] needs to be rigorous safeguards and provision of contingency mechanisms to ensure that the exercise of these powers do not undermine the effectiveness of the organisation by creating an extent of institutional and functional paralysis which could substantially put at risk the coordination, management and stability of the domain name system.”</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x172"></td> <td class="x173"></td> <td class="x173" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x173" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x173"></td> <td class="x173"></td> <td class="x173"></td> <td class="x173"></td> <td class="x173"></td> <td class="x173"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:220.8pt" id="r15"> <td class="x36" style="height:219.3pt">i2Coalition (Internet Infrastructure Coalition)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Concerns on rationale, number of vetoes permitted, and voting weight: "Vetoes of the budget and strategic plan should not be open-ended.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Unless the veto itself is supported by consensus, it seems unlikely that the community will be able to develop a consensus rationale. Instead, the rationale should be agreed upon by a consensus of those voting in support of the veto. The i2Coalition is also concerned with the possibility of a cyclical and dysfunctional budget process in which the community repeatedly vetoes Board approved budgets. We therefore believe that no additional vetoes should be permitted after the second veto. <br />[...] The i2Coalition encourages the CCWG to modify the voting criteria for a budget veto, giving additional weight to GNSO votes, on the practical grounds that it is this group that generates the revenue in the budget, and this group that will be responsible for bearing the cost of any budget increases, through an expansion of their fees" </td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:276pt" id="r16"> <td class="x36" style="height:274.5pt">IAB (Internet Architecture Board)</td> <td class="x51">IAB understands and supports the community requirement for budgetary review, we believe that the proposed mechanism presents a potential operational problem</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">We therefore suggest an amendment of ¶382 of the proposal. The concern could be addressed by two additional sentences: "In the event that the overall ICANN budget were to be vetoed, while the IANA Budget were approved, the ICANN caretaker budget would automatically be adjusted if necessary to include any increase in the required IANA Budget. Funds necessary from ICANN for the IANA Budget (whether under a caretaker budget for IANA or under a fully-approved IANA Budget, as appropriate) would not, under any circumstances, be withheld from the IANA Functions Operator due to a lack of a budget for ICANN."<br /><span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">        </span><br />As an alternative, the IAB suggests that the community review of the IANA budget be conducted via review of the contract between ICANN and the IFO. That review would be conducted whenever an IFO contract is set, amended, or renewed. We further suggest that such contract review also include both the numbers community and protocol parameters community, since each is responsible for aspects of IANA work, regardless of whether it is delivered by directly by ICANN or indirectly through a subcontractor.</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r17"> <td class="x36" style="height:408pt">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x51">The Board supports the community’s requirement for additional and formalized involvement in the processes to develop Budgets, Operating and Strategic Plans, and having a strong voice in raising objections against any proposed final Budget or Plan that does not duly take community consideration into account. The Board agrees with enshrining the community input process on Budget/Operating/Strategic plan developments into the Bylaws. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">However the Board does not support the CCWG-Accountability’s proposed process. The Board proposes that, after a robust community input process on the annual budget and on the Annual Operating Plan, the community should have a maximum of two opportunities to raise a collective concern and tell the Board that a Budget should not go through, initiating a consultation requirement to see if the community concern can be addressed.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The process would be similar to situations where the Board has determined that it needs to act inconsistently with GAC Advice: The Board would engage in a consultation with the community to attempt to resolve the area of disagreement. In the event the Budget cannot be adjusted to take into account the community’s view, the Board may proceed to approve a Budget. The budget accepted over that community concern may not include new, substantial items not accepted by the community, and may not represent an increase of more than 10% over the previous year’s Budget (taking into account any inflation at the time). This would allow ICANN to continue its operations with Budgets/Plans more appropriately allocated for its current operating/fiscal year than would be possible under a requirement that ICANN simply maintain an historical Budget/Plan. The Board may also approve long-term Operating Plans and Strategic Plans through this consultation method, however the Board agrees with the CCWG-Accountability proposal that those long-term planning documents should be developed jointly and with more time built into the process to provide for plans that are supported by the community. The Board must provide reasons in the global public interest for not accepting the community’s view. In the event the Board fails to abide by these processes, or the community believes that the Board has taken a decision in these areas that is inconsistent with the Mission and Core Values, the MEM will provide binding arbitration over that issue.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>In addition, the community will have the ability to remove individual Board Directors or recall the Board.</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r18"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">IGP (Internet Governance Project)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r19"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">Intel</td> <td class="x51">General support: "we strongly support the power to reconsider or reject the budget and strategic operating plans. The “power of the purse” can be a key element in holding executive bodies accountable."</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:193.2pt" id="r20"> <td class="x39" style="height:191.7pt">Internet Association </td> <td class="x54">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">“Unless the veto itself was supported by consensus - a threshold that is not required- it seems unlikely that the community would be able to develop a consensus rationale. Instead, the rationale should be agreed upon by a consensus of those voting in support of the veto. <br /><br />“Concerned about the possibility of a cyclical and dysfunctional budget process in which the community repeatedly vetoes Board-approved budgets. We therefore believe that no additional vetoes should be permitted after the second veto. The community would then be free to avail itself of other mechanisms, including reconsideration, Independent Review, and recall of individual Board members in order to ensure that the Board considers the community’s wishes in developing a budget and strategic plan.” </td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r21"> <td class="x36" style="height:50.7pt">ITI (Information Technology Industry Council)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r22"> <td class="x36" style="height:95.1pt">Linda Breucker</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">* In 388 it is stated that "no limit is proposed to the number of times<br />the community can veto a strategic plan". Nevertheless in 391 there are<br />only thresholds given regarding the first and second veto. What support<br />will be needed for the later vetoes?</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r23"> <td class="x36" style="height:67.5pt">LINX (London Internet Exchange)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"We reiterate our previous doubts (from the first public comment) about the value or effectiveness of the power to reconsider/reject the Budget and Strategic/Operating Plans, but we are not strongly opposed to this power as designed. We would be opposed to greatly strengthening it."</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r24"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">RySG (Registries Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">"Fees from gTLD registrants fund over 95% of ICANN’s revenue and this fact should be taken into consideration when defining voting rights relating to budgets and strategic plans. A possible example: GNSO concurrence required on such matters"</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r25"> <td class="x231" style="height:178.65pt">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x194">N/A</td> <td class="x194">N/A</td> <td class="x194">disagrees with power to veto a budget more than twice: "We note that the community’s rejection of an ICANN budget would require the corporation to operate under a previously approved budget. We support the higher threshold (75 percent) for the community to exercise a possible second veto. This would discourage multiple vetoes that would have the effect of “freezing” the ICANN budget at levels of earlier fiscal years, which may be insufficient to address the corporation’s evolving needs. As we noted<br />in our prior comments, USCIB is concerned that such a sustained rejection of ICANN budgets would neither be efficient nor effective. For this reason, we believe that the Community should not have the<br />power to veto a particular budget more than twice."</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x225" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r26"> <td class="x232" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x233"></td> <td class="x233"></td> <td class="x233"></td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">6</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">3</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">12</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">10</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">3</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">6</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">6</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x225" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r27"> <td class="x232" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x233"></td> <td class="x233"></td> <td class="x233"></td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">26.09%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">13.04%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">52.17%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">43.48%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">13.04%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">4.35%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">26.09%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">4.35%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">26.09%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">4.35%</td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:86.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:82.5pt"></td> <td style="width:82.5pt"></td> <td style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="14" data-sheet-name="Standard Bylaw"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1431pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x44" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x32" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x32" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x32" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x30" span="4" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x21" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:113px"></col> <col class="x21" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.05pt" id="r0"> <td colspan="2" class="x278" style="border-right:2px solid #000000;height:11.55pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">SUMMARY</a></td> <td class="x32" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x32" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x30" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x30" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x30" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x30" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x21" style="width:84.75pt"></td> <td class="x21" style="width:77.25pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:37.95pt" id="r1"> <td colspan="3" class="x275" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext;height:37.2pt">On the Power to approve/veto standard Bylaws, there is broad support. The only concern expressed was regarding possible deadlock in process to change bylaws (ELIG). </td> <td class="x32"></td> <td class="x30"></td> <td class="x30"></td> <td class="x30"></td> <td class="x30"></td> <td class="x21"></td> <td class="x21"></td> </tr> <tr class="x23" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:36pt" id="r2"> <td class="x33" style="height:34.5pt">Standard Bylaws</td> <td class="x34">Support areas</td> <td class="x34">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x34">Issue areas</td> <td class="x71">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x71">New Idea</td> <td class="x71">Concerns</td> <td class="x71">Agreement</td> <td class="x71">Disagreement</td> <td class="x71">Neutral</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r3"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x37">General support</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x72"></td> <td class="x72"></td> <td class="x72"></td> <td class="x72" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x73"></td> <td class="x73"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r4"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">ccTLD France (afnic)</td> <td class="x37">General support</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x72"></td> <td class="x72"></td> <td class="x72"></td> <td class="x72" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x73"></td> <td class="x73"></td> </tr> <tr class="x30" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r5"> <td class="x39" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Edward Morris</td> <td class="x37">General support</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x74"></td> <td class="x74"></td> <td class="x74"></td> <td class="x74" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x74"></td> <td class="x74"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.8pt" id="r6"> <td class="x36" style="height:54.3pt">ELIG</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">Deadlocks in changing bylaws or fundamental Bylaqws may require stress test: "We believe that it would be helpful to also explain the details of the legislation procedures in case of a deadlock during the amendment/enactment of a bylaw."</td> <td class="x72" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x72"></td> <td class="x72" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x72" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x73"></td> <td class="x73"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69.6pt" id="r7"> <td class="x36" style="height:68.1pt">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x37">Agreed.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The Board should not be instituting Bylaws changes that are not supported by the community. The community threshold to demonstrate an objection to a Bylaws change needs to be agreed upon, using the current SO/AC structure as opposed to the voting mechanism proposed in the CCWG-Accountability Proposal.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x40">N/A</td> <td class="x72"></td> <td class="x72"></td> <td class="x72"></td> <td class="x72" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x73"></td> <td class="x73"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.45pt" id="r8"> <td class="x36" style="height:13.95pt">ITI (Information Technology Industry Council)</td> <td class="x37">supports community powers</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x74"></td> <td class="x74"></td> <td class="x74"></td> <td class="x74" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x73"></td> <td class="x73"></td> </tr> <tr class="x30" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r9"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">LINX (London Internet Exchange)</td> <td class="x37">General support</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x74"></td> <td class="x74"></td> <td class="x74"></td> <td class="x74" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x74"></td> <td class="x74"></td> </tr> <tr class="x30" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r10"> <td class="x231" style="height:34.05pt">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x234">General support</td> <td class="x234">N/A</td> <td class="x234">N/A</td> <td class="x74"></td> <td class="x74"></td> <td class="x74"></td> <td class="x74" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x74"></td> <td class="x74"></td> </tr> <tr class="x228" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r11"> <td class="x235" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x236"></td> <td class="x236"></td> <td class="x236"></td> <td class="x227" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x227" style="text-align:right">0</td> <td class="x227" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x227" style="text-align:right">8</td> <td class="x227" style="text-align:right">0</td> <td class="x227" style="text-align:right">0</td> </tr> <tr class="x228" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r12"> <td class="x235" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x236"></td> <td class="x236"></td> <td class="x236"></td> <td class="x229" style="text-align:right">12.50%</td> <td class="x229" style="text-align:right">0.00%</td> <td class="x229" style="text-align:right">12.50%</td> <td class="x229" style="text-align:right">100.00%</td> <td class="x229" style="text-align:right">0.00%</td> <td class="x229" style="text-align:right">0.00%</td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:84.75pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="15" data-sheet-name="Remove Individual Directors"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1793pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x64" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x57" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x53" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x53" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:113px"></col> <col class="x53" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x53" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:108px"></col> <col class="x53" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col style="width:61px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.05pt" id="r0"> <td colspan="2" class="x278" style="border-right:2px solid #000000;height:11.55pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">SUMMARY</a></td> <td class="x70" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:84.75pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:81pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:81pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:142.95pt" id="r1"> <td colspan="3" class="x275" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext;height:142.2pt">On the Power to remove individual Board Directors, there is strong support with 10 submissions in agreement. The concerns centered around the question of who is able to remove directors: the community mechanism or the appointing SO or AC? Should the appointing SO or AC have this power, some comments expressed concern that Board members would be encouraged to perform in favor of the SO or AC (as opposed to the public interest) in order to maintain their appointed seats. At the same time, comments were concerned about another entity or group removing a Director appointed by a particular community. In the case of NomCom, comments indicated either that NomCom appointees be removed through the community mechanism, or that they not be removed at all since this would compromise their purpose and independence. Submissions were also interested and concerned about the details of the process to remove individual directors, including standards, statements, and rebuttal rights. Comments favored the inclusion of a rebuttal right for the Board member before he/she is removed. At the same time, ALAC suggested that each Board member be required to sign a waiver or statement indicating that they remove their rights to appeal, claim unfairness from the Ombudsman, and legal rights regarding libel, slander, or defamation.</td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr class="x50" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:36pt" id="r2"> <td class="x46" style="height:34.5pt">Remove Individual Directors</td> <td class="x47">Support areas</td> <td class="x47">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x47">Issue areas</td> <td class="x75">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x75">New Idea</td> <td class="x75">Concerns</td> <td class="x75">Agreement</td> <td class="x75">Disagreement</td> <td class="x75">Neutral</td> <td class="x76">SO/AC? </td> <td class="x76">Community Mechanism?</td> <td class="x76">Statement/letter/waiver?</td> <td class="x76">Rebuttal right?</td> <td class="x76">Standards?</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:234.6pt" id="r3"> <td class="x36" style="height:233.1pt">AFRALO (African Regional At-Large Organization)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51"> "Paragraph 406-407: Removal of individual ICANN Board Directors: We reiterate our concern about the appointing SO/AC being the sole remover of the director, which will make the Board directors more focused on the narrow interest of the SO or AC that appointed them than on the global public interest and the interest of the organization as a whole. The discussion in the community forum prior to the decision of removal, with the obligation for the considered SO or AC to explain why they want to remove the director and the ability for the considered Director to defend him/herself is a great improvement that made us accept to live with the proposal. Absent this discussion with all its details in the final proposal, or considering it as an informal or optional process, AFRALO will strongly object to this power exercise. We propose that a director removed 8 months prior to the end of his/her term is not replaced because if we add a minimum of 3 months adaptation for the replacement director to the selection period (several months), we will reach the end of his/her term."</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x86" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r4"> <td class="x36" style="height:122.7pt">ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">"Paragraph 407: The At-Large Community supports the concept of removing individual SO/AC appointed Board members, but is divided over whether this power should be vested in the appointing SO/AC or in the Community Mechanism as a Sole Member." </td> <td class="x51">"Paragraph 407 and 409: The process should be adjusted to allow for parallel removal of multiple directors without having to convene the ICANN Community Forum multiple times."<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">    </span>Also, "there must be an explicit statement (and perhaps waiver from each director) that there is no right to appeal, no right to claim unfairness to the Ombudsman, and no legal right related to libel, slander or defamation."</td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r5"> <td class="x36" style="height:95.1pt">Brian Carpenter</td> <td class="x51">“I like the IAB's suggestion that the communities that currently appoint ICANN Board members should all have a straightforward recall mechanism (and probably some of them should use it). That alone would be a big step forward and could be done in a month, quite separately from any discussion of the transition. Not only would it enhance community control of the Board, it would also provide indirect community control of the by-laws at no extra cost.”</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r6"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r7"> <td class="x39" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">refinements needed for powers</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r8"> <td class="x36" style="height:122.7pt">Christopher Wilkinson</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Clarify power to recall individual directors including diversity: "inappropriate that SO/ACs could initiate the removal of a Director appointed by NomCom with whom they disagree. That would fundamentally prejudice the independence of the NomCom appointees and the economic and political balances within ICANN. - more generally, it would appear that the CCWG proposal fails to ensure that the underlying geographic and gender balances in the Board would be maintained and enhanced, notably in the context of recalling Directors.</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r9"> <td class="x41" style="height:81.3pt">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x54">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">"Support the power to remove individually AC/SO appointed directors without interference support the ability of the CMSM to act as the designator for the NomCom appointees, we believe that this provides a logical and balanced solution to the issue of complexity around the removal of Directors appointed by the NomCom."</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r10"> <td class="x39" style="height:12.3pt">Edward Morris</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r11"> <td class="x39" style="height:26.1pt">Government of Kuwait</td> <td class="x51">"We support the right of a community to have the power to end the term of a director it appointed and reappoint another."</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r12"> <td class="x36" style="height:177.9pt">Government of the United Kingdom</td> <td class="x51">“[…] would be undertaken only when absolutely necessary, with full community support, after all other existing procedures have been exhausted, and with the aim of addressing and correcting any fundamental failure at the core of the organisation or to prevent any manifest risk of capture of policy development for specific commercial or other advantage. <br /><br />“[…] needs to be rigorous safeguards and provision of contingency mechanisms to ensure that the exercise of these powers do not undermine the effectiveness of the organisation by creating an extent of institutional and functional paralysis which could substantially put at risk the coordination, management and stability of the domain name system.”</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">“We also strongly recommend that the process for advancing petitions for the removal of individual Board members should provide for the opportunity for the Board members concerned to defend their performance and record in appropriate due process.”</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:386.4pt" id="r13"> <td class="x36" style="height:384.9pt">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x51">The ICANN Board supports a Community Mechanism to remove individual Directors. We believe that there should be intermediate steps or options available and recommended the development of tiered sanctions for continuous violations. With regards to Board Member ‘due process’, the Board agrees on the need for some level of right to reply from the Director, including the ability to confront those seeking removal. The process proposed by the CCWG-Accountability is a good starting point, including a lapse in the petition if a vote does not take place in a timely fashion.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We further suggest the consideration of developing interim measures prior to removal, as it may be worth considering whether removal is always the appropriate step.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Tiered sanctions could be developed for continuous violations. The Board supports the CCWG-Accountability Proposal that there should not be a call for removal of any individual Director more than once in the same term. If there is a path to tiered sanctions, the limitation may need to be reconstructed to allow sanctions to be imposed.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">We believe that there should be intermediate steps or options available and recommended the development of tiered sanctions for continuous violations. The Board strongly supports the development of standards of behavior for Board Directors and notes that such standards have already been developed by the Board Governance Committee. The Board suggests the development of pre-service letters to be signed as a condition of serving on the ICANN Board. These letters would indicate cause for removal from the Board upon the occurrence of specific events, including: - Serious violations of governance standard, including statutory causes for removal (such as fraud). - Refusal to abide by the processes set forth to enable new community empowerment areas. - Failure to abide by outcome of Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism. This would be a singular process, with no differentiation as to the appointing body. Thresholds for petitioning for individual Director removal pursuant to the pre-service letter could be as indicated in the CCWG-Accountability Proposal for NomCom Directors (2 SO or ACs to petition/75% of all SO/ACs to remove).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The petitioning groups should state publicly and within the petition the grounds for seeking removal. With the development of the pre-service letters, the Board would no longer have the ability to remove individual Directors without cause. The Board would also be limited by the pre-service letters in initiating Board member removal, and the Board’s existing governance documentation could still serve as guide for identifying when pre-service letter process could be initiated by the Board. This upholds the Board’s role in maintaining high governance standards amongst Directors.</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r14"> <td class="x36" style="height:67.5pt">ISPCP (Internet Services Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"ISPCP suggests a more collective approach where directors appointed by an SO or At-Large community could be removed through a petition process by any SO or AC and a vote by SOs and ACs participating in the Community Mechanism as sole member."</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r15"> <td class="x36" style="height:50.7pt">ITI (Information Technology Industry Council)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r16"> <td class="x39" style="height:177.9pt">Linda Breucker</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">* Regarding 407 number 7 (see also 409 no. 7, ): "No new call to<br />consider the removal of that same director can be made during the term<br />they are serving on the Board following a vote to remove them failing or<br />no decision being<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>made". This would grant immunity to such Board<br />members which might foster (further) wrongdoing by this director. It<br />needs to be considered what happens if there are any new serious<br />difficulties that arrive with that particular Director within the term. Paragraph * 429, 430: I do not agree with this minority viewpoint.</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x86" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r17"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">LINX (London Internet Exchange)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r18"> <td class="x36" style="height:53.7pt">Nell Minow (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">"We have extensive and details goals, principles, and deadlines but we do not have clear consequences for failure to meet them. There is a labyrinthine and cumbersome process for removing or replacing members of the board"</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r19"> <td class="x231" style="height:34.05pt">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x194">General support</td> <td class="x194">N/A</td> <td class="x194">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x225" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r20"> <td class="x232" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x233"></td> <td class="x233"></td> <td class="x233"></td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">2</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">3</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">10</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">6</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">3</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">2</td> <td class="x224" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x225" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r21"> <td class="x232" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x233"></td> <td class="x233"></td> <td class="x233"></td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">5.88%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">11.76%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">17.65%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">58.82%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">5.88%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">5.88%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">35.29%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">17.65%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">5.88%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">11.76%</td> <td class="x226" style="text-align:right">5.88%</td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:84.75pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:81pt"></td> <td style="width:81pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="16" data-sheet-name="Recall Board"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1737pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x64" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x57" span="4" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x53" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:117px"></col> <col class="x53" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x53" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:184px"></col> <col class="x53" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:110px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.05pt" id="r0"> <td colspan="2" class="x278" style="border-right:2px solid #000000;height:11.55pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">SUMMARY</a></td> <td class="x70" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:138pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:82.5pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:82.5pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:76.05pt" id="r1"> <td colspan="3" class="x275" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext;height:75.3pt">On the Power to recall the full Board, just under half of the comments supported this power. Commenters expressed concern about the threshold and standards required to remove the Board, as well as the standards and requirements for the appointment of an Interim Board. Specially, there were 7 comments on the question of Board removal by a single SO (a minority view in the proposal), and 6 of those comments very clearly rejected this idea. Finally, 2 comments suggested that community standards for the Board be developed in WS2, possibly indicating that the development of this power be put on hold until then as well. </td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr class="x50" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69.6pt" id="r2"> <td class="x46" style="height:68.1pt">Recall ICANN Board</td> <td class="x47">Support areas</td> <td class="x47">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x47">Issue areas</td> <td class="x75">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x75">New Idea</td> <td class="x75">Concerns</td> <td class="x75">Agreement</td> <td class="x75">Disagreement</td> <td class="x75">Neutral</td> <td class="x76">Removal of the Board by a single SO</td> <td class="x76">High Threshold</td> <td class="x174">Standard</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r3"> <td class="x36" style="height:108.9pt">ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x51">General support (prefers invididual removal over full recall)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Paragraph 424, bullet 1: The ALAC is concerned that some SO/ACs and the Nominating Committee may not be able to identify replacement Board members within the 120-day limit prescribed in the proposal. 120 days is a reasonable target, but stating as an absolute maximum without any way to enforce it makes little sense. Paragraph 429-430 Removal of the Board by a single SO: The ALAC rejects the minority view that a single SO be allowed to remove the entire Board.</td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x86" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r4"> <td class="x36" style="height:50.7pt">AFRALO (African Regional At-Large Organization)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Paragraph 415: We think that to recall the Entire ICANN Board, at-least one SO and one AC should be required to sign a petition to trigger the process.</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r5"> <td class="x36" style="height:33.3pt">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r6"> <td class="x39" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">refinements needed for powers;</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r7"> <td class="x36" style="height:136.5pt">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Recall Board (timing issues, repeat issues): "we are pleased that the current draft acknowledges the extreme nature of recalling the entire Board (paragraph 414) and the intention to develop community standards for Board members in WS2 (paragraph 413).  However, for a recall of the entire Board, very tight deadlines for discussion could open the process to capture:  for such a serious step, time limits could be set in the light of how much community discussion had already taken place, perhaps also invoking the Community Forum prior to the formal process being launched."</td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:193.2pt" id="r8"> <td class="x41" style="height:191.7pt">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x54">Supportf for Board removal (in interim Board, diversity requirements can be waived for better governance expertise); : "Support the power to remove the entire ICANN board as an option of last resort for the community. We support that due to the likely chaotic nature of the ICANN ecosystem at the time of such an action the normal standards of diversity may be temporarily suspended with regards to the selection of Directors for the interim board. Respectfully at a time of great unrest it will be critical to select Directors with the deepest technical and governance abilities above all other criteria in order to preserve the Security and Stability of the DNS in such an instance. As part of the Work Stream 2 effort we suggest that an enhanced set of Director selection standards be developed to assist in guiding the selection of interim Directors in the case of Board recall."</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">N/A</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r9"> <td class="x39" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Edward Morris</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x81">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r10"> <td class="x39" style="height:33.3pt">Erman Öncel - Partnership Istanbul</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Does not support Board recall: "we think the authority to call entire ICANN Board goes beyond purpose"</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r11"> <td class="x36" style="height:122.7pt">Google</td> <td class="x81">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Does not support Board recall, but " if the CCWG moves forward with a proposal to include a community power to recall the entire Board, any recall should have widespread community agreement. In particular, the CCWG should reject the minority view suggesting that “each of the three SOs should be able to exercise the power to recall the entire Board individually.” Allowing any single Supporting Organization to recall the entire ICANN Board would be profoundly and needlessly destabilizing, and Google could not support such a proposal."</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x86" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x175" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r12"> <td class="x39" style="height:150.3pt">Government of Kuwait</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">We do not support the right of the community to recall the entire ICANN board. The report is not clear on what justifications or grounds related to accountability that may trigger such action. The community can press the removal of a board member in case of misconduct or conflict of interest but the removal of the entire board is a disruptive process. […] Without a clear justification of why to give this power to the community, The removal of the entire ICANN board is risky and may occur because of a view disagreement between the board and the community that is not necessary related to accountability issues. Eventually such a power can lead to the hijack of ICANN as an organization. </td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x78" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x175" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r13"> <td class="x36" style="height:177.9pt">Government of United Kingdom</td> <td class="x51">“[…] would be undertaken only when absolutely necessary, with full community support, after all other existing procedures have been exhausted, and with the aim of addressing and correcting any fundamental failure at the core of the organisation or to prevent any manifest risk of capture of policy development for specific commercial or other advantage. <br /><br />“[…] needs to be rigorous safeguards and provision of contingency mechanisms to ensure that the exercise of these powers do not undermine the effectiveness of the organisation by creating an extent of institutional and functional paralysis which could substantially put at risk the coordination, management and stability of the domain name system.”</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x81">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x80" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r14"> <td class="x36" style="height:81.3pt">i2Coalition (Internet Infrastructure Coalition)</td> <td class="x81">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">A single SO should not be permitted recall the entire Board. The CCWG’s proposal notes a minority viewpoint suggesting that a single SO should be permitted to recall the entire Board. Such an action would be deeply destabilizing. A true multistakeholder approach to accountability should require more than one single community to exercise this emergency power. </td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x86" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:345pt" id="r15"> <td class="x36" style="height:343.5pt">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x81">We agree that the community should have a right to remove every voting director in extraordinary circumstances.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>[…] The Board agrees with the CCWG-Accountability’s concept of a rigorous process and threshold for the recall of the entire Board</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The Board notes that the availability of the pre-service letters […] gives a path to voting each individual Director out of their position. There is nothing to stop those 15 votes from happening concurrently. The Board agrees with the CCWG-Accountability’s concept of a rigorous process and threshold for the recall of the entire Board.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>As the removal of a majority of the Board at one time would be a very significant event for the credibility of the organization, the Board suggests that the removal of 8 or more Directors should be subject to the more rigorous thresholds proposed by the CCWG-Accountability for the removal of the entire Board. The Board recognizes the need for a swift mechanism for seating of the Interim Board, and believes framework of the proposed approach is workable. However, the crisis situation that would be reached if the entire Board were unseated at the same time should be met with an insistence upon some key criteria, such as, a high level of independence and professionalism among the Interim Board, and the insistence on operational core competencies such as in finance, risk, audit and governance. There should also be an important role for those familiar with the work of ICANN, but that should not predominate. At no time should the Board not meet the regulatory aspirations of a predominance of independent Directors. The Board notes that the development of a unified, objective removal process across all Directors helps reduce the potential for the Board to become more of a representational entity serving individualized interests.</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r16"> <td class="x39" style="height:122.7pt">Internet Association </td> <td class="x54">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">“The power to remove the ICANN Board as a whole could have a potentially destabilizing effect on the Internet ecosystem. Therefore, any recall should have widespread community agreement.”<br /><br />“In particular, the CCWG should reject the report’s minority view… Allowing any single SO to recall the entire ICANN board would be profoundly destabilizing, and the Internet Association could not support such a proposal.”</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x77" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x86" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x175" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r17"> <td class="x36" style="height:150.3pt">IT Law Institute - Istanbul</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Serious concerns - Details issues with recall of the Board, sole membership model, balance between ICANN communities: "- That competence is blurred and must be clarified in which matters and circumstances would the community request to recall<br />- Recall competence does not compromise with the nature of multistakeholder model. It gives only the community super power and excluding other stakeholder. It breaks the balance in terms of equality of rights of all stakeholders. Each stakeholder would like to say something about the Board decisions. Giving that power just one of the stakeholders, renders the logic of multistakeholder model meaningsless"</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r18"> <td class="x36" style="height:50.7pt">ITI (Information Technology Industry Council)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r19"> <td class="x39" style="height:136.5pt">Linda Breucker</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x81">* 415, 423: What requirements need to be met by this Interim Board?<br />What happens if the SOs and ACs can not agree on directors (Hence, no<br />notice which includes a signed statement from the candidate(s) of their<br />willingness to serve and any other information that the Bylaws require<br />Board candidates to provide prior to election would be given)? Paragraph * 429, 430: I do not agree with this minority viewpoint.</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x86" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r20"> <td class="x36" style="height:67.5pt">LINX (London Internet Exchange)</td> <td class="x51">Supports power to remove Board</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x81">"We reiterate our previously stated concerns about the implementation of the power to dismiss the Board. We support the Minority View within the CCWG that regards as highly destabilising the continuation in office of a Board that has survived an attempt to unseat it by an entire SO."</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x175" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r21"> <td class="x36" style="height:67.5pt">Nell Minow (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">concerns with power to remove Board members; ""We have extensive and details goals, principles, and deadlines but we do not have clear consequences for failure to meet them. There is a labyrinthine and cumbersome process for removing or replacing members of the board"</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r22"> <td class="x36" style="height:15.899999999999999pt">Public Knowledge</td> <td class="x51">General support</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x81">Establish standards for Board removal in WS2</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r23"> <td class="x231" style="height:109.65pt">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x194">Supports powers</td> <td class="x194">N/A</td> <td class="x194">supports higher threshold for Board recall; "we support an even higher threshold of 80 percent for this action. In particular, the CCWG should reject the minority view suggesting that “each of the three SOs should be able to exercise the power to recall the entire Board individually.”2 Allowing any single Supporting Organization to recall the entire ICANN Board would be profoundly destabilizing, and adopting such a proposal is needlessly risky."</td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x79"></td> <td class="x86" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x175" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x79"></td> </tr> <tr class="x219" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r24"> <td class="x237" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x217"></td> <td class="x217"></td> <td class="x217"></td> <td class="x222" style="text-align:right">3</td> <td class="x222" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x222" style="text-align:right">10</td> <td class="x222" style="text-align:right">6</td> <td class="x222" style="text-align:right">5</td> <td class="x222" style="text-align:right">0</td> <td class="x222" style="text-align:right">7</td> <td class="x222" style="text-align:right">4</td> <td class="x222" style="text-align:right">3</td> </tr> <tr class="x219" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r25"> <td class="x237" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x217"></td> <td class="x217"></td> <td class="x217"></td> <td class="x223" style="text-align:right">14.29%</td> <td class="x223" style="text-align:right">4.76%</td> <td class="x223" style="text-align:right">47.62%</td> <td class="x223" style="text-align:right">28.57%</td> <td class="x223" style="text-align:right">23.81%</td> <td class="x223" style="text-align:right">0.00%</td> <td class="x223" style="text-align:right">33.33%</td> <td class="x223" style="text-align:right">19.05%</td> <td class="x223" style="text-align:right">14.29%</td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:138pt"></td> <td style="width:82.5pt"></td> <td style="width:82.5pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="17" data-sheet-name="AOC"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1485pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x127" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:175px"></col> <col class="x127" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:334px"></col> <col class="x127" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:175px"></col> <col class="x127" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:484px"></col> <col class="x127" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:107px"></col> <col class="x127" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:142px"></col> <col class="x127" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:93px"></col> <col class="x127" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:99px"></col> <col class="x127" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:113px"></col> <col class="x127" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:75px"></col> <col class="x127" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:108px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr class="x103" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r0"> <td colspan="2" class="x281" style="border-right:2px solid windowtext;height:12.3pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">SUMMARY</a></td> <td class="x103" style="width:131.25pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:363pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:80.25pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:106.5pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:69.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:74.25pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:84.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:56.25pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:56.25pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:81pt"></td> </tr> <tr class="x103" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:379.05pt" id="r1"> <td colspan="3" class="x283" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext;height:378.3pt">On AOC provisions/principles - Contributors voiced a set of concerns on AoC principles which includes: 1) Section 8 b has not been made a Fundamantal Bylaw; 2) Section 7 was omitted. Clarification is being sought on why section 7 is omitted from the list of “relevant ICANN commitments” that would be enshrined in the ICANN Bylaws: are the commitments covered elsewhere?<br /><br />On AOC reviews: The following concerns were voiced: 1) Expanding scope of ATRT could place unreasonable burden on them; 2) Giving the ATRT review the power to abolish any of the reviews to which ICANN committed in the AoC is concerning. The fact that public comment would be allowed on such a recommendation provides a very weak safeguard; and the fact that the “subsequent Bylaws change would be subject to IRP challenge” offers little comfort, given the limited grounds on which that enhanced accountability mechanism can be invoked; 3) The proposed composition of Review Teams would represent a drastic reduction in representation from the status quo; 4) Review teams composition needs to be rethought to remedy for affected constituencies from the process. Composition system may dilute GNSO influence; 6) Number of reviews may be burdensome; 7) Scope of WHOIS review should allow for evolution; 8)<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>On action on Review Team Recommendations, the bylaws provision should retain the AOC requirement that the Board act upon recommendations of the review teams within a time certain, not that it should simply “consider” doing so. The following suggestions were made: 1) Add a<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>provision to document the level of support for the review team proposals. This double-scale disclosure of the level of support of a proposal, both in the RT and in the community, should be displayed to maximize the transparency, avoid capture and ensure that the community input is duly and fairly taken into account; 2) Adjust section on WHOIS RT to not limit wording; 3) Encourage an initial review no later than three years after the termination of the AoC, looking at progress in implementing reforms; 4) Document how community input was considered; 5) Coordinate with staff working on a review standardization effort is needed to develop documentation to address review administrative review considerations; 6) While the idea of being able to sunset and introduce new reviews is necessary, consideration of their future use should be included; 7) The community should consider how to identify future reviews and agree upon scope. Clarification is deemed needed on the following: 1) Selection/composition of Review Teams; 2) Recommendations put forth by the CCWG should not affect any AoC reviews currently in process, and that any such reviews slated to begin in the next calendar year not be halted or otherwise affected by the CCWG-Accountability process ; 3) Clarify whether community stakeholder groups and constituencies appoint.<br /> </td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r2"> <td class="x104" style="height:50.7pt">AoC</td> <td class="x125">Support areas</td> <td class="x125">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x125">Issue areas</td> <td class="x125">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x125">New Idea/Suggestion</td> <td class="x125">Concerns</td> <td class="x125">Agreement</td> <td class="x125">Diagreement</td> <td class="x125">Neutral</td> <td class="x126">Reviews</td> <td class="x126">Principles</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:238.05pt" id="r3"> <td class="x128" style="height:236.55pt">ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x129">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x129">Although the ATRT is a possible place to perform diversity reviews, some past ATRT members believe that this would place an unreasonable burden on the ATRT, removing focus from its original purpose and that the ATRT members might not be the best group to perform such reviews. Paragraphs 580-587: The ALAC strongly believes that this section must be adjusted to allow the “WHOIS” RT to address the appropriate issues for the then-current Directory Services and not be limited to the wording written into the 2009 AoC. Moreover, if the terms of reference of this review need to be further adjusted in the future, it makes no sense to assign this task to the ATRT, which will have little expertise in this area. Rather, it should be assigned to the WHOIS RT. As recommended for the WHOIS Review, all AoC Review Teams should be responsible for recommending revision to their respective Bylaws. The responsibility should rest with those who best understand the specific issues. The ATRT could have overriding rights to do so as well, but this should not be solely an ATRT responsibility.</td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x131">1</td> <td class="x131">1</td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:148.05pt" id="r4"> <td class="x132" style="height:146.55pt">Avri Doria (endorsed by Joy Liddicoat &amp; Timothy McGinnis)</td> <td class="x253">Diversity is a critical component of Accountability and should be in scope for an Accountability review. Increasing diversity is necessary for making skilled decisions from the global perspective of the broader community ICANN seeks to serve. Arguments being given that this may be too much work for the ATRT, do not bear on the responsibilities of the ATRT, but rather on its efficiency. Additionally, the ease with which the task can be completed depends greatly on the work done by ICANN and all of its organizations to ensure diversity.</td> <td class="x133">N/A</td> <td class="x133">N/A</td> <td class="x134"></td> <td class="x135"></td> <td class="x135"></td> <td class="x135"></td> <td class="x135"></td> <td class="x135"></td> <td class="x134">1</td> <td class="x134"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:358.8pt" id="r5"> <td class="x136" style="height:357.3pt">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x137">The BC strongly supports the CCWG proposal to bring the Affirmation of Commitments into ICANN's bylaws. We support adopting the Affirmation WHOIS review text with the addition of "Directory Services". The BC believes that Article XVIII should be designated a Fundamental Bylaw, so that it would require supermajority community voting approval for any change. CCWG’s proposal relies upon statutory powers to recall the Board and other actions, as necessary, to ensure that the ICANN Board and staff remain accountable to the community.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The legal analysis indicating that these powers are available to Members of the organization was predicated on the understanding that<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>ICANN would remain a non-profit organization organized under California Law. Board and staff remain accountable to the community.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The legal analysis indicating that these powers are available to Members of the organization was predicated on the understanding that<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>ICANN would remain a non-profit organization organized under California Law.</td> <td class="x137"></td> <td class="x138">The BC could support the Board’s proposed text, except for the last sentence regarding intervals<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>between reviews. The BC supports the CCWG proposal to start the 5-year window “from the date the previous Review was convened”.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>This text was chosen to ensure that a review would<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>be initiated at least every 5 years.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The Board’s formulation could result in 6 or seven years<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>between reviews, since the date of Board “action” could be as much as 2 years after a review was convened.</td> <td class="x139"></td> <td class="x140" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x140" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x140" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x140"></td> <td class="x140"></td> <td class="x139" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x139" style="text-align:right">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:130.05pt" id="r6"> <td class="x128" style="height:128.55pt">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x129">InternetNZ supports the AOC being terminated as part of the stewardship transition, along with the incorporation of the relevant carryover concepts as set out in this section. InternetNZ supports the changed reviews as proposed, noting that ICANN will propose further changes to the WHOIS/Directory Services review. While this is not a WS1 matter (as the review can be fixed through other means) we do not oppose a pragmatic change as part of this process. </td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x131">1</td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:169.05pt" id="r7"> <td class="x128" style="height:167.55pt">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x129">General support for most of the proposal. The incorporation of the AoC reviews in the bylaws commit to putting the performance of ICANN and its accountability processes centre stage. However, ICANN is subject to numerous review processes and this can lead to review‐fatigue:  as such we support the idea of reducing the normal frequency of reviews from three to five yearly (paragraph 553). Given the significant changes proposed in the CCWG‐Accountability’s recommendations, we would encourage an initial review no later than three years after the termination of the AoC, looking at progress in implementing reforms.</td> <td class="x129"></td> <td class="x129"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x131">1</td> <td class="x131">1</td> <td class="x131">1</td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:336pt" id="r8"> <td class="x128" style="height:334.5pt">COA (Coalition for Online Accountability)</td> <td class="x129">COA strongly supports the concept of incorporating into the ICANN Bylaws key provisions of the AoC. ATRT - COA agrees it may be appropriate to include in this review’s recommendations changes in the scope or timing of other periodic reviews, or to propose new reviews. COA is pleased to see that CCWG calls for carrying over from AOC to bylaws the Whois /directory services policy review. COA applauds the concept of enabling “community stakeholder groups [to] appoint their own representatives to review teams. </td> <td class="x253">Recent public statements by ICANN’s board chair expressing hostility toward ICANN’s current AOC obligation to carry out a second Whois review underscore the need for caution in empowering subgroups such as the new ATR review team to recommend terminating this review.</td> <td class="x129">Section 8(b) of the AOC - This commitment is critical to ICANN’s accountability and to the continued applicability of U.S. law to its major agreements and contracts. Previous comments from the IPC (and others) called for the substance of section 8(b) of the AOC to be included as a Fundamental Bylaw of ICANN, which can only be changed with the support of a supermajority of the community. This has not been done. The explanation provided for failing to do so (see p. 36) is not persuasive. The Proposal does not explain how a corporation with a Single Member can be reconciled with the statement in the Articles of Incorporation that changes to the Articles “must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the members voting” (see paragraph 246). This is not the same thing as saying that “the Community Mechanism as Sole Member must approve with 2/3 vote any change to ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation” (see paragraph 254). Furthermore, if the commitment to maintain status as a U.S. non-profit corporation is relegated to the status of a normal (as opposed to Fundamental) bylaw, then it can be changed by the ICANN Board, even if a majority of the community (as constituted in the Community Mechanism as Sole Member) disagrees. COA urges that the substance of section 8(b) be embodied in a Fundamental Bylaw.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Section 7 is omitted from the list of “relevant ICANN commitments” that would be enshrined in the ICANN Bylaws (p. 72, para. 504). Why? While some of these commitments might be covered by other existing or proposed bylaws provisions, the Proposal fails to identify any of these or provide any other reason for the omission. On ATRT -COA is concerned about giving this review the power to abolish any of the reviews to which ICANN committed in the OC. The fact that public comment would be allowed on such a recommendation (see paragraph 550, p. 77) provides a very weak safeguard; and the fact that the “subsequent Bylaws change would be subject to IRP challenge” (id.) offers little comfort, given the limited grounds on which that enhanced accountability mechanism can be invoked. The fact that public comment would be allowed on such a recommendation (see paragraph 550, p. 77) provides a very weak safeguard; and the fact that the “subsequent Bylaws change would be subject to IRP challenge” (id.) offers little comfort, given the limited grounds on which that enhanced accountability mechanism can be invoked.the Proposal concentrates the power to appoint members of review teams in “the group of chairs of the participating SOs and ACs,” not in the stakeholder groups or constituencies themselves. (We are also at a loss to understand how the GNSO – the Supporting Organization in which COA primarily participates, through the IPC – would be represented in this “group,” since the GNSO has no chair and never has had one. It has only a chair of its Council, a body whose mandate is limited to management of the policy development process, not the conduct of reviews.) Second, CCWG proposes to cap at 3 the maximum number of members on the review team from any single Supporting Organization. At least in the case of the GNSO, this would represent a drastic reduction in representation from the status quo, and would virtually guarantee that the total exclusion to date of IPC representatives from all the AOC Review Teams would continue. This problem must be fixed, not perpetuated. Third, it appears that GNSO members, no matter how chosen, would be far outnumbered by members from other parts of the organization, even on review teams whose subject matter exclusively or primarily impacts the gTLD environment (e.g., the Whois/Directory Services Policy review, as well as the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice review, which focuses primarily on gTLD expansion). Taken together, these changes threaten to degrade whatever value these reviews have had for COA participants under the current AOC regime. The Proposal’s entire approach to the constitution of review teams needs to be rethought, in order to remedy the exclusion of IPC and other affected constituencies from the process, not to exacerbate it, as the current Proposal would do. On action on Review Team Recommendations - The bylaws provision should retain the AOC requirement that the Board act upon recommendations of the review teams within a time certain (currently, 6 months), not that it should simply “consider” doing so (see p. 76, para. 534). Impact on Current or Pending Reviews - While we do not think it was CCWG’s intention to propose applying any of the new rules regarding these mandatory reviews (especially those on team composition) to the AOC reviews (Whois and CCT) scheduled to be launched during the current fiscal year, this should be spelled out in the Proposal before it advances further. </td> <td class="x141">1</td> <td class="x131">1</td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:248.4pt" id="r9"> <td class="x142" style="height:246.9pt">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x129">General support for most of the proposal. We are very supportive of the incorporation of the AoC into ICANNs bylaws. We support the additional clarifications and recommendations based on the work of both ATRT and ATRT2 which have been rolled-up into the incorporation of the AoCs. We specifically support the addition in paragraph 519 giving review teams the explicit ability to solicit and select independent experts to assist the review teams with their work. We feel that the requirement to create a confidential disclosure framework to enable the confidential disclosure to review teams is a critical aspect of enabling a strong review structure to exist within ICANN going forward. As a critical dependency we support the CCWGs proposal for the establishment of the IANA Function Review including the Special IANA Function Review variant as required by the CWG. </td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x131">1</td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r10"> <td class="x128" style="height:39.9pt">Google</td> <td class="x129">General support for most of the proposal, incorporating the Affirmation of Commitments into ICANN’s bylaws in particular. </td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x131">1</td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:147pt" id="r11"> <td class="x128" style="height:145.5pt">Government of Spain</td> <td class="x129">Spain welcomes the addition stating that “The draft report of the Review Team should describe the degree of consensus reached by the Review Team.” That is a good exercise of transparency, since this provision will oblige the Review Team to describe the level of support of the RT membership for the different proposals received. Nonetheless, for the sake of transparency, the review teams should describe how they have considered community inputs explaining why they embraced the ones that made their way to the final report and why they rejected the other ones.<br /><br /></td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x129">We are still missing a provision that lets the community know the level of support of the community itself to the proposals. This double-scale disclosure of the level of support of a proposal, both in the RT and in the community, should be displayed to maximize the transparency, avoid capture and ensure that the community input is duly and fairly taken into account.</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x131">1</td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r12"> <td class="x128" style="height:50.7pt">i2Coalition (Internet Infrastructure Coalition)</td> <td class="x129">Agree with decision to incorporate AoC into Bylaws. </td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x141"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r13"> <td class="x128" style="height:408pt">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x129">We agree that the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) should be included in the revised Bylaws. The AoC requires ICANN to continue to work for the maintenance of a single, interoperable Internet. This responsibility may well require actions that are not immediately recognized as fulfilling our primary responsibilities, but nevertheless need to be taken, to participate in different fora and spaces to build support for the single, interoperable Internet. A few implementation paths diverge, including recognizing that there should be coordination among the community and the staff that are currently working on a review standardization effort to develop documentation to address review administrative review considerations, including: Review team size and composition, budget, access to experts, access to ICANN documentation, expectations on process for adoption and implementation of reviews, optimization and standardization of review team processes. The outcomes of this standardization work would also include agreement upon how it could be changed, so that there is always assurance of community input. While the idea of being able to sunset and introduce new reviews is necessary, part of any of the AoC reviews should include consideration of their future use. The community should consider how to identify future reviews and agree upon scope. On the Competition, Consumer Choice &amp; Consumer Trust review, the bar of future rounds of introduction of new gTLDs until prior recommendations are implemented poses a risk of a barrier to entry, and the Board is not supportive of that change. There is agreement upon changing the review cycle to every 5 years, though the cycle initiation should be discussed with as part of the community/staff conversation<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The Board also agrees with proposing new text to capture current status of directory services work in ongoing review. The Board also supports the new IANA functions review, to be incorporated as part of the AoC related reviews into the Bylaws. </td> <td class="x129"> The Board reserves the right to consult with the community on specific issues that may arise in the Bylaws drafting process on the AoC importation into the Bylaws.</td> <td class="x129">On the Competition, Consumer Choice &amp; Consumer Trust review, the bar of future rounds of introduction of new gTLDs until prior recommendations are implemented poses a risk of a barrier to entry, and the Board is not supportive of that change. </td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x131">1</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.8pt" id="r14"> <td class="x128" style="height:51.3pt">Intel</td> <td class="x143">Intel supports the Mission and Core Values and the incorporation of key elements of the Affirmation of Commitments into the revised Mission Statement, Commitments and Core Values. </td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r15"> <td class="x142" style="height:67.5pt">Internet Association </td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x129">We worry that the ICANN community is assuming a burdensome level of reviews that may make it difficult for the community to complete substantive work in the face of recurring procedural work.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We therefore request that the CCWG carefully consider and seek to properly balance any future recurring obligations of the ICANN community. </td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r16"> <td class="x142" style="height:408pt">IPC (Intellectual Property Constituency)</td> <td class="x129">IPC strongly supports the concept of incorporating into the ICANN Bylaws key provisions of the 2009 Affirmation of Commitments including the incorporation of the various AoC-mandated reviews. The IPC supports the continued inclusion of WHOIS/Directory Services review criteria as currently reflected in the AoC. </td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x129">This commitment in section 8b is critical to ICANN’s accountability and to the continued applicability of U.S. law to its major agreements and contracts. Previous comments from the IPC (and others) called for the substance of section 8(b) of the AOC to be included as a Fundamental Bylaw of ICANN, which can only be changed with the support of a supermajority of the community. This has not been done. The explanation provided for failing to do so (see p. 36) is not persuasive. The fundamental problem is that if the commitment to maintain status as a U.S. non-profit corporation is relegated to the status of a normal (as opposed to Fundamental) bylaw, then it can be changed by the ICANN Board, even if a majority of the community (as constituted in the Community Mechanism as Sole Member) disagrees. IPC urges that the substance of Section 8(b) be embodied in a Fundamental Bylaw so that only a supermajority of the Board and the community can change it. Section 7 is omitted from the list of “relevant ICANN commitments” that would be enshrined in the ICANN Bylaws (p. 72, para. 504). This needs to be explained (e.g., if the commitments are already covered elsewhere) or corrected. The IPC remains concerned about the composition of these AoC review teams. According to the Second Draft Report, “community stakeholder groups should appoint their own representatives to the review teams.” The IPC is concerned that appointment of AoC review team representatives at the stakeholder group level (as opposed to the constituency level) may undermine the full diversity of community participation in these critical review processes, and marginalize these stakeholders, particularly from non-contracted parties. Therefore, the IPC strongly recommends that the CCWG report clarify that community stakeholder groups and constituencies appoint their own representatives to AoC review teams. Further, the IPC notes that the proposed Bylaw text regarding these periodic reviews proposes that each SO and AC participating in the review may suggest up to 7 prospective members for the review team, but that the SO and AC chairs will select a group of up to 21 Review Team<br />members to include up to 3 members from each participating SO and AC. This would suggest that the GNSO would be able to propose one representative for each of its 7 stakeholder groups and constituencies, but that the ultimate composition of the review team would be limited to 3 members of the GNSO, and therefore would not contain a representative of each stakeholder group and constituency. Again, the IPC is concerned that this proposal for constituting the AoC review teams may marginalize community voices, particularly among non-contracted parties, in these vital accountability processes, and could result in capture by certain portions of the community, particularly contracted parties, over these processes. IPC reiterates concerns expressed in its public comments on the CCWG’s First Draft Report that this mechanism may tend to dilute GNSO influence in the context of the AoC reviews, even though the GNSO would likely be disproportionately affected by the outcomes of many of the reviews. The IPC also hopes to clarify that any recommendations put forth by the CCWG should not affect any AoC reviews currently in process, and that any such reviews slated to begin in the next calendar year not be halted or otherwise affected by the CCWG-Accountability process. </td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r17"> <td class="x128" style="height:122.7pt">NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x129">NCSG also has serious concerns about the wholesale importation of the Affirmation of Commitments’ language to “adequately address issues of competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns and rights protection.”Some of those concerns (e.g., consumer protection, sovereignty) could easily take ICANN outside of its narrow mission or be interpreted by the actors involved in an expansive way to advance special interests.. Given ICANN’s status as a global coordinator and policy maker for the DNS, we are unsure what kind of commitments “sovereignty concerns” would create.</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r18"> <td class="x128" style="height:39.9pt">Public Knowledge</td> <td class="x129">We strongly support efforts to clarify the Mission and to incorporate the Affirmation of Commitments into existing accountabiility measures. </td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:99pt" id="r19"> <td class="x128" style="height:97.5pt">RySG (Registries Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x129">Supports proposal. With respect to bringing the Affirmation of Commitments language regarding WHOIS into the bylaws (paragraphs 580 – 587), the RySG supports this effort but suggests that it allow for the WHOIS concept to evolve while taking into account the reasons for the WHOIS policy in the first place and current thinking on access and data protections. </td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x131">1</td> <td class="x131">1</td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x131"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:207pt" id="r20"> <td class="x142" style="height:205.5pt">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x129">USCIB therefore strongly supports the inclusion of the Accountability and Transparency Review (ATRT), the Security, Stability, &amp; Resiliency of the DNS Review, the Competition, Consumer Trust, &amp; Consumer Choice Review, and the WHOIS Policy Review into Article IV of the ICANN Bylaws so that ICANN will be legally bound to continue them on a regular and permanent basis. In sum, we regard incorporation of the AoC into the ICANN Bylaws as a fundamental requirement of the transition. This will provide the Internet user community with greater confidence that the safety, security, and resiliency of the DNS will continue uninterrupted as NTIA’s stewardship of the IANA functions is transitioned. </td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x129">N/A</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130"></td> <td class="x130">1</td> <td class="x130"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.6pt" id="r21"> <td class="x176" style="height:14.85pt"></td> <td class="x176"></td> <td class="x176"></td> <td class="x176"></td> <td class="x238">3</td> <td class="x238">5</td> <td class="x238">8</td> <td class="x238">15</td> <td class="x238">3</td> <td class="x238">0</td> <td class="x238">11</td> <td class="x238">9</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.6pt" id="r22"> <td class="x176" style="height:15.6pt"></td> <td class="x176"></td> <td class="x176"></td> <td class="x176"></td> <td class="x239">16.67%</td> <td class="x239">27.78%</td> <td class="x239">44.44%</td> <td class="x239">83.33%</td> <td class="x239">16.67%</td> <td class="x239">0.00%</td> <td class="x239">61.11%</td> <td class="x239">50.00%</td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:131.25pt"></td> <td style="width:250.5pt"></td> <td style="width:131.25pt"></td> <td style="width:363pt"></td> <td style="width:80.25pt"></td> <td style="width:106.5pt"></td> <td style="width:69.75pt"></td> <td style="width:74.25pt"></td> <td style="width:84.75pt"></td> <td style="width:56.25pt"></td> <td style="width:56.25pt"></td> <td style="width:81pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="18" data-sheet-name="Stress Tests"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:3100pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x28" id="c0" style="mso-width-source:userset;width:0pt;mso-width-alt:0pt"></col> <col class="x64" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:346px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:334px"></col> <col class="x70" span="6" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:348px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:222px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:107px"></col> <col class="x69" span="3" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:119px"></col> <col class="x69" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:115px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:106px"></col> <col class="x57" span="4" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r0"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t1"><a name="RANGE!A1"></a></td> <td colspan="2" class="x278" style="border-right:2px solid #000000">SUMMARY</td> <td class="x70" style="width:250.5pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:261pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:261pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:261pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:261pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:261pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:261pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:166.5pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:80.25pt"></td> <td class="x69" style="width:89.25pt"></td> <td class="x69" style="width:89.25pt"></td> <td class="x69" style="width:89.25pt"></td> <td class="x69" style="width:86.25pt"></td> <td class="x28" style="width:79.5pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:133.05pt" id="r1"> <td class="x28" style="height:133.05pt;overflow:hidden" id="t2"></td> <td colspan="3" class="x275" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext">Of the Stress Tests, ST18 received the most comments. Argentina, Brazil, France and Spain were opposed to ST18. To quote France on the issue: “[…] the French Government shall formally object to any approval by GAC of a final proposal that would not leave Bylaws Article XI.2.1.j unchanged.” There were 5 submissions against: COA, IFPI &amp; RIAA, IPC, US Chamber of Commerce, and USCIB. These submissions were concerned about conflation with content regulation. To quote the US Chamber of Commerce on the topic: “We are concerned with the framing of Stress Tests # 29 and 30, which seems to conflate the enforcement of certain mutually-agreed to contractual obligations with that of “content regulation.” ICANN has a duty to enforce and enter into mutually agreeable contractual provisions, that are aimed at preventing malicious, abusive, or illegal conduct and the CCWG should add language clarifying this this obligation is not altered by ICANN’s revised Mission statement. We have a concern that the by-laws can be interpreted to limit ICANN’s ability (or willingness) to enforce existing contract terms and Public Interest Commitments with Registrars, agree to new contracts with strong protection provisions or otherwise participate in other programs designed to promote public interest goals.”<br /></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x50" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r2"> <td class="x59" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t3"></td> <td class="x46">Stress Tests</td> <td class="x47">Support areas</td> <td class="x47">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x47">Issue areas</td> <td class="x125">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x125">New Idea/Suggestion</td> <td class="x125">Concerns</td> <td class="x125">Agreement</td> <td class="x125">Diagreement</td> <td class="x125">Neutral</td> <td class="x65">Supports ST18</td> <td class="x65">Against ST18</td> <td class="x65">Supports ST21</td> <td class="x65">Against ST21</td> <td class="x65">Supports ST29, ST30</td> <td class="x65">Against ST29, ST30</td> <td class="x49"></td> <td class="x49"></td> <td class="x49"></td> <td class="x49"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:372.6pt" id="r3"> <td class="x28" style="height:372.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t4">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x54">We consider the accountability measures proposed through Stress Tests 18, 33, and 34 are necessary to ensure that a balance is struck between ensuring each AC/SO can present its perspectives, while avoiding capture or the use of advisory powers to override ICANN’s multistakeholder, bottom-up decisions making process.<br /><br />In particular we acknowledge the balance struck in Stress Test 18, which recognises the role Governments fulfil within ICANN in articulating and protecting public interest, while avoiding a situation where split GAC advice is able to “paralyse” a decision-making process by requiring the ICANN Board to find a mutually acceptable solution between multiple parties.<br /><br />We consider the proposed measures under Stress Test 18 recognises the fundamental role of governments in international internet-related public policy issues, and that from time to time the GAC may wish to give advice that covers more than one point of view. However, it also ensures that where there is clear GAC consensus on a public policy issue, the ICANN Board must give due deference to this advice and try to find “a mutually acceptable solution” between the GAC and other parties.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r4"> <td class="x28" style="height:110.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t5">1</td> <td class="x41">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x54">General support for most of the proposal: Stress Tests (#18; #11; #32); We support the conclusion of Stress Test 18 with regards to requiring the GAC to issue consensus advice in order to enter into discussions between the Board and the GAC to find a mutually acceptable solution.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">We express concern over the potential rebalancing of power between the SO/AC community as defined by the method of participation int he community mechanism. We respectfully suggest that Stress Test 35 (NTIA-4) may not have fully examined the potential impact of operationalising the advisory committees into roles that may not have been envisaged for them during their creation.</td> <td class="x54"></td> <td class="x54">1</td> <td class="x54">1</td> <td class="x54">1</td> <td class="x54"></td> <td class="x54"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r5"> <td class="x28" style="height:96.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t6">1</td> <td class="x36">RySG (Registries Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x51">Stress Test 18 seeks to formally adopt present practice while recognizing that GAC remains free to determine how it renders advice on public policy matters. The RySG believes that the amendment prompted by Stress Test 18 is necessary for the transition and will work to reinforce the functioning of the multi-stakeholder ICANN community. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r6"> <td class="x28" style="height:409.5pt;overflow:hidden" id="t7">1</td> <td class="x36">COA (Coalition for Online Accountability)</td> <td class="x51">Agrees with stress tests 18 and 21</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Stress Test #21 (p. 94): COA agrees with the conclusion (para. 731) that “proposed measures do not adequately empower the community to address this scenario” (ccTLD redelegation outside scope of established policies), and refers to its comments on the IANA Transition Proposal pointing out this significant gap in oversight/review mechanisms.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Stress Tests<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>#29 and 30 (pp. 112-113):<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>As previously noted, these are not legitimate stress tests as presented.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>“Strong” or at least adequate ICANN enforcement of its contracts should be a goal, not a “stress” that must be countered.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The CCWG’s response to these new “stress tests” is also indicative of a serious imbalance, since it contemplates enhanced accountability review(through the IRP) for ICANN actions to enforce the contracts, but could foreclose such review where ICANN fails to enforce the contracts adequately or at all.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The latter is a far more realistic scenario than the former. Stress Test #33 (NTIA-2) (p.116):<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The risk of “internal capture” is real, and in fact may be a reality already within the GNSO, whose structure ensures dominance by contracted parties.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The responses propounded by CCWG in paras. 984-86 seem inadequate, especially if the trend continues of excluding “structural” considerations from the periodic reviews undertaken.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The chance that the Board would effectively reconsider a decision to follow the recommendation, adopted through facially valid procedures, of a “captured” AC or SO seems slight.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Whether the IRP would provide an adequate accountability mechanism could depend on the willingness and capacity of arbitrators to look past procedural compliance to assess whether that captured entity actually exhibits a “bottom-up, consensus-based, multistakeholder process.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt" id="r7"> <td class="x28" style="height:27.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t8">1</td> <td class="x36">ELIG</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Deadlocks in changing bylaws or fundamental Bylaqws may require stress test</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:165.6pt" id="r8"> <td class="x28" style="height:165.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t9">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of Argentina</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Strest Test 18 and 12 - In this Second Draft Proposal there is no inclusion or mention about the many concerns expressed by Argentina and other governments about this stress test and the proposed Bylaw changes.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Amendments proposed to the bylaws are not necessary. These changes make a specific reference to the way that GAC makes its decisions, and it may result in limiting the abilities of GAC for its internal deliberations.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Member states participating in the GAC should be the ones to decide about their own decision-making rules.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>It should be noted that the same comments apply to Stress test 12. </td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:303.6pt" id="r9"> <td class="x28" style="height:303.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t10">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of Brazil</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Stress test 18 - What ST 18 would actually seek would be to impose on GAC a decision-making process that would give a "de facto" veto power for any individual government (or very small group of governments) that may, even in cases where massive majority of governments would favor any given course of action (that might, by the way, involve the interests of a particular national company), be able to block the possibility of triggering the requirement that the Board must enter into negotiations to find a mutually acceptable solution to any conflict between possible Board action and GAC advice. - In the light of the stated above, Brazil firmly rejects ST 18 and fails to see why approval of the IANA stewardship transition proposal should be held hostage of a decision in that regard. It is important, on the hand, to uphold the principle that each SO and AC should retain its autonomy in deciding about its internal operating procedures, without being, in principle, constrained by any external rule that might impose an obligation to frame its decision-making mechanism in any particular way.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>(see comment for complete text on this subject)</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:262.2pt" id="r10"> <td class="x28" style="height:262.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t11">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of France</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Stress test 18 - To our surprise, in the case of Stress Test 18, the CCWG 2nd proposal does not put forward the effectiveness of the very mechanisms which the CCWG was commissioned to design in order to enhance ICANN accountability, and which actually apply to most other stress tests. It is incomprehensible to us that the CCWG could maintain an unfortunate amendment to Bylaws Article XI.2.1.j as a solution for Stress Test 18 instead. It even seems irresponsible to us that the CCWG could aggravate the risk of delaying the IANA transition, in spite of all warnings that strict consensus will be needed among governments for GAC to approve the CCWG final proposal as a chartering organization. We therefore thank the CCWG for considering that the French Government shall formally object to any approval by GAC of a final proposal that would not leave Bylaws Article XI.2.1.j unchanged. (see comment for complete text on this subject)</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r11"> <td class="x28" style="height:151.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t12">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of India</td> <td class="x51">Sstress test 34 - The additional stress test relating to ‘barriers to entry’ (Stress Test #34) is important and required additional focus.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>In order for ICANN to accurately reflect the views of the multistakeholder community, there must be a sustained focus on barriers to entry which mean that formal inclusion does not always translate to substantive inclusion.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Active steps must be taken to ensure substantive inclusion of stakeholders (whether through existing SO/ACs or new ones), while keeping in view diversity of languages and regions. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:289.8pt" id="r12"> <td class="x28" style="height:289.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t13">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of New Zealand</td> <td class="x51">Stress test 18 and 35 - We consider the accountability measures proposed through Stress Tests 18, 33, and 34 are necessary to ensure that a balance is struck between ensuring each AC/SO can present its perspectives, while avoiding capture or the use of advisory powers to override ICANN’s multistakeholder, bottom-up decisions making process. In particular we acknowledge the balance struck in Stress Test 18, which recognises the role Governments fulfil within ICANN in articulating and protecting public interest, while avoiding a situation where split GAC advice is able to “paralyse” a decision-making process by requiring the ICANN Board to find a mutually acceptable solution between multiple parties.</td> <td class="x51">Stress test 21 - Stress Test 21 considers a situation where a government demands ICANN rescind responsibility for management of a ccTLD from an incumbent ccTLD manager. Noting the ccNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) that is planned regarding delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, one of the proposed accountability measures is to exclude ccTLD delegation/redelegation issues from any appeal mechanism. ccTLD delegation/redelegation has been proposed as an exclusion to the Independent Review Process (IRP) in paragraph 8, page 40 of the proposal. This recommendation is also included in the CWG-Stewardship Proposal that forms part of the proposal to transition the stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. While we acknowledge the commitment of the ccNSO in developing a clearer process for ccTLD delegation/redelegation, we do not consider a potential PDP is sufficient rationale for excluding ccTLD delegation/redelegation from the IRP. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r13"> <td class="x28" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t14">1</td> <td class="x36">Government of Spain</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Disagrees with stress test 18.</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r14"> <td class="x28" style="height:179.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t15">1</td> <td class="x36">Intel</td> <td class="x51">Intel strongly supports the proposed bylaw change as written. The proposed bylaw language will maintain the role of the GAC and its influence, yet satisfy a fundamental requirement from the United States Government that the transition not result in a “government-led” solution. Moreover, advice that did not represent consensus among governments may not be actionable from a practical matter. While we recognize that the proposal does not yet have support of the GAC, Intel believes that the carefully crafted text represents the best chance of adoption by the global community and NTIA, and hence enabling a successful transition.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:276pt" id="r15"> <td class="x28" style="height:276pt;overflow:hidden" id="t16">1</td> <td class="x36">IFPI &amp; RIAA (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry &amp; Recording Industry Association of America)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">It also means that any ICANN accountability proposal, and any of its stress tests, cannot and should not conflate issues about theoretically questionable content regulation with sound contractual enforcement to prevent illegal conduct and other abuse. Just because some digital transmissions may involve free speech does not mean that all digital transitions are therefore speech, much less protected, free speech, and completely ignores the conduct in question. This flawed logic, taken to extremes, would suggest that ICANN commitments to deter malware and other security threats are inappropriate because the malware is, at some level, digital content. Yet stress tests 29 and 30 precisely suggest such inappropriate conflation of these issues. With this in mind, we believe that the accountability proposal must be amended to require clarifications that contract enforcement is not an act of “regulating services or content”, and that stress tests 29 and 30 are improper and should be rejected entirely.</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r16"> <td class="x28" style="height:409.5pt;overflow:hidden" id="t17">1</td> <td class="x39">IPC (Intellectual Property Constituency)</td> <td class="x54">Stress Test 18 has been the subject of much discussion and a good deal of criticism, much of it misplaced. In the view of some, Stress Test 18 inappropriately interferes with the GAC’s ability to set its voting thresholds. However, it does no such thing. It merely states that, if the GAC chooses to lower its voting thresholds from the current “consensus” requirement, its advice will no longer be entitled to the deference that consensus advice receives. The GAC is thus free to change its voting thresholds as it sees fit. It is eminently logical that a lower level of support in the GAC should translate to a lower level of deference for such advice. The IPC supports the approach of the CCWG with regard to the GAC voting thresholds and Stress Test 18. Conversely, the IPC welcomes the addition of the NTIA-inspired stress tests. That said, they need some work. In Stress Test #32, paragraph 976 refers to a situation where “only 2 or 3 SO/ACs vote” but concludes this would be okay if the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and ASO were all among the voters. It is hard to see how all four SO/ACs could be among the voters if only 2-3 are voting. This casts doubt on the conclusion of this Stress Test. Stress Test #33 regarding “internal capture” is far from hypothetical, in the view of the IPC. Rather, it reflects ongoing concerns in the ICANN of today. The Accountability Measuresproposed by the CCWG are less than satisfactory. The prime difference between the measures available today and those available under the CCWG proposal is that the disenfranchised SO/AC members could institute a reconsideration or IRP after the Board adopts the “captured” policy recommendation. What measures would be available while the capture is afoot? Why do the disenfranchised have to sit powerless until the capture plays out to its conclusion? Furthermore, what if the vote of the “captured” SO/AC is not one that leads to a Board action, but is rather a vote on a “Community Power”? What is the solution then? These issues need to be resolved in a more satisfactory manner.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Stress Tests 29 and 30 are new and troubling additions to the Second Draft Report. They are based on the disturbing premise that there are “contract provisions [in the current Registrar Agreement] that exceed the limited mission of ICANN.” Although the introduction alludes to multiple provisions, both Stress Tests focus on a single provision, the section that requires registrars to deal with reports of abuse. Stress Test #29 sets out the following hypothetical scenario: “ICANN strongly enforces the new gTLD registrar contract provision to investigate and respond to reports of abuse, resulting in terminations of some name registrations.” The Report says that the “Consequence” of this action is that “ICANN effectively becomes a regulator of conduct and content on registrant websites.” The IPC vigorously disagrees with this purported “Consequence” and with the idea that this should be considered a “Stress Test.” Enforcement of agreed-upon registrar contracts, which were adopted after considerable community discussion and input, is simply not “regulation” under any circumstance. Furthermore, the link between ICANN’s enforcement of registrar agreements and termination of name registrations by registrars is tenuous at best. Registrars should be investigating and responding to reports of abuse whether or not ICANN specifically “enforces” that provision. If “some name registrations” are terminated as a result of abuse investigations, that is because registrars have found legitimate instances of abuse, not because ICANN has “enforced” the registrar agreement, much less acted as a “regulator.” Stress Test #30 is more of the same. Here the hypothetical scenario is that “ICANN terminates registrars for insufficient response to reports of copyright abuse on registered domains,” while the Consequence is the same as #29. This Stress Test is also deeply flawed. First, ICANN can only terminate a registrar for an “insufficient response” if that failure to respond rises to the level of a material breach of its registrar agreement. If a registrar’s behavior deviates so substantially from contractual compliance, then termination (after exhaustion of all of the extensive procedures provided by the contract) seems like an appropriate resolution of a real problem, not a troublesome “consequence” to a “stress test.” The IPC rejects these two Stress Tests and the assumptions underlying them. As such, the IPC believes that these two Stress Tests should be removed from the Final Report. Furthermore, the use of the “limited mission” text -- to be added to the ICANN “Bylaws -- in an attempt to exclude or dilute valid contractual provisions casts a poor light on that proposed Bylaws provision. The CCWG needs to clarify that the “limited mission” text is not simply a pretext intended to provide ammunition to those who wish to eliminate or weaken intellectual property protections.</td> <td class="x54"></td> <td class="x54"></td> <td class="x54"></td> <td class="x54">1</td> <td class="x54">1</td> <td class="x54"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r17"> <td class="x28" style="height:138pt;overflow:hidden" id="t18">1</td> <td class="x36">ITI (Information Technology Industry Council)</td> <td class="x51">The 2nd Draft Report on Work Stream 1 Recommendations contains significant<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>improvements over the initial draft, and meets relevant benchmarks established<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>by the NTIA.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>In particular, we strongly support the proposed change to Article<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>XI section 2 clause J of the ICANN Bylaws (paragraph 619) regarding "Stress<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Test #18."<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We believe the proposed revision provides essential clarity<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>regarding the appropriate role and weight that should be afforded to GAC<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>advice.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r18"> <td class="x28" style="height:179.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t19">1</td> <td class="x41">Jan Scholte (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">6. Paras 361-364 prompts a question, at the risk of introducing still another stress test, whether CCWG needs to think through a scenario where special interests (or even mere nuisance actors) clog up ICANN’s policy processes with disruptive exploitation of the Community Mechanism. How does one prevent that, for example, a handful of big business players or a limited number of civil society activists ‘play politics’ by bringing narrowly self-interested challenges to ICANN’s strategic plan, the budget or a particular board member? Even if such initiatives had little chance of passing a vote, repelling them could absorb a lot of time and energy.</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:234.6pt" id="r19"> <td class="x28" style="height:234.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t20">1</td> <td class="x36">John Klensin</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Unless CCWG is able to make a plausible claim of omniscience and perfect foresight, no combination of stress testing mechanisms are going to be an adequate substitute for either "IANA transition first, evaluation and corrections, then major structural and accountability reforms" or "structural and accountability reforms first, evaluation and corrections, then IANA transition" for the same reasons that laboratory tests are never a completely adequate substitute for deployment and evaluation of a system under field conditions and at scale.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span>In that regard, even if we believe the ST-WG mechanisms are completely adequate for the contingencies they have identified, the contingencies they have not been able to identify remain a major concern... and no completeness proof has been offered oris likely to be feasible</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:276pt" id="r20"> <td class="x28" style="height:276pt;overflow:hidden" id="t21">1</td> <td class="x39">SIIA (Software &amp; Information Industry Association)</td> <td class="x87">SIIA strongly supports the proposed accountability measures described in Stress Test 18. Section XI of ICANN’s bylaws obliges the ICANN Board to give “due deference” to GAC advice. This includes a requirement to find a “mutually acceptable solution” to the advice proffered by the GAC. In order to ensure that the transition does not, in practice, lead to a “government-led or intergovernmental solution,” it is important to ensure that the Section XI ICANN obligation only enter into force when GAC advice is developed through consensus – in other words, when it is truly advice and not a reflection of split voting. The accountability measures proposed in Stress Test 18 would amend Article XI Section 2 and oblige the ICANN Board to give due deference only to GAC consensus advice and indicate the definition of consensus that the GAC uses presently. The GAC would still be free to change how it develops advice, but the Board’s obligations would only enter into force upon receipt of consensus advice.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:276pt" id="r21"> <td class="x28" style="height:276pt;overflow:hidden" id="t22">1</td> <td class="x41">US Chamber of Commerce</td> <td class="x87"> support stress test 18</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Stress tests 29 and 30 - We are concerned with the framing of Stress Tests # 29 and 30, which seems to conflate the enforcement of certain mutually-agreed to contractual obligations with that of “content regulation.” ICANN has a duty to enforce and enter into mutually agreeable contractual provisions, that are aimed at preventing malicious, abusive, or illegal conduct and the CCWG should add language clarifying this this obligation is not altered by ICANN’s revised Mission statement.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span><br />We have a concern that the by-laws can be interpreted to limit ICANN’s ability (or willingness) to enforce existing contract terms and Public Interest Commitments with Registrars, agree to new contracts with strong protection provisions or otherwise participate in other programs designed to promote public interest goals.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span>At the same time, we also agree that ICANN should not use its contracts to expand its mission and jurisdiction.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We call upon the CCWG to clarify this language accordingly. </td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:193.2pt" id="r22"> <td class="x28" style="height:193.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t23">1</td> <td class="x231">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x194"> ST 18. - A numerical vote would deprive GAC advice of its current legitimacy. Thus, USCIB supports the proposed accountability measure @615-616, which would amend<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Article XI of ICANN Bylaws to require ICANN to find a mutually acceptable solution for GAC advice only where such advice is supported by GAC consensus. We believe this is consistent with the first Accountability and Transparency Review Team’s (ATRT) Recommendations pertaining to the GAC.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The proposed accountability measures to Stress Test #18 also are appropriate and necessary to meet the requirement that the IANA transition not yield a government-led or intergovernmental replacement for NTIA’s current stewardship role. </td> <td class="x194">N/A</td> <td class="x194">Stress Tests #29 and #30 were added comparatively later in the CCWG’s development of the second draft and have not yet been considered by the broader ICANN community. They consider the ramifications if ICANN were to enforce certain contractual provisions with registrars concerning abusive or illegal conduct of certain domain names. USCIB disagrees with the underlying premise, as presented by commenters during the first round of comments, that such contractual enforcement (and the provisions themselves) will always be outside the bounds of ICANN’s Mission now or in the future. </td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x219" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r23"> <td class="x240" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t24">20</td> <td class="x237"></td> <td class="x217"></td> <td class="x217"></td> <td class="x217"></td> <td class="x241">0</td> <td class="x217">3</td> <td class="x217">4</td> <td class="x217">12</td> <td class="x217">6</td> <td class="x217">0</td> <td class="x216">12</td> <td class="x216">4</td> <td class="x216">1</td> <td class="x216">0</td> <td class="x216">1</td> <td class="x216">5</td> <td class="x218"></td> <td class="x218"></td> <td class="x218"></td> <td class="x218"></td> </tr> <tr class="x219" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:19.95pt" id="r24"> <td class="x240" style="height:19.95pt;overflow:hidden" id="t25"></td> <td class="x237"></td> <td class="x217"></td> <td class="x217"></td> <td class="x217"></td> <td class="x220">0.00%</td> <td class="x220">15.00%</td> <td class="x220">20.00%</td> <td class="x220">60.00%</td> <td class="x220">30.00%</td> <td class="x220">0.00%</td> <td class="x221">60%</td> <td class="x221">20%</td> <td class="x221">5%</td> <td class="x221">0%</td> <td class="x221">5%</td> <td class="x221">25%</td> <td class="x218"></td> <td class="x218"></td> <td class="x218"></td> <td class="x218"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r25"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x64"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td colspan="6" class="x70" style="mso-ignore:colspan"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td colspan="3" class="x69" style="mso-ignore:colspan"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td colspan="4" class="x57" style="mso-ignore:colspan"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r26"> <td class="x28" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t26"></td> <td class="x64"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x215"></td> <td class="x215"></td> <td class="x215"></td> <td class="x215"></td> <td class="x215"></td> <td class="x215"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.6pt;mso-xlrowspan:2" id="r27"> <td class="x28" style="height:27.6pt"></td> <td class="x64"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td colspan="6" class="x70" style="mso-ignore:colspan"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td colspan="3" class="x69" style="mso-ignore:colspan"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td colspan="4" class="x57" style="mso-ignore:colspan"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r28"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t27"></td> <td class="x64"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:0pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:259.5pt"></td> <td style="width:250.5pt"></td> <td style="width:261pt"></td> <td style="width:261pt"></td> <td style="width:261pt"></td> <td style="width:261pt"></td> <td style="width:261pt"></td> <td style="width:261pt"></td> <td style="width:166.5pt"></td> <td style="width:80.25pt"></td> <td style="width:89.25pt"></td> <td style="width:89.25pt"></td> <td style="width:89.25pt"></td> <td style="width:86.25pt"></td> <td style="width:79.5pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="19" data-sheet-name="Implementation"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1590pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x28" id="c0" style="mso-width-source:userset;width:0pt;mso-width-alt:0pt"></col> <col class="x64" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:262px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:140px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:553px"></col> <col class="x28" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:138px"></col> <col class="x60" span="5" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:138px"></col> <col class="x57" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.05pt" id="r0"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.05pt;overflow:hidden" id="t1"><a name="RANGE!A1"></a></td> <td colspan="2" class="x278" style="border-right:2px solid #000000">SUMMARY</td> <td class="x28" style="width:105pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:414.75pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:103.5pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:103.5pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:103.5pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:103.5pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:103.5pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:103.5pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:174pt" id="r1"> <td class="x28" style="height:174pt;overflow:hidden" id="t2"></td> <td colspan="3" class="x275" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext">Concerns include: 1) The need for greater detail is even more<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>important since the CCWG is recommending Fundamental Bylaws; 2) Issues are being partially implemented and important work is being deferred; 3) Assessment of effect proposed changes will have on the delicate interrelationships within ICANN is needed; 4)<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>It is not clear how an accountability structure as critical as this can be implemented upon the mere presumption that the intended participants will confirm their engagement; 5) The CMSM, if implemented, could specifically impact upon the role of governments; 6) Concerns about expressing support for any model, when such a level of uncertainty remains; 7) Detailed rules for IRP provisions are needed. New ideas/suggestions include: 1) Implementation details regarding IRP rules of procedures need to be clear; 2) Implementation details needed for defining modalities of community forum; 3) Consider providing a more in-depth assessment of the risks that may impact the proposal implementation, including time-related risks; 4) In IRP provisions context: roll back the modification of standard of review to the standard that was in place before 2013. Clarity is needed on understanding of fiduciary duties of Board directors.</td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr class="x50" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:36pt" id="r2"> <td class="x59" style="height:36pt;overflow:hidden" id="t3"></td> <td class="x46">Implementation</td> <td class="x47">Support areas</td> <td class="x47">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x47">Issue areas</td> <td class="x48">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x48">New Idea</td> <td class="x48">Concerns</td> <td class="x48">Agreement</td> <td class="x48">Diagreement</td> <td class="x48">Neutral</td> <td class="x49"></td> <td class="x49"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r3"> <td class="x28" style="height:409.5pt;overflow:hidden" id="t4">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD Australia (auDA)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">A number of critical issues that we believe must be either completely resolved or significantly advanced as part of current accountability reform efforts (Workstream 1 – WS1) are only being partially implemented by the CCWG and that important work on detail is being deferred as post‐transition work (Workstream 2 – WS2). Although labelled by the CCWG as topics "for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition", auDA believes that additional progress is required with regard to:  Establishing rules of procedure for the enhanced Independent Review Process;  Defining ICANN Community Forum practical modalities;  Clarifying understanding of the fiduciary duties of Board Directors and related expectations concerning Director behaviour for the Board;  Further assessing the effect proposed changes will have on the delicate interrelationships within ICANN (including enhancements to government participation); and  Defining the modalities of how ICANN integrates human rights impact analyses, within its mission. The need for greater detail is even more important given that the CCWG is proposing that a number of these recommendations are implemented through the creation of Fundamental Bylaws that will bind ICANN and the community in the foreseeable future. The CCWG's revised IRP provisions are one example of a change that will be underpinned by Fundamental Bylaws. Further, community members (including the ICANN Board) are being asked to express a position on a structure that will pass judgement on their actions and bind them to its findings. As such, the community must have a greater level of detail when determining whether to support this change. Collectively, we understand what the IRP is intended to do. We understand and (generally) support the need for such a mechanism and for it to be transparent and independent. However, the proposal must be more fully formed and implementation details regarding the IRP's rules of procedure need to be clear and understandable. The absence of such a collective understanding could result in solutions that:  cannot be practicably implemented. It is not clear to auDA how an accountability structure as critical as this can be implemented upon the mere presumption that the intended participants will confirm their engagement. auDA is particularly worried about the role of governments, given that the GAC has not taken a formal position and the inherently political nature of the IANA transition from the USG to the community. auDA is also concerned about the ways in which the CMSM, if implemented, could specifically impact upon the role of governments. </td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r4"> <td class="x28" style="height:82.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t5">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD Norway (Norid)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51"> We appreciate the level of detail found in Section 12 which explains the next steps to be taken and their timing. We would however recommend a more in-depth assessment of the risks that may impact the proposal implementation, including time-related risks as we think that certain timeframes are too tight in light of what the community experienced with – for instance – previous changes in the ICANN modus operandi and/or Bylaws.</td> <td class="x93"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r5"> <td class="x28" style="height:82.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t6">1</td> <td class="x36">CENTR (European Association of National Internet Domain Registries)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51"> We appreciate the level of detail found in Section 12 which explains the next steps to be taken and their timing. We would however recommend a more in-depth assessment of the risks that may impact the proposal implementation, including time-related risks as we think that certain timeframes are too tight in light of what the community experienced with – for instance – previous changes in the ICANN modus operandi and/or Bylaws.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r6"> <td class="x28" style="height:96.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t7">1</td> <td class="x41">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x51">We support the requirement for Work Stream 2 to be incorporated into a transitional bylaw in order to ensure the implementation of Work Stream 2 items is unhindered by any organisational pushback. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">We express concern over the viability of the implementation timeline. We are many months into this process and many people are approaching burnout. Recognition that volunteer burnout is a genuine issue in high intensity workloads such as the CCWG and indeed the CWG of which there is much overlap in participants should be factored into the timeline. Continued work at the extreme pace that we have been working to is unsustainable. Consensus by exhaustion is a genuine concern as we move into the critical detail work of Work Stream 1 implementation and Work Stream 2 deliberations.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r7"> <td class="x28" style="height:96.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t8">1</td> <td class="x36">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">The Board agrees that IRP provisions should be adopted as Fundamental Bylaws, and also agrees that detailed rules will need to be developed.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>As an initial step, the Board recommends rolling back the modification of standard of review to the standard that was in place before 2013. The Board also recommends that as the IRP was identified as an area of additional work, the community considers whether it should be included in the Fundamental Bylaws immediately or once there are additional process improvements developed.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r8"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t9">5</td> <td class="x62"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x211">1</td> <td class="x211">4</td> <td class="x211">4</td> <td class="x211">0</td> <td class="x211">0</td> <td class="x211">0</td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r9"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t10"></td> <td class="x62"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x212">20%</td> <td class="x212">80%</td> <td class="x212">80%</td> <td class="x212">0%</td> <td class="x212">0%</td> <td class="x212">0%</td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:0pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:196.5pt"></td> <td style="width:105pt"></td> <td style="width:414.75pt"></td> <td style="width:103.5pt"></td> <td style="width:103.5pt"></td> <td style="width:103.5pt"></td> <td style="width:103.5pt"></td> <td style="width:103.5pt"></td> <td style="width:103.5pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="20" data-sheet-name="Diversity"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1570pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x112" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x115" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x115" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x115" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x117" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:136px"></col> <col class="x117" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:145px"></col> <col class="x117" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:96px"></col> <col class="x117" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:99px"></col> <col class="x103" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:120px"></col> <col class="x103" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:96px"></col> <col class="x117" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r0"> <td colspan="2" class="x281" style="border-right:2px solid windowtext;height:12.3pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">SUMMARY</a></td> <td class="x115" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x115" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x144" style="width:102pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:108.75pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:72pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:74.25pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:90pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:72pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x144" style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:271.95pt" id="r1"> <td colspan="3" class="x283" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext;height:271.2pt">Contributors are generally supportive of diversity as an area for further work (more effective mechanisms needed). The following suggestions were made: 1) Improve existing mechanisms related to Board/NomCom/SO/AC diversity; 2) Add Netmundial references; 3) Implement the strictest conflict of interest policy at Board, IRP and “SO/AC Membership Model” levels; 4) Implement the principle of non-cumulative holding of offices, successively or simultaneously, is an absolute necessity to mitigate the risk of capture of the new institutional framework of ICANN by individual; 5) Encourage the establishment of an independent commission in charge of controlling the conflict of interest statements issued by the Board members. Clarification is being sought on Election office and a contributor called for explicit commitments regarding diversity in the proposed new accountability bodies. A confirmation was requested on whether rotation of ICANN meetings is already in place. Concerns voiced in the comment period include: 1) Creation of the SMCM must not be implemented in a way that weakens the fundamental multistakeholder nature of ICANN; 2) Any apportionment model that attempts to mimic Board proportions for (s)elected Board Members excludes part of our diverse community and their diverse perspectives; 3) To what extent the wider global community will recognise the outcomes of this exercise as reflecting their participation and interests; 4) Any lack of ambition on a series of commitments and concrete steps towards enhancing diversity at ICANN after the IANA transition, would easily be interpreted as a way for insiders to protect their historical positions within the organisation; 5) The NTIA's decision has presented us an opportunity to correct this. However, ICANN can't hope to do so without going beyond the current ICANN community, which while nominally being 'multistakeholder' and open to all, grossly under-represents those parts of the world that aren't North America and Western Europe; 6) Diversity should not be a direct requirement in order to implement the IANA transition; 7) . Specific comments were offered on the recommendation to include diversity in the ATRT mandate (2 in favor - 2 against). Disagreement lies within the concern that the ATRT would be overburdened. In the context of diversity, a contributor voiced disagrement with “establish threshold regarding composition of each body (will depend of the body and of the overall composition) to avoid possible blocking on certain votes “as it is recommending establishing diversity compositions and thresholds that are prescriptive and not aspirational as part of Work Stream 1. A comment was also made that the diversity principle would not need the establishment of any specific body for it to be enforced across the existing or newly formed bodies.</td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x144"></td> </tr> <tr class="x148" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r2"> <td class="x104" style="height:50.7pt">Diversity</td> <td class="x105">Support areas</td> <td class="x105">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x105">Issue areas</td> <td class="x106">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x106">New Idea/Suggestion</td> <td class="x106">Concerns</td> <td class="x106">Agreement</td> <td class="x106">Diagreement</td> <td class="x106">Neutral</td> <td class="x146">ATRT</td> <td class="x147"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r3"> <td class="x108" style="height:95.1pt">ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x112">General support for most of the proposal. Paragraph 465, Subsection 4: The ALAC supports this recommendation and notes that it could be a subtask of the Review team formed as part of Recommendation 2. Paragraph 465, Subsection 2: The ALAC strongly agrees that diversity reviews should be included in the overall ICANN review program, and perhaps should even be a formal component of the AoC Reviews. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Although the ATRT is a possible place to perform diversity reviews, some past ATRT members believe that this would place an unreasonable burden on the ATRT, removing focus from its original purpose and that the ATRT members might not be the best group to perform such reviews.</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x150" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x151"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r4"> <td class="x108" style="height:136.5pt">Avri Doria (endorsed by Joy Liddicoat &amp; Timothy McGinnis)</td> <td class="x109">Support proposal to expand scope of ATRT to include a review of diversity at ICANN. Diversity is a critical component of Accountability and should be in scope for an Accountability review. Increasing diversity is necessary for making skilled decisions from the global perspective of the broader community ICANN seeks to serve. Arguments being given that this may be too much work for the ATRT, do not bear on the responsibilities of the ATRT, but rather on its efficiency. Additionally, the ease with which the task can be completed depends greatly on the work done by ICANN and all of its organizations to ensure diversity.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Any apportionment model that attempts to mimic Board proportions for (s)elected Board Members excludes part of our diverse community and their diverse perspectives. When we start to judge that one stakeholder type, SO or AC, as less important and relevant to the stakeholder diversity and balance at ICANN, we attack a central tenet of our multistakeholder model and thus weaken the model. Creation of the SMCM must not be implemented in a way that weakens the fundamental multistakeholder nature of ICANN.</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x150" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x151"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69.6pt" id="r5"> <td class="x108" style="height:68.1pt">CAICT (China Academy of Information and Communication Technology)</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Users' representation and the interests of developing countries should be properly considered.</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x150"></td> <td class="x151"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r6"> <td class="x114" style="height:53.7pt">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x122">IRP must comply with a minimum set of cultural, geographical and gender diversity. The current composition of the ICANN board itself shows that it’s perfectly possible to achieve a gender and cultural diversity approach</td> <td class="x109">Cultural diversity is a key enabler of a good international governance</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x113"></td> <td class="x151"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r7"> <td class="x108" style="height:81.3pt">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x116">General support for most of the proposal. InternetNZ believes that a lack of participatory diversity is a critical failure in the ICANN system generally, and that resolving it is not a matter for Work Stream 1 – it does not meet the requirement established for inclusion as a WS1 matter. Indeed it is not a problem limited to accountability – it is relevant across all parts of ICANN. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">InternetNZ accepts the concrete WS1 matters in para 442 of the proposal as being achievable, except for the first bullet point – we cannot comment on that due to its lack of specificity. </td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x150"></td> <td class="x151"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:207pt" id="r8"> <td class="x108" style="height:205.5pt">ccTLD Norway (Norid)</td> <td class="x109">Any new accountability body must indeed take into due account the diversity principle to ensure the broadest possible representation against the elements listed in paragraph 441. However, we believe that the diversity principle would not need the establishment of any specific body for it to be enforced across the existing or newly formed bodies. Furthermore, regarding the recommendation to improve ICANN’s effectiveness in promoting diversity, we fully support the advice to “establish a full inventory of the existing mechanisms related to diversity for each and every ICANN group (including Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, Regional At-Large Organizations, the Fellowship program and other ICANN outreach programs)” and recommend their careful review, especially of the Fellowship and other ICANN outreach programmes so that they are meant to support and involve new participants, instead of the “usual suspects”.</td> <td class="x109">We are also surprised to read in paragraph 443 the need to discuss “Rotation of the ICANN meetings in all the ICANN regions” in Work Stream 2 as we are under the impression that this is the philosophy adopted by ICANN so far.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x150"></td> <td class="x151"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r9"> <td class="x108" style="height:122.7pt">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. Nominet agrees that this is an important and urgent objective.There are significant barriers associated with the way that ICANN communicates – its documents are long, complex and stuffed with jargon and abbreviations that make them difficult for newcomers to understand; and open forum discussions can also favour native English speakers.  Serious thought is needed to reduce “barriers to entry” and outreach is needed to encourage people to step up: it will not help diversity if we have too small a pool to draw on.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x150"></td> <td class="x151"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:207pt" id="r10"> <td class="x108" style="height:205.5pt">CENTR (European Association of National Internet Domain Registries)</td> <td class="x109">Any new accountability body must indeed take into due account the diversity principle to ensure the broadest possible representation against the elements listed in paragraph 441. However, we believe that the diversity principle would not need the establishment of any specific body for it to be enforced across the existing or newly formed bodies. Furthermore, regarding the recommendation to improve ICANN’s effectiveness in promoting diversity, we fully support the advice to “establish a full inventory of the existing mechanisms related to diversity for each and every ICANN group (including Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, Regional At-Large Organizations, the Fellowship program and other ICANN outreach programs)” and recommend their careful review, especially of the Fellowship and other ICANN outreach programmes so that they are meant to support and involve new participants, instead of the “usual suspects”."</td> <td class="x109">We are also surprised to read in paragraph 443 the need to discuss “Rotation of the ICANN meetings in all the ICANN regions” in Work Stream 2 as we are under the impression that this is the philosophy adopted by ICANN so far.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x151"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r11"> <td class="x108" style="height:81.3pt">Christopher Wilkinson</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">The dimension of global diversity has been weak if not lacking. I am not sure to what extent the wider global community will recognise the outcomes of this exercise as reflecting their participation and interests. In Chapter 5B delete references to diversity relating to the Interim Board. The appointing authorities will have to follow their own obligations to ensure diversity.</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r12"> <td class="x108" style="height:108.9pt">China Organizational Name Administration Center (CONAC)</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">The<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>participation<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>and<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>power<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>from<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>the Chinese community are limited and weak due<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>to not only existing problems in the Chinese community,<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>but<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>also<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>the<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>current<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>ICANN’s<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>model<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>that<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>is<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>inclined<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>to<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>the<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>western<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>world. ICANN<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>and<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>the<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Chinese<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>community<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>should<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>cooperate and<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>collaborate.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Hopefully<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>in<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>the<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>future<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>accountability<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>mechanisms,<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>more<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>effective<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>methods<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>will<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>be<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>applied<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>to<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>enable<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>better<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>engagement<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>from the Chinese community. </td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:193.2pt" id="r13"> <td class="x118" style="height:191.7pt">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x116">General support for most of the proposal. We agree that diversity is an important issue within the ICANN ecosystem. However with regards to Work Stream 1 additions we suggest that diversity is not a direct requirement in order to implement the IANA transition. We strongly support the examination of diversity as a part of Work Stream 2. We support the addition of Diversity and Transparency to the Structural Reviews and would support the addition of such wording to the bylaw definition of such reviews. We would support the establishment of a Diversity Office under the auspices of the Ombudsman. We would need further details on the role of an Election Office before we could render a comprehensive opinion on its formation and location within the ICANN corporate structure. We support the rotation of ICANN meetings through various regions of the globe. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x116">We would not support the expansion of the ATRT reviews to include diversity. The ATRT is an established review team with a huge existing workload, we feel that adding this additional review topic may overburden the ATRT and may lessen its ability to provide the high impact recommendations that we have come to rely upon the ATRT for. With regards to; “Establish threshold regarding composition of each body (will depend of the body and of the overall composition) to avoid possible blocking on certain votes “, we don't agree to this recommendation if our reading of it is correct insofar as it is recommending establishing diversity compositions and thresholds that are prescriptive and not aspirational as part of Work Stream 1. </td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r14"> <td class="x114" style="height:81.3pt">Erman Öncel - Partnership Istanbul</td> <td class="x109">ICANN should reach all stakeholders from all parts of the world. Especially, more introductory and promotional activities should be carried out in the developing countries. We believe that the first and most important step of implementing the multi-stakeholder governance model must be developing tools to increase the recognition of this model and extend the scope of the community.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x151"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r15"> <td class="x108" style="height:122.7pt">Government of Argentina</td> <td class="x109">In relation with this document and with ICANN activities in general, Argentina supports references about diversity agreed in the ”Net Mundial Multistakeholder Statement”: Internet governance must respect, protect and promote cultural and linguistic diversity in all its forms. Participation should reflect geographic diversity and include stakeholders from developing, least developed countries and small island developing states. Gender balance should also be respected in any new ICANN structure, including the ICANN leadership roles.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r16"> <td class="x108" style="height:81.3pt">Government of Brazil</td> <td class="x109">Similarly to the IRP, geographic, cultural and gender balance should constitute key principles in the formation of the "Community Mechanism". Gender balance is another important element that should guide the selection of stakeholder representatives. We support comments made by Argentina in that regard.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:234.6pt" id="r17"> <td class="x108" style="height:233.1pt">Government of France</td> <td class="x109">The French Government appreciates the inclusion of diversity as a core issue into Work Stream 2. Nonetheless, we took note of the tension between stakeholders who “requested more details about the concrete steps, or asked to more explicit support enhancements of diversity within ICANN” and those who “while acknowledging the importance of diversity in the accountability mechanisms, have expressed their view that diversity requirement should not prevail over skills or experience requirements” (part 8.1, p.64). The French Government calls for the strictest conflict of interest policy to be implemented at Board, IRP and “SO/AC Membership Model” levels. We also naturally believe that the implementation of the principle of non-cumulative holding of offices, successively or simultaneously, is an absolute necessity to mitigate the risk of capture of the new institutional framework of ICANN by individuals. We finally encourage the establishment of an independent commission in charge of controlling the conflict of interest statements issued by the Board members.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">The French Government remains concerned that any lack of ambition on a series of commitments and concrete steps towards enhancing diversity at ICANN after the IANA transition, would easily be interpreted as a way for insiders to protect their historical positions within the organisation. If ICANN is to be accountable before the global internet community, it has to gain legitimacy from the global internet community by being representative of the global internet community. </td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:48pt" id="r18"> <td class="x108" style="height:46.5pt">Government of India</td> <td class="x109">Active steps must be taken to ensure substantive inclusion of stakeholders (whether through existing SO/ACs or new ones), while keeping in view diversity of languages and regions. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r19"> <td class="x108" style="height:122.7pt">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x109">ICANN has existing requirements for diversity as reflected in its Bylaws, the Affirmation of Commitments and ATRT1 recommendations, ATRT2 recommendations, and the SO and AC documents. The Board agrees that ICANN will need a path for continual evolution and improvement, including the areas laid out above. The Board supports the utilization of existing mechanisms, such as future ATRT reviews, as the “home” for topics where appropriate, or identify other mechanisms for continuous improvement. Agrees with IRP diversity recommendation. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x116">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r20"> <td class="x114" style="height:67.5pt">IPC (Intellectual Property Constituency)</td> <td class="x116">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x116">The IPC is concerned that appointment of AoC review team representatives at the stakeholder group level (as opposed to the constituency level) may undermine the full diversity of community participation in these critical review processes, and marginalize these stakeholders, particularly from non-contracted parties.</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:79.95pt" id="r21"> <td class="x118" style="height:78.45pt">Jan Scholte (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. Great to see language about diversity and stakeholder accountability being included among the ‘core values’.</td> <td class="x153">This formulation suggests that ‘greater diversity’ in ICANN is primarily if not solely pursued in relation to regions. CCWG’s Working Group 3 has discussed many more dimensions of diversity.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:103.95pt" id="r22"> <td class="x108" style="height:102.45pt">John Poole</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x152">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Disagrees with proposal. Review and improve processes for selecting members of the ICANN Board of Directors, which will lead to independent, activist, vigilant ICANN directors, reflective of the diversity of the global multi-stakeholder community, who will question, investigate, and push back (when necessary or appropriate) against policies advanced by selfinterested ICANN stakeholders which are to the detriment of the global public interest or the global multi-stakeholder community.</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r23"> <td class="x114" style="height:53.7pt">KIGA (Korea Internet Governance Alliance)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. We need to continue to encourage and support the participation of developing countries and relatively marginalized stakeholders in the global internet policy making.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x116">N/A</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r24"> <td class="x108" style="height:67.5pt">Nell Minow (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. Great to see language about diversity and stakeholder accountability being included among the ‘core values’. It is important to have far wider participation and regularly scheduled reviews to make sure that ICANN keeps up with changing needs and technologies.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x151"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.5pt" id="r25"> <td class="x108" style="height:408pt">Pranesh Prakash</td> <td class="x109">We are glad that diversity is being recognized as an important principle. </td> <td class="x116">N/A</td> <td class="x109">We are<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>extremely concerned about the accountability of ICANN to the global community. Due to various decisions made by the US government relating to ICANN's birth, ICANN has had a troubled history with legitimacy. While it has managed to gain and retain the confidence of the technical community, it still lacks political legitimacy due to its history. The NTIA's decision has presented us an opportunity to correct this. However, ICANN can't hope to do so without going beyond the current ICANN community, which while nominally being 'multistakeholder' and open to all, grossly under-represents those parts of the world that aren't North America and Western Europe. Of the 1010 ICANN-accredited registrars, 624 are from the United States, and 7 from the 54 countries of Africa. In a session yesterday, a large number of the policies that favour entrenched incumbents from richer countries were discussed. But without adequate representation from poorer countries, and adequate representation from the rest of the world's Internet population, there is no hope of changing these policies. This is true not just of the business sector, but of all the 'stakeholders' that are part of global Internet policymaking, whether they follow the ICANN multistakeholder model or another. A look at the board members of the Internet Architecture Board, for instance, would reveal how skewed the technical community can be, whether in terms of geographic or gender diversity. Without greater diversity within the global Internet policymaking communities, there is no hope of equity, respect for human rights — civil, political, cultural, social and economic — and democratic functioning, no matter how 'open' the processes seem to be, and no hope of ICANN accountability either.Meanwhile, there are those who are concerned that diversity should not prevail over skill and experience. Those who have the greatest skill and experience will be those who are insiders in the ICANN system. To believe that being an insider in the ICANN system ought to be privileged over diversity is wrong. A call for diversity isn't just political correctness. It is essential for legitimacy of ICANN as a globally-representative body, and not just one where the developed world (primarily US-based persons) makes policies for the whole globe, which is what it has so far been. Of course, this cannot be corrected overnight, but it is crucial that this be a central focus of the accountability initiative.</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r26"> <td class="x108" style="height:136.5pt">The Heritage Foundation</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Armed with a broad commitment to human rights in the bylaws, it is easy to articulate an argument that ICANN has an obligation under various human rights conventions and in service to the public interest (also poorly defined and under debate within ICANN and its constituencies) to, for instance, use the proceeds from gTLD sales to expand the diversity of the Internet community by financing expanded broadband and connectivity in developing countries consistent with the right to development or to prioritize domain name purchases for under-represented ethnicities or genders or to enforce content restrictions to prohibit hate speech. </td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r27"> <td class="x180" style="height:13.05pt"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">4</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">5</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">9</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">19</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">4</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">4</td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r28"> <td class="x180" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">18.18%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">22.73%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">40.91%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">86.36%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">18.18%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">4.55%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">18.18%</td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r29"> <td class="x112" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x154"></td> <td class="x154"></td> <td class="x154"></td> <td class="x154"></td> <td class="x155"></td> <td class="x155"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> </tr> <tr class="x157" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15pt" id="r30"> <td class="x112" style="height:15pt"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> </tr> <tr class="x157" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.6pt" id="r31"> <td class="x158" style="height:15.6pt"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> </tr> <tr class="x157" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.6pt" id="r32"> <td class="x158" style="height:15.6pt"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> </tr> <tr class="x157" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.6pt" id="r33"> <td class="x158" style="height:15.6pt"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> </tr> <tr class="x157" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.6pt" id="r34"> <td class="x158" style="height:15.6pt"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> </tr> <tr class="x157" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.6pt" id="r35"> <td class="x158" style="height:15.6pt"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> </tr> <tr class="x157" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.6pt" id="r36"> <td class="x158" style="height:15.6pt"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> </tr> <tr class="x157" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.6pt" id="r37"> <td class="x158" style="height:15.6pt"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> </tr> <tr class="x157" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.6pt" id="r38"> <td class="x158" style="height:15.6pt"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> </tr> <tr class="x157" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.6pt" id="r39"> <td class="x158" style="height:15.6pt"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x156"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> <td class="x157"></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:102pt"></td> <td style="width:108.75pt"></td> <td style="width:72pt"></td> <td style="width:74.25pt"></td> <td style="width:90pt"></td> <td style="width:72pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="21" data-sheet-name="Staff Accountability"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1503pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x112" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x115" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x115" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x115" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x144" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:117px"></col> <col class="x145" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:169px"></col> <col class="x145" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:106px"></col> <col class="x145" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:98px"></col> <col class="x145" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:112px"></col> <col class="x145" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r0"> <td colspan="2" class="x281" style="border-right:2px solid windowtext;height:12.3pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">SUMMARY</a></td> <td class="x115" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x115" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x144" style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:126.75pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:79.5pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:73.5pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:84pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.05pt" id="r1"> <td colspan="3" class="x283" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext;height:150.3pt">Four specific concerns were voiced in response to the staff accountability-related recommendation: 1) Direct accountability of staff to the wider community is not healthy and neither is bypassing existing and normal chains of responsibility; 2) Caution against the community being given any operational role in staff management or supervision even if at a high level; 3) Burden of reviews; 4) Any improvements that relate to internal practices/policies governing an employment relationship, or that impact the management or evaluation of staff need to be coordinated to respect the proper reporting line; 4) Treating areas that are naturally part of continuous improvements work as a part of the conditions for the IANA Stewardship Transition may serve as a bar to a successful conclusion of the IANA Stewardship Transition effort. Suggestions include: 1) Provide the community with a role in reviewing and making recommendations as to staff policies; 2) Submit staff who play a direct advisory role to the ICANN board and CEO to an additional high standard of accountability and transparency due to their direct ability to influence key decisions; 3) Consider whether it would be appropriate for the interactions between ICANN senior management and the Board on the one hand and governments on the other to be made more transparent; 4) Keep process simple and easily accessible by both staff and community representatives.. Three contributors note the role of the CEO.</td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> </tr> <tr class="x159" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r2"> <td class="x106" style="height:33.3pt">Staff Accountability</td> <td class="x106">Support areas</td> <td class="x106">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x106">Issue areas</td> <td class="x106">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x106">New Idea/Suggestion</td> <td class="x106">Concerns</td> <td class="x106">Agreement</td> <td class="x106">Diagreement</td> <td class="x106">Neutral</td> <td class="x146">CEO</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r3"> <td class="x108" style="height:67.5pt">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x116">General support for most of the proposal. InternetNZ believes the Chief Executive is the person with the responsibility to assure staff accountability. It is in turn the Board’s responsibility to hold the CEO accountable for requiring accountability from staff. We are pleased to see no proposed actions for WS1. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r4"> <td class="x108" style="height:150.3pt">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. Staff accountability (section 8.2) should be the responsibility of the CEO. While we recognise that ICANN’s staff provides a service to the community, and that the community might wish to flag serious concerns to the CEO, the accountability process should be through the CEO. Ultimately any breakdown of accountability and failure by the CEO to remedy such failings should be addressed by the Board. Failure by the Board to address issues with the CEO could then be raised by the community through one of the formal community mechanisms (if it cannot be addressed through one of the existing informal opportunities for discussion). </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Direct accountability of staff to the wider community is not healthy and neither is bypassing existing and normal chains of responsibility and we would caution against excessive community involvement in staff management issues. </td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r5"> <td class="x118" style="height:150.3pt">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x116">General support for most of the proposal. We support the comments of CENTR stating that a culture of accountability and transparency must be fostered within ICANN staff. We note that many of ICANNs staff adhere to the spirit of this, however we have seen multiple examples where performance in this area has been less than satisfactory. We suggest that the community may have a role in reviewing and making recommendations as to staff policies in this area. We suggest that staff who play a direct advisory role to the ICANN board and CEO be held to an additional high standard of accountability and transparency due to their direct ability to influence key decisions. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x116">We would strongly caution against the community being given any operational role in staff management or supervision even if at a high level. We believe that this is a matter for the board to address through its relationship with the CEO.</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r6"> <td class="x114" style="height:95.1pt">Internet Association </td> <td class="x116">Support for proposal.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x112">We do have some concerns, however, with suggestions for additional ongoing reviews pertaining to ICANN staff and the SO/ACs. We are not opposed to the practice of accountability reviews, but we worry that the ICANN community is assuming a burdensome level of reviews that may make it difficult for the community to complete substantive work in the face of recurring procedural work.</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r7"> <td class="x108" style="height:122.7pt">ccTLD Norway (Norid)</td> <td class="x109">We welcome “the creation of a Code of Conduct, transparency criteria, training, and key performance indicators to be followed by Staff in relation to their interactions with all stakeholders, establishment of regular independent (internal + community) surveys/audits to track progress and identify areas that need improvement, establish appropriate processes to escalate issues that enable both community and staff members to raise issues”. We recommend any new process to be kept simple and easily accessible by both staff and community representatives.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r8"> <td class="x108" style="height:67.5pt">CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. We also believe that as a part of this review the community should consider whether it would be appropriate for the interactions between ICANN senior management and the Board on the one hand and governments on the other to be made more transparent. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r9"> <td class="x108" style="height:122.7pt">CENTR (European Association of National Internet Domain Registries)</td> <td class="x109">We welcome “the creation of a Code of Conduct, transparency criteria, training, and key performance indicators to be followed by Staff in relation to their interactions with all stakeholders, establishment of regular independent (internal + community) surveys/audits to track progress and identify areas that need improvement, establish appropriate processes to escalate issues that enable both community and staff members to raise issues”. We recommend any new process to be kept simple and easily accessible by both staff and community representatives.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r10"> <td class="x108" style="height:136.5pt">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x109">The Board is committed to continuing to build on existing accountability of all stakeholders as part of the organization’s work, including clear identification of the roles and responsibilities of the Board, staff and the community in their interactions. The Board supports the principle of continuous improvements, and recognize that ICANN will always be under a path of continuous improvement, even after the transition occurs, and set out a process (including the community and Board) of defining what improvements should be considered and standards against which continuous improvements would be measured.</td> <td class="x109">ICANN management and staff are held accountable through a range of requirements, including complying with ICANN’s rules and processes; existing legislation, conflict of interest provisions, performance requirements. Management, through the CEO is also accountable to the Board. </td> <td class="x116">Any improvements that relate to internal practices/policies governing an employment relationship, or that impact the management or evaluation of staff need to be coordinated to respect the proper reporting lines. The Board is concerned that treating areas that are naturally part of continuous improvements work as a part of the conditions for the IANA Stewardship Transition may serve as a bar to a successful conclusion of the IANA Stewardship Transition effort.</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r11"> <td class="x108" style="height:39.9pt">William Currie (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. There needs to be attention paid to SO/AC accountability and to staff accountability as proposed for CCWG-A’s Work Stream 2.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x160"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r12"> <td class="x180" style="height:13.05pt"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x243">0</td> <td class="x243">4</td> <td class="x243">4</td> <td class="x243">9</td> <td class="x243">1</td> <td class="x243">0</td> <td class="x243">3</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r13"> <td class="x180" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x244">0.00%</td> <td class="x244">44.44%</td> <td class="x244">44.44%</td> <td class="x244">100.00%</td> <td class="x244">11.11%</td> <td class="x244">0.00%</td> <td class="x244">33.33%</td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td style="width:126.75pt"></td> <td style="width:79.5pt"></td> <td style="width:73.5pt"></td> <td style="width:84pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="22" data-sheet-name="SOAC Accountability"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:2097pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x112" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x115" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x115" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x115" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x144" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:117px"></col> <col class="x145" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:169px"></col> <col class="x145" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:106px"></col> <col class="x145" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:98px"></col> <col class="x145" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:112px"></col> <col class="x145" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> <col class="x144" span="13" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r0"> <td colspan="2" class="x281" style="border-right:2px solid windowtext;height:12.3pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">SUMMARY</a></td> <td class="x103" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:126.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:79.5pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:73.5pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:84pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x103" style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:106.95pt" id="r1"> <td colspan="3" class="x283" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext;height:106.2pt">The CCWG recommendation to review SO/AC consideration in Work Stream 2 yields support. 12 contributors are in agreement. The following concerns were expressed: 1) limiting accountability to constituencies does not address concerns of wider accountability and global interest; 2) treating areas that are naturally part of continuous improvements work as a part of the conditions for the IANA Stewardship Transition may serve as a bar to a successful conclusion of the IANA Stewardship Transition effort. The following suggestions were made: 1) request for a detailed description of the composition and internal decision making procedures of each SO/AC regarding the actual exercise of power prior to the completion of the IANA transition; 2) initiate regular independent outside analysis of the effectiveness of the ICANN and advisory group system; 3) evaluate how community leaders will remain more accountable to the members within their structures.</td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr class="x159" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r2"> <td class="x106" style="height:33.3pt">SO/AC Accountability</td> <td class="x106">Support areas</td> <td class="x106">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x106">Issue areas</td> <td class="x106">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x106">New Idea/Suggestion</td> <td class="x106">Concerns</td> <td class="x106">Agreement</td> <td class="x106">Diagreement</td> <td class="x106">Neutral</td> <td class="x163"></td> <td class="x159"></td> <td class="x159"></td> <td class="x159"></td> <td class="x159"></td> <td class="x159"></td> <td class="x159"></td> <td class="x159"></td> <td class="x159"></td> <td class="x159"></td> <td class="x159"></td> <td class="x159"></td> <td class="x159"></td> <td class="x159"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:207pt" id="r3"> <td class="x114" style="height:205.5pt">Caroline Aguerre - Eduardo Santoyo</td> <td class="x109">Without invoking an exercise of infinite regression on accountability, since the Community Mechanism proposed in this documents grants significant more authority on community structures and their mechanisms, we find that there should be more work on the subject, following the current Section IV, Article IV of ICANN’s Bylaws:  (i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. We believe that these issues should be addressed more thoroughly before refining a more definite proposal on the Community Mechanism, particularly when considering that there are current adjustments to ICANN’s Mission which are more aligned with an organization oriented at the technical coordination of Internet identifiers (as an example, the core mission expressed on paragraphs 168 to 188)</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x116">N/A</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r4"> <td class="x108" style="height:67.5pt">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. The draft proposal correctly recognises that shifting the accountability of ICANN onto the community also throws into question the accountability of the SOs &amp; ACs (section 8.3)</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Limiting SO/AC accountability to their own constituency does not really meet concerns about ICANN’s wider accountability and global public interest mandate.  How do we recognise that the interests of members of ICANN constituencies will not always reflect wider public interest?  </td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x164"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:289.8pt" id="r5"> <td class="x118" style="height:288.3pt">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x116">General support for most of the proposal.</td> <td class="x109">While potentially not a widely shared opinion we suggest that the ICANN community as a largely self organising bottom up conglomeration of stakeholders represents the ultimate accountability for ICANN. We suggest that the “Who watches the watchers?” question is largely philosophical as it becomes infinitely recursive at some point. We believe that as long as long as the SO and AC communities are held to standards of openness and transparency as defined in the bottom up multistakeholder process this is a self solving issue. The community, open to all to participate, will define its own standards of accountability. </td> <td class="x116">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x164"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r6"> <td class="x114" style="height:122.7pt">Internet Association </td> <td class="x116">Support for proposal. The Internet Association agrees with the need for appropriate accountability mechanisms for any entity exercising significant influence within the Internet governance ecosystem. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x116">We do have some<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>concerns, however, with suggestions for additional ongoing reviews pertaining to ICANN staff and the SO/ACs.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We are not opposed to the practice of accountability reviews, but we worry that the ICANN<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>community is assuming a burdensome level of reviews that may make it difficult for the community to<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>complete substantive work in the face of recurring procedural work.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We therefore request that the<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>CCWG carefully consider and seek to properly balance any future recurring obligations of the ICANN<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>community. </td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x164"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:220.8pt" id="r7"> <td class="x108" style="height:219.3pt">CCG-NULD (Centre for Communication Governance National Law University Delhi)</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">CCWG must keep in mind these three types of transparency: Active, passive and participatory transparency. These ensure that ICANN proactively makes information available, satisfactorily replies to requests for information, and develops an open and accessible platform for public participation. They must be available at every stage, so the each step of functioning is open and visible to the public, which is a crucial step in ensuring ICANN is accountable to the stakeholders. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x164"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r8"> <td class="x108" style="height:81.3pt">ccTLD Australia (auDA)</td> <td class="x109">We are supportive of measures that enhance ICANN’s accountability and transparency, both as part of the ongoing evolution of ICANN, and as a critical step in the IANA transition. It is important that any proposal is considered carefully to ensure that the end result is workable and sustainable, and that it serves the public interest. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x164"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:165.6pt" id="r9"> <td class="x108" style="height:164.1pt">ccTLD Norway (Norid)</td> <td class="x109">We are glad that section 8 of the second draft is fully dedicated to accountability requirements and, more specifically, addresses the topics of diversity, ICANN staff and ICANN SOs and ACs accountability. Any enhancement of any accountability process must be linked and strongly supported by actions that improve the accountability, literacy, culture and attitude of all those involved. Considering the new responsibilities to be played by the SOs/ACs, we are warmly backing the enhancement of accountability layers at their level, particularly the introduction of further mechanisms that they may have in place to be accountable and be held accountable to their respective constituencies, stakeholder groups and/or organisations.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x164"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:165.6pt" id="r10"> <td class="x108" style="height:164.1pt">CENTR (European Association of National Internet Domain Registries)</td> <td class="x119">We are glad that section 8 of the second draft is fully dedicated to accountability requirements and, more specifically, addresses the topics of diversity, ICANN staff and ICANN SOs and ACs accountability.Any enhancement of any accountability process must be linked and strongly supported by actions that improve the accountability, literacy, culture and attitude of all those involved.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Considering the new responsibilities to be played by the SOs/ACs, we are warmly backing the enhancement of accountability layers at their level, particularly the introduction of further mechanisms that they may have in place to be accountable and be held accountable to their respective constituencies, stakeholder groups and/or organisations</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x160"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x164"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:409.05pt" id="r11"> <td class="x108" style="height:407.55pt">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x109">The Board encourages the CCWG-Accountability to continue to identify paths for continuous improvements, particularly in the issues set out in this section. One of the areas where more work still needs to be done is in addressing the issues of community accountability, both within the community and in exercising the community powers. The lack of progress on this conversation is one of the key areas of gaps within the CCWG-Accountability Proposal. While the Board is supportive and endorses the work of making the Board more accountable to the community and giving the community more say, that conversation is not complete without an evaluation of how community leaders will remain more accountable to the members within their structures, and that the structures continue to remain open to new members. The potential imbalances that could arise from a member structure, without rigor around how those in the member structure would make sure that the multistakeholder nature of the processes would be maintained and upheld, contributes to the instability of that model at this time. The Board notes that even the dialogue surrounding the allocation of votes in the voting model at times devolved into a “my group is more important than your group” fight, where the broader value of the multistakeholder model was not recognized or respected. The discussion of community accountability must be had in conjunction with the design of a new model – the conversations cannot be separated. The Board is committed to working with the community to continue the advance of this issue. The Board supports the principle of continuous improvements, and recognize that ICANN will always be under a path of continuous improvement, even after the transition occurs, and set out a process (including the community and Board) of defining what improvements should be considered and standards against which continuous improvements would be measured. The Board is concerned that treating areas that are naturally part of continuous improvements work as a part of the conditions for the IANA Stewardship Transition may serve as a bar to a successful conclusion of the IANA Stewardship Transition effort.</td> <td class="x115">ICANN’s SO and ACs have existing internal operating procedures that address some items of internal accountability, as well as include statement of interest provisions.</td> <td class="x116"> N/A</td> <td class="x160"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:165.6pt" id="r12"> <td class="x118" style="height:164.1pt">Jan Scholte (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. The solid and specific commitments in Section 11 regarding the Work Stream 2 programme are excellent and should not be watered down in any way. The general time line of Work Stream 2 could also be mentioned at the outset, in para 22, so that readers are left in no doubt from the start that Work Stream 2 is serious business. Also, the first sub-bullet under the work plan in para 139 could be divided into two separate points: one about enhancing diversity in all aspects of ICANN operations; and one about enhancing the culture of accountability within ICANN. The two issues are distinct. Great to see language about diversity and stakeholder accountability being included among the ‘core values’.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:151.8pt" id="r13"> <td class="x108" style="height:150.3pt">John Poole</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">The ICANN community of stakeholders, collectively, and the ICANN organization as a whole, wants the “power and money” but none of the “responsibility and accountability” that one would expect of a global monopoly responsible for “coordinating” the global Internet DNS in the global public interest.</td> <td class="x109">Does not support the proposal</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:220.8pt" id="r14"> <td class="x108" style="height:219.3pt">JPNIC (Japan Network Information Center)</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">We observe high level of accountability and transparency in the discussions and process by the existing SOs and ACs and do not observe any major issue. Given that exiting SOs and ACs will have additional powers based on community mechanism, we have no issue about ICANN Board requesting a third party review as proposed by the CCWG. It should however not be a heavy review to affect the regular activities and operation of the existing SOs/ACs.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x149"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r15"> <td class="x114" style="height:67.5pt">KIGA (Korea Internet Governance Alliance)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. We feel that a detailed description of the composition and internal decision making procedures of each of the SOs and ACs regarding the actual exercise of power is needed before the completion of the IANA transition.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x116">N/A</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:358.8pt" id="r16"> <td class="x108" style="height:357.3pt">Nell Minow (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. The solid and specific commitments in Section 11 regarding the Work Stream 2 programme are excellent and should not be watered down in any way. The general time line of Work Stream 2 could also be mentioned at the outset, in para 22, so that readers are left in no doubt from the start that Work Stream 2 is serious business. Also, the first sub-bullet under the work plan in para 139 could be divided into two separate points: one about enhancing diversity in all aspects of ICANN operations; and one about enhancing the culture of accountability within ICANN. The two issues are distinct. Great to see language about diversity and stakeholder accountability being included among the ‘core values’. it is the nature of governance structures that they become<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>entrenched, compromised, and insulated, even with a constituency-based<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>collection of advisory groups.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The groups themselves will inevitably be hidebound by bureaucracy and structure over substance without a robust system<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>for renewal.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>This is even more important given the pace of technological<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>change. The system has to provide for a regular (perhaps every five years)<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>zero-based, independent outside analysis of the effectiveness of the ICANN and advisory group system, again with a massive social media outreach to ensure that as many users as possible, not just corporate or government but individuals can participate. I concur with the comments made by Google, which would refine the proposal’s<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>checks and balances to make them more effective and equitable,</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x149">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r17"> <td class="x108" style="height:39.9pt">William Currie (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. There needs to be attention paid to SO/AC accountability and to staff accountability as proposed for CCWG-A’s Work Stream 2.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> </tr> <tr class="x165" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r18"> <td class="x181" style="height:13.05pt"></td> <td class="x182"></td> <td class="x182"></td> <td class="x182"></td> <td class="x243">0</td> <td class="x243">3</td> <td class="x243">2</td> <td class="x243">12</td> <td class="x243">1</td> <td class="x243">4</td> <td class="x162"></td> <td class="x161"></td> <td class="x161"></td> <td class="x161"></td> <td class="x161"></td> <td class="x161"></td> <td class="x161"></td> <td class="x161"></td> <td class="x161"></td> <td class="x161"></td> <td class="x161"></td> <td class="x161"></td> <td class="x161"></td> <td class="x161"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r19"> <td class="x180" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x244">0.00%</td> <td class="x244">20.00%</td> <td class="x244">13.33%</td> <td class="x244">80.00%</td> <td class="x244">6.67%</td> <td class="x244">26.67%</td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r20"> <td class="x112" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r21"> <td class="x166" style="height:13.8pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td style="width:126.75pt"></td> <td style="width:79.5pt"></td> <td style="width:73.5pt"></td> <td style="width:84pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="23" data-sheet-name="Methodology"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:2370pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x112" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x115" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x115" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x115" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x117" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:136px"></col> <col class="x117" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:145px"></col> <col class="x117" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:96px"></col> <col class="x117" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:99px"></col> <col class="x103" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:120px"></col> <col class="x103" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:96px"></col> <col class="x103" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> <col class="x103" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:99px"></col> <col class="x103" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:194px"></col> <col class="x103" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:93px"></col> <col class="x103" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:136px"></col> <col class="x103" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:250px"></col> <col class="x103" span="2" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:178px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r0"> <td colspan="2" class="x281" style="border-right:2px solid windowtext;height:12.3pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">SUMMARY</a></td> <td class="x115" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x115" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x144" style="width:102pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:108.75pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:72pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:74.25pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:90pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:72pt"></td> <td class="x145" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x144" style="width:74.25pt"></td> <td class="x144" style="width:145.5pt"></td> <td class="x144" style="width:69.75pt"></td> <td class="x144" style="width:102pt"></td> <td class="x144" style="width:187.5pt"></td> <td class="x144" style="width:133.5pt"></td> <td class="x144" style="width:133.5pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:298.05pt" id="r1"> <td colspan="3" class="x283" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext;height:297.3pt">The following concerns were raised on methodology: 1) Complex and arcane proposal as well as process; 2) Paucity of details; 3) Draft report may not need NTIA criteria; 4) Gaps may hinder progress of associated work; 5) Additional work deferred to Work Stream 2; 6) Implement proposals to test them before delivery to NITA is impossible and would be a diversion of process; 7) Substantial new detail will require consultation; 8) Absence of detail could lead to proposal being rejected threatening overall consensus; 9) CCWG should have its own counsel draft Bylaws; 10) Unmanageable flow of documentation; 11) Members and ICANN staff have monopolized the drafting process; 11) Consensus by exhaustion; 12) The Empowered Community’ would better be described as ‘the legislature"; 13) Failure to follow Charter; 14) Extensive and details goals, principles, and deadlines but no clear consequences for failure to meet them; 14) More time is warranted to a) consider the ICANN Board’s recent interventions (and comments) regarding the draft proposal and b) stress test proposed IRP changes. Suggestions/new ideas include: 1) Current understanding of impact is needed; 2) Extend the public comment period until after the outcome of CCWG-Board meeting has been reported; 3) Be open-minded for community input; 4) Adjust proposal where appropriate; 4) Remove concerns and limit the unintended consequences; 5) Provide a rationale for making changes; 6) Give emphasis to preservation of consensus-based and community-driven approach; 6) There might be ways to adapt existing institutions and mechanisms to meet, on an interim basis, the immediate accountability needs specified in the ICG proposal. If such smaller changes could be acceptable as an interim step, the transition could proceed separately from large-scale organizational changes to ICANN. The current proposal from the CCWG could continue to be refined in Work Stream 2, and could be implemented as community consensus is reached; 7) Detail how any proposals arising from this effort comply with NTIA’s criterion that its role not be replaced by a governmental solution; 8) The CCWG plan should be set aside or at least reduced to those elements that are clearly and obviously critically necessary to an IANA transition. We should get through the transition, let that stabilize and make whatever corrections are demonstrated by experience to be needed and then organize a second-generation "evolution and reform" process to consider whatever other changes are needed; 9) Use systems available to make sure that the vitally important issues raised by these proposals are thoroughly reviewed and extensively commented on; 10)<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Elucidate the accountability question by reference to the work of US political scientist, Jane Mansbridge. Clarification is requested on: 1) Executive summary should be self contained and self-explanatory; 2) Clarify what "ICANN" means, who "Community" is. The document should distinguish clearly throughout between the two usages of ‘Community’; 3) Timeline of Work Stream 2 should be mentioned at the outset.</td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x145"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> <td class="x144"></td> </tr> <tr class="x268" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r2"> <td class="x106" style="height:50.7pt">Methodology of CCWG</td> <td class="x106">Support areas</td> <td class="x106">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x106">Issue areas</td> <td class="x106">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x106">New Idea/Suggestion</td> <td class="x106">Concerns</td> <td class="x106">Agreement</td> <td class="x106">Diagreement</td> <td class="x106">Neutral</td> <td class="x146">Detail</td> <td class="x146">Complexity</td> <td class="x146">NTIA Criteria/Documenting </td> <td class="x146">Work Stream 2</td> <td class="x146">Impact Analysis/Testing</td> <td class="x146">Building Blocks/Requirements</td> <td class="x146">Timeline/Consultation</td> <td class="x146">Bylaws Drafting Process</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r3"> <td class="x108" style="height:39.9pt">ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. The ALAC agrees that the CCWG process has been extremely compressed, but the ALAC neither agrees that it was arbitrary or uncalled for.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">This complexity as well as the lack of detail in many parts of the proposal also raises the concern that we may not be able to complete the proposal in the time required.</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr class="x53" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69.6pt" id="r4"> <td class="x36" style="height:68.1pt">CAICT (China Academy of Information and Communication Technology)</td> <td class="x54">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">We would like to suggest an extension to the public comment period so as to fully listen to the voices<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>of the global Internet community, and facilitate the comments<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>submitting process via various means for all stakeholders. </td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x97"></td> <td class="x97"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x78"></td> <td class="x93">1</td> <td class="x78"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:220.8pt" id="r5"> <td class="x108" style="height:219.3pt">CCAOI (Cyber Cafe Association of India)</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">The draft lacks details on many aspects. For example, with respect to the Community Forum, who will be the members, how it will operate;<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>how it will be convened; what outcomes it may arrive at etc. are still unclear. The definition of the term "the empowered community" is unclear as there is no definition on who constitute the community, whether they are all Internet users or representatives" of the community, in the form of the SOs and ACs has not been defined. This needs to be clarified. The IANA Functions Review process is quite complicated. For example in the current model, the process to remove IANA from ICANN involves several steps and involvement of seven different communities. Out of this two communities would have to be created and the process requires super majority votes from the two main supporting organizations, twice. Apart from that, the ICANN board has a say in this process too.<br /></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:276pt" id="r6"> <td class="x108" style="height:274.5pt">ccTLD Australia (auDA)</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">auDA has some questions and concerns relating to both the overall structure of the CCWG's Draft Report and a number of specific elements within it.The Report is a complex document, given that it attempts to address all accountability‐related issues raised by the community. At the same time, it suffers from a paucity of detail and information in essential areas. The CCWG has developed a solution that gives rise to a number of new complexities and questions. The current Draft Report may not meet the expectations set by the U.S. Government's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Further, gaps in the draft relating to proposed accountability mechanisms may hinder the progress of associated work currently being undertaken to transfer the stewardship of the IANA functions from the USG to the multi‐stakeholder community. it is essential that the CCWG, community, ICANN Board and NTIA have a clear and current understanding of operational impacts that accountability‐related recommendations could have. The input of the Board and staff will be essential in developing this. AuDA does not share the CCWG's view that additional work can be deferred to Workstream 2.</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x160">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r7"> <td class="x114" style="height:108.9pt">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x109">Afnic agrees with the four building blocks that have been identified by the CCWG that are to be put in place in order for the IANA transition to occur. Each and every proposal made by the CCWG – accountability should be tested against the main risks the community has identified, and we recognize the work done by the CCWG – accountability to test its own proposals already, involving external counsels as well as experienced members of the community. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Trying to implement the proposals to test them, before proposing it to the NTIA, seems impossible to us, and would be a diversion of the process itself. Respecting the timeline is paramount. As the proposals made are built upon a rough consensus of the community, we believe ICANN will simply have to commit to implement and enforce them, once they will be submitted to and approved by the NTIA.</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x160"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r8"> <td class="x108" style="height:136.5pt">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x116">General support for most of the proposal. </td> <td class="x109">Maintaining a consistent focus on the requirements it has developed, and ensuring it completes a viable proposal that can deliver them, is the best prospect of a successful outcome to the Work Stream 1 effort. </td> <td class="x109">Substantial new detail to meet some people’s concerns will require a further round of consultation. The absence of such detail could lead some who would generally support the proposal to instead reject the proposal, potentially threatening overall consensus. The CCWG-Accountability should<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>have its own counsel conduct the bylaws drafting process. If CCWG-Accountability counsel work with CWG IANA counsel to prepare changes for the Names Proposal and ICANN accountability improvements together, the chances of unintended consequences or interactions are diminished. </td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x160"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r9"> <td class="x108" style="height:33.3pt">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. Welcome the open, thorough, careful and consensus-building approach. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x160"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r10"> <td class="x108" style="height:50.7pt">CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. Appreciation for the openness, inclusivity and transparency of the WG and its processes.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x103">Further work on the operational details of WS1 proposal is essential</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x160">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r11"> <td class="x108" style="height:108.9pt">Christopher Wilkinson</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">The Executive Summary should be self-contained and self-explanatory (translation needed). Unmanageable flow of documentation. A small number of Members, together with ICANN staff, have monopolized the drafting process. Definitional work needed. Remove references to Work Stream. The CCWG public comment period should be extended until after the outcome of the forthcoming meeting between CCWG and the ICANN Board has been reported and published.</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:52.2pt" id="r12"> <td class="x108" style="height:50.7pt">China Organizational Name Administration Center (CONAC)</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Practice will be the best way to test effectiveness. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r13"> <td class="x118" style="height:53.7pt">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x116">General support for most of the proposal: comprehensive analysis of PC1.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x116">Consensus by exhaustion is a genuine concern. With respect to ICANNs legal counsel leading the bylaws drafting effort we disagree: it should be the CCWG's legal counsel leading this effort, through means of qualitative analysis. </td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r14"> <td class="x114" style="height:136.5pt">eco Association of the Internet Industry</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. Supports list of requirements to improve accountability. </td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x112">The group should be flexible and continue to be open minded for community input and adjust the proposal where appropriate to add detail, remove concerns and limit the risk of unintended consequences.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>What counts is the essence, i.e. the list of requirements, to improve ICANN's accountability. Legal vehicles or operational details to achieve the accountability goals do not that much matter. The CCWG Accountability should provide a rationale for making such changes.More emphasis should be given to the preservation of the consensus-based and community-driven bottom-up approach.</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r15"> <td class="x114" style="height:53.7pt">Erman Öncel - Partnership Istanbul</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x167">The transition period may not very straightforward as expected and may require many trials and errors.</td> <td class="x109">Expected results from the multi-stakeholder governance model, each contemplated mechanism should be thoroughly discussed, diligently tailored and especially be open to further revisions or replacements with alternative methods. </td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r16"> <td class="x114" style="height:108.9pt">Government of Kuwait</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x112">Should identify the specific accountability issues that need to be addressed and work on improving them with a clear coordinated process to ensure it meets all the requirements of the accepted final IANA stewardship transition proposal.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r17"> <td class="x108" style="height:33.3pt">Government of New Zealand</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal. Supports CCWG's consultative approach</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110">1</td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x160"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> <td class="x110"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r18"> <td class="x108" style="height:136.5pt">IAB (Internet Architecture Board)</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">We wonder whether there might be ways to adapt existing institutions and mechanisms to meet, on an interim basis, the immediate accountability needs specified in the ICG proposal. If such smaller changes could be acceptable as an interim step, the transition could proceed separately from large-scale organizational changes to ICANN. The current proposal from the CCWG could continue to be refined in Work Stream 2, and could be implemented as community consensus is reached. Given the pressure from the calendar and the extent of change needed, we are hopeful that some interim steps could be contemplated.</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r19"> <td class="x114" style="height:39.9pt">Internet Association </td> <td class="x116">Support for proposal. The CCWG should carefully detail how any proposals arising from this effort comply with NTIA’s criterion that its role not be replaced by a governmental solution.</td> <td class="x112">Key accountability improvements must occur in parallel with the IANA stewardship transition.</td> <td class="x116">The proposal could be further strengthened and clarified.</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r20"> <td class="x118" style="height:67.5pt">Jan Scholte (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Clarify what "ICANN" means, who "Community" is. The document should distinguish clearly throughout between the two usages of ‘Community’. ‘The Empowered Community’ would better be described as ‘the legislature". Timeline of Work Stream 2 should be mentioned at the outset.</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:193.2pt" id="r21"> <td class="x108" style="height:191.7pt">John Klensin</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">A review of the CCWG proposal's elements suggests the present structure of ICANN is not adequate to support a transition. It would be appropriate to return to the question of transitioning the US Government role out of IANA (and/or other elements of the system) only after that process completes and the changes are judged stable, reliable, and trustworthy by the multistakeholder community. The CCWG plan should be set aside or at least reduced to those elements that are clearly and obviously critically necessary to an IANA transition. We should get through the transition, let that stabilize and make whatever corrections are demonstrated by experience to be needed and then organize a second-generation "evolution and reform" process to consider whatever other changes are needed (presumably considering the present CCWG draft as important input).</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r22"> <td class="x108" style="height:108.9pt">John Poole</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">You have failed to follow your own Charter, and in your “rush to meet a deadline” you have failed to achieve the charter’s stated goal: a proposal which enhances ICANN’s accountability towards all stakeholders. Unless you are willing to backtrack and spend the necessary time—at a minimum, six months or more—to reconsider, redraft and correct your fundamentally flawed proposal, you should sit down in LA later this month and honestly try to work out something with the Board.</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:193.2pt" id="r23"> <td class="x118" style="height:191.7pt">Nell Minow (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x109">Clarify what "ICANN" means, who "Community" is. The document should distinguish clearly throughout between the two usages of ‘Community’. ‘The Empowered Community’ would better be described as ‘the legislature". Timeline of Work Stream 2 should be mentioned at the outset. The CCWG must make a concerted effort with a specific goal of page views and comments, making use of whatever viral systems are available to make sure that the vitally important issues raised by these proposals are thoroughly reviewed and extensively commented on. We have extensive and details goals, principles, and deadlines but we do not have clear consequences for failure to meet them. The proposals as currently constituted are complicated and arcane, as is to be expected from so many committees and constituencies, coming from so many countries and cultures.</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r24"> <td class="x108" style="height:39.9pt">RySG (Registries Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x109">Supports proposal.</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x116">More time is warranted to a) consider the ICANN Board’s recent interventions (and comments) regarding the draft proposal and b) stress test proposed IRP changes.</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr class="x117" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r25"> <td class="x108" style="height:53.7pt">William Currie (CCWG Advisor)</td> <td class="x109">General support for most of the proposal</td> <td class="x109">N/A</td> <td class="x122">It may help to elucidate the accountability question by reference to the work of US political scientist, Jane Mansbridge. She draws a distinction between trust-based and sanctions-based accountability. </td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111">1</td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> <td class="x111"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r26"> <td class="x177" style="height:16.65pt"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x179"></td> <td class="x179"></td> <td class="x179"></td> <td class="x179"></td> <td class="x179"></td> <td class="x179"></td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">6</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">4</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">5</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">1</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">5</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">5</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">10</td> <td class="x230" style="text-align:right">2</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r27"> <td class="x177" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x178"></td> <td class="x179"></td> <td class="x179"></td> <td class="x179"></td> <td class="x179"></td> <td class="x179"></td> <td class="x179"></td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">30.00%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">20.00%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">25.00%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">5.00%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">25.00%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">25.00%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">50.00%</td> <td class="x242" style="text-align:right">10.00%</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r28"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r29"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r30"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r31"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r32"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r33"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r34"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r35"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r36"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r37"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r38"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r39"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r40"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r41"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r42"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r43"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r44"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r45"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r46"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r47"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r48"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r49"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r50"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r51"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r52"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r53"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r54"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r55"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r56"> <td class="x121" style="height:17.4pt"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x115"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x117"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> <td class="x103"></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:102pt"></td> <td style="width:108.75pt"></td> <td style="width:72pt"></td> <td style="width:74.25pt"></td> <td style="width:90pt"></td> <td style="width:72pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:74.25pt"></td> <td style="width:145.5pt"></td> <td style="width:69.75pt"></td> <td style="width:102pt"></td> <td style="width:187.5pt"></td> <td style="width:133.5pt"></td> <td style="width:133.5pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="24" data-sheet-name="Work Stream 2"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1825pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x58" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:138px"></col> <col class="x58" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:421px"></col> <col class="x58" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:310px"></col> <col class="x58" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:530px"></col> <col class="x185" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:175px"></col> <col class="x185" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:231px"></col> <col class="x185" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:194px"></col> <col class="x185" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:122px"></col> <col class="x185" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:177px"></col> <col class="x58" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:136px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r0"> <td colspan="2" class="x281" style="border-right:2px solid windowtext;height:12.9pt"><a name="RANGE!A1">SUMMARY</a></td> <td class="x58" style="width:232.5pt"></td> <td class="x58" style="width:397.5pt"></td> <td class="x185" style="width:131.25pt"></td> <td class="x185" style="width:173.25pt"></td> <td class="x185" style="width:145.5pt"></td> <td class="x185" style="width:91.5pt"></td> <td class="x185" style="width:132.75pt"></td> <td class="x58" style="width:102pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:238.95pt" id="r1"> <td colspan="3" class="x275" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext;height:238.2pt">Comments highlight the need to keep momentum and not delay transition but recognized that appropriate steps must be taken for WS2. Concerns include: 1) Avoid pushing critical accountability work to Work Stream 2 to avoid community fatigue; 2) Issues of critical nature are being pushed to Work Stream 2 (jurisdiction, IRP procedures, community forum); 3) Human rights process is being rushed; 4) Further work on operational details of WS1 is essential; 5) Affordability and accessibility of IRP has been scheduled for work stream 2; 6) Concerns that treating areas that are naturally part of continuous improvements work as a part of the conditions for the IANA Stewardship Transition may serve as a bar to a successful conclusion of the IANA Stewardship Transition effort; 7) Concerns about status of IRP between completion of the two Work Streams. The following suggestions were made: 1) Add a Bylaws requirement for transparency in dealing with governments; 2) Handle critical issues in Work Stream 1; 3) Deal with human rights in Work Stream 2; 4). Conduct further analysis of how the benefits of different jurisdictions could be useful and considered further as part of WS2; 5) Develop selection standards to assist in guiding the selection of interim Directors in the case of Board recall; 6) Diversity should be made requirement; 7) Assess implementation of WS1 proposals for a limited period of time (to be determined, possibly 6 months or 1 year) post transition; 8) Assess issue of having ACs as voting members including conducting research and analysis as part of Work Stream 2; 8) CCWG to reprioritize the affordability discussion and place it for work stream 1; 8) Add a bylaw as part of Work Stream 1 that requires ICANN or any individual acting on ICANN’s behalf to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with any government official; 9) Discuss the dependency between SMCM model and jurisdiction with a note the SMCM may not the SMCM may not necessarily be the best model under a different legal jurisdiction. The CCWG is requested to clarify: 1) How the community will seek appeal after the transition is complete, but before the rules and procedures of the IRP are completed; 3) Reference to Work Stream 2 work to assess “enhancements to governments participation in ICANN ”; 3) How any proposals arising from this effort comply with NTIA’s criterion that its role not be replaced by a governmental solution.</td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x185"></td> <td class="x185"></td> <td class="x185"></td> <td class="x185"></td> <td class="x185"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr class="x185" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r2"> <td class="x48" style="height:33.3pt">Work Stream 2</td> <td class="x48"></td> <td class="x48">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x48">Issue areas</td> <td class="x48">Confusion/ Clarification<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;white-space:nowrap;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">    </span></td> <td class="x48">New Idea/Suggestion</td> <td class="x48">Concerns</td> <td class="x48">Agreement</td> <td class="x48">Disagreement</td> <td class="x48">Neutral</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r3"> <td class="x36" style="height:108.9pt">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x101">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The BC is also concerned that ‘accountability fatigue’ could sap energy from volunteers needed to develop consensus around Work Stream 2 measures. For that reason, the BC believes that CCWG should avoid pushing critical accountability work to Work Stream 2. Add a bylaws requirement for transparency in dealing with governments - An additional Work Stream 2 improvement would limit government influence over ICANN and reveal ICANN attempts to influence public policies unrelated to ICANN’s core mission.<br /></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r4"> <td class="x36" style="height:81.3pt">CCAOI (Cyber Cafe Association of India)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Though quite a few critical issues such as jurisdiction, establishing procedures for the enhanced Independent Review Process; details on defining modalities of the ICANN Community Forum, etc. have been conceptually described in work stream 1,there operational detailing is being deferred to work stream 2. We are of the opinion that issues which are vital should be detailed or resolved in Work Stream 1 itself, so that the community can decide whether or not to support the changes</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r5"> <td class="x36" style="height:67.5pt">ccTLD Australia (auDA)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x64">auDA notes that a number of critical issues that we believe must be either completely resolved or significantly advanced as part of current accountability reform efforts (Workstream 1 – WS1) are only being partially implemented by the CCWG and that important work on detail is being deferred as post‐transition work (Workstream 2 – WS2).</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:276pt" id="r6"> <td class="x39" style="height:274.5pt">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x58">N/A</td> <td class="x51">In that sense, enhancing ICANN accountability, especially when it comes to work stream 1, is not an attempt to fix all ICANN internal governance problems, which are still numerous, as in any organizations. Like every organization, ICANN need to evolve and see its own processes, operations and accountability, strengthened periodically.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>But in this very case, on the contrary, we are talking about reforms built on what works within ICANN, namely the bottom-up multistakeholder approach. These reforms must help reaching at least the same level of accountability ICANN use to have towards the US Government, but now towards the Global Multistakeholder Community.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>If, doing that, it’s possible to solve some recurrent problems faced by the communities inside ICANN, that would be a bonus, and that’s definitely what Afnic expects to see in work stream 2.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r7"> <td class="x36" style="height:81.3pt">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">We consider it is important to develop a shared understanding of ICANN’s role in human rights and in developing consensus bylaw text. This process should not be rushed. We would question whether the addition of such text is necessary for the successful transition of the IANA Stewardship role, or whether it would be more appropriate to consider this in the context of Work Stream 2, allowing further time for the community to reach consensus.</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r8"> <td class="x36" style="height:67.5pt">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x51">General support for most of the proposal. We are pleased that the current draft acknowledges the extreme nature of recalling the entire Board (paragraph 414) and the intention to develop community standards for Board members in WS2</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Jurisdiction is a complex issue. The proposal accepts the status quo for WS1 and we believe that, at least for the present, this is appropriate:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>we do not think that there is currently any consensus on a change of jurisdiction as part of this proposal. However, further analysis of the benefits of different jurisdictions could be useful and could be considered further as part of WS2.</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:303.6pt" id="r9"> <td class="x36" style="height:302.1pt">CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology)</td> <td class="x51"> We note the need for greater transparency at ICANN and support the call for existing transparency processes, in particular the DIDP, to be reviewed and enhanced as a part of WS2.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We also believe that as a part of this review the community should consider whether it would be appropriate for the interactions between ICANN senior management and the Board on the one hand and governments on the other to be made more transparent. With regard to the development of community standards for the removal of Directors that is to occur in WS2, CDT suggests that such work look to accepted corporate governance best practices for guidance. CDT supports the proposal for a transitional bylaw to commit ICANN to implementing the WS2 post transition accountability recommendations. We agree that further work on the operational details of WS1 proposal is essential.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>While implementation of many of the WS1 enhancements will occur before transition, we also believe that an on-going review of the implementation of WS1 proposals is essential.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We therefore suggest that there should be component of WS2 work that assesses the implementation of WS1 proposals for a limited period of time (to be determined, possibly 6 months or 1 year) post transition.<br /></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r10"> <td class="x36" style="height:122.7pt">CAICT (China Academy of Information and Communication Technology)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">We would like to reiterate that: considering the importance of ICANN and PTI's operation over Internet's key resources and their responsibility to global public service, in order to further enhance the accountability and transparency, ICANN and PTI shall be separated from the US legal system so they would not be controlled or captured by a single nation or group. This idea shall be an important topic and trend for future development. Please add this topic into the process of enhancing ICANN's accountability, so as to provide a system guarantee for ICANN's globalization. Otherwise, the operation of ICANN and IANA<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>functions would never reach true transparency and accountability. </td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:104.4pt" id="r11"> <td class="x36" style="height:102.9pt">China Organizational Name Administration Center (CONAC)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Reconsider<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>the jurisdiction<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>of ICANN,<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>to<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>change<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>the<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>status-quo<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>of ICANN, an<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>international<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>organization,<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>from being controlled by the US laws to being controlled<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>by international laws. </td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:141pt" id="r12"> <td class="x41" style="height:139.5pt">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x54">We support the list of Work Stream 2 items as defined in the proposal.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>We support the examination of the DIDP process as part of the Work Stream 2 effort. As part of the Work Stream 2 effort we suggest that an enhanced set of Director selection standards be developed to assist in guiding the selection of interim Directors in the case of Board recall. We suggest that diversity is not a direct requirement in order to implement the IANA transition. We strongly support the examination of diversity as a part of Work Stream 2. We support the requirement for Work Stream 2 to be incorporated into a transitional bylaw in order to ensure the implementation of Work Stream 2 items is unhindered by any organisational pushback.<br /></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">Furthermore we ask that the CCWG reexamines the issue of having AC’s as voting members as a matter of urgency, we suggest that this topic will require a great deal of research and analysis and would be best suited for Work Stream 2, our suggestion would be that the CCWG retains the current balance of power between the SO/AC communities by forming the CMSM as a conglomeration of the SOs in voting positions and allow the AC’s to advise the community mechanism in a formal manner in addition to the advising the ICANN board.</td> <td class="x55">1</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55">1</td> <td class="x55">1</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x54"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:162pt" id="r13"> <td class="x39" style="height:160.5pt">Edward Morris</td> <td class="x51">I am delighted to see that the CCWG is committed to revising and updating ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) in work stream 2. The DIDP is a failed policy instrument due to staff overuse of the Defined Conditions of Nondisclosure (DCND), resulting in virtually all-public requests for information being denied on often-questionable grounds.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>This needs to be fixed.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>As such, I strongly encourage the CCWG to create a Transparency working group as part of work stream 2 that encompasses both DIDP reform and the implementation of the Inspection right. These two modalities are related and an effective corporate policy and strategy of transparency and openness will be best be achieved through procedures designed to best utilize both processes.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Accessibility and affordability: There is a commitment in the Draft to ensure the IRP is affordable and accessible to all. Regrettably, this work has been scheduled for work stream 2. I find that unfortunate, as affordability was one of five key goals when we first began discussing IRP reform in the subgroups. Merely stating the desire to obtain “pro bono representation” ,for example, for those who would “otherwise be excluded from using the” IRP process is not the same as committing ICANN to do so. I would encourage the CCWG to reprioritize the affordability discussion and place it once again for action where it belongs:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>in work stream 1. Accountability that is unaffordable is not accountability at all. This Draft does not reflect that agreement (evaluation of CEP) and I am unaware of any CCWG plenary session, public comment or full WP2 session that considered this matter and rejected the work of the WP2 subgroup on this issue. I strongly suggest that the mediation option be reinstated into our Proposal and that the CEP be re-evaluated in it’s entirety as part of work stream 2.<br /></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r14"> <td class="x36" style="height:108.9pt">Government of Brazil</td> <td class="x51">Although Brazil would prefer, for the reasons stated previously, that the issue regarding legal status/jurisdiction be part of the initial transition proposal, we agree the discussion on those topics should not keep the transition hostage but rather should be further investigated in the context of work stream 2. In that sense, we consider that, although any working group tasked for this should continue to be guided by the parameters (or "conditions") we have all accepted from the start.</td> <td class="x51">No single topic should be considered "off-limits".<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;white-space:nowrap;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r15"> <td class="x36" style="height:67.5pt">Government of Egypt</td> <td class="x170">Governement of Egypt stresses the importance of limiting Work Stream 1 recommendations to accountability measures necessary for the transition to take place, as well as the importance of keeping the momentum and ensuring that Work Stream 2 fully examines.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r16"> <td class="x36" style="height:108.9pt">Government of India</td> <td class="x51">It is imperative that Work Stream 2 proposals are pursued and implemented, since they are concerned with fundamental issues of concern to the global multistakeholder community.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that ICANN implements the Work Stream 2 proposals within the agreed time.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The recommendation that a transitional bylaws be included, which commits ICANN to the implementation of the CCWG-Accountability recommendations on Work Stream 2, is strongly supported.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r17"> <td class="x36" style="height:81.3pt">Government of the United Kingdom</td> <td class="x51">With regard to the issue of jurisdiction which we acknowledge is an issue of concern for other governments, the UK supports the intention to examine this issue fully in the next phase of the CCWG’s work (Workstream 2) when in particular the legal aspects of ICANN’s dispute resolution and appeal procedures would usefully be reviewed.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:317.4pt" id="r18"> <td class="x36" style="height:315.9pt">ICANN Board</td> <td class="x51">Supports in principle with some recommended changes - The Board supports the principle of continuous improvements, and recognize that ICANN will always be under a path of continuous improvement, even after the transition occurs, and set out a process (including the community and Board) of defining what improvements should be considered and standards against which continuous improvements would be measured. The Board supports the utilization of existing mechanisms, such as future ATRT reviews, as the “home” for topics where appropriate, or identify other mechanisms for continuous improvement.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>For example, the IRP enhancements should likely have their own work group kicked off; the AoC review standardization should be its own community staff effort; Enhancements to the DIDP could fall neatly under the next ATRT work, etc. Institute a Bylaws requirement that continuous improvement ideas must be supported by a high threshold of the community and to uphold the following criteria consistent with the lines of the NTIA criteria, which are: x<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; x Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS; x<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; x<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>Maintain the openness of the Internet; and x Not result in ICANN becoming a government-led or an inter-governmental organization. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The Board is concerned that treating areas that are naturally part of continuous improvements work as a part of the conditions for the IANA Stewardship Transition may serve as a bar to a successful conclusion of the IANA Stewardship Transition effort.</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r19"> <td class="x39" style="height:177.9pt">Internet Association </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x54">We understand that CCWG plans to use Work Stream 2 to establish rules of procedure for the enhanced IRP (paragraph 1033). But this leads to significant questions regarding the status of the IRP between completion of the two Work Streams. Will the community be required to rely on an IRP without fully developed rules and procedures until Work Stream 2 is completed? Will the existing IRP remain in place until these rules are written? The CCWG should clarify how the community will seek appeal after the transition is complete, but before the rules and procedures of the IRP are completed. There is also a reference to Work Stream 2 work to assess “enhancements to governments [sic] participation in ICANN,” (1033) but no further context is provided. The CCWG should clarify the intent of this work, carefully detailing how any proposals arising from this effort comply with NTIA’s criterion that its role not be replaced by a governmental solution.</td> <td class="x55">1</td> <td class="x55">1</td> <td class="x55">1</td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x55"></td> <td class="x54"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:124.2pt" id="r20"> <td class="x39" style="height:122.7pt">MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The MPAA notes that our request that a bylaw be added that requires ICANN or any individual acting on ICANN’s behalf to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with any government official, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities on behalf of ICANN, was considered not ripe for Work Stream 1 and was instead moved into Work Stream 2 for later consideration. We are disappointed that this important bylaw change will be delayed into the future and respectfully request that the CCWG re-consider and accept this proposal under the auspices of Work Stream 1 to ensure a transparent and thus accountable ICANN in a timely manner.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;white-space:nowrap;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">   </span></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:207pt" id="r21"> <td class="x36" style="height:205.5pt">Pranesh Prakash</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The Sole-Member Community Mechanism (SMCM) that has been proposed seems in large part the best manner provided under Californian law relating to public benefit corporations of dealing with accountability issues, and is the lynchpin of the whole accountability mechanism under workstream 1. However, the jurisdictional analysis laid down in 11.3 will only be completed post-transition, as part of workstream 2. Thus the SMCM may not necessarily be the best model under a different legal jurisdiction. It would be useful to discuss the dependency between these more clearly. In this vein, it is essential that the Article XVIII Section 1 not be designated a fundamental bylaw. Further, it would be useful to add that for some limited aspects of the transition (such as IANA functioning), ICANN should seek to enter into a host country agreement to provide legal immunity, thus providing a qualification to para 125 ("ICANN accountability requires compliance with applicable legislation, in jurisdictions where it operates.") since the IANA functions operator ought not be forced by a country not to honour requests made by, for example, North Korea. </td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r22"> <td class="x269" style="height:67.5pt">SSAC</td> <td class="x51">The SSAC does understand that there are questions about whether issues in "Track 2" will be addressed at all, but that should not be the argument for including things in “Track 1” that do not belong there. Instead, mechanisms should be identified that ensure “Track 2” issues are addressed. </td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x51"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:96.6pt" id="r23"> <td class="x41" style="height:95.1pt">US Chamber of Commerce</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">We reiterate our support for the inclusion of a new bylaw aimed at preventing government capture or undue ICANN influence on public policies unrelated to ICANN’s core mission. This would be achieved through additional transparency, requiring that ICANN or any individual acting on ICANN’s behalf make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with any government official, as well as activities, receipts or disbursement in support of those activities on behalf of ICANN. This important work should be done under the auspices of Work Stream 1.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;white-space:nowrap;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r24"> <td class="x39" style="height:136.5pt">USCIB (US Council on International Business)</td> <td class="x51">USCIB has extraordinary respect for the CCWG Chairs and Community members who have devoted hundreds of hours to conceiving, drafting, and refining an Accountability framework that ultimately will ensure that ICANN remains a high-quality technical organization responsive to the interests and needs of its various constituencies. These individuals – quite understandably – will need and deserve a break from the grueling schedule required by this effort. Nevertheless, there will be considerable important work required in Work Stream 2 and we worry that the possible onset of “accountability fatigue” may hamper such work. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Therefore, USCIB suggests again that the CCWG adopt an additional Bylaw that requires ICANN or any individual acting on ICANN’s behalf (i.e., ICANN staff or third-party individuals hired by ICANN) to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with any government official, as well as activities, receipts, and disbursements in support of those activities on behalf of ICANN. Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the multistakeholder community of the statements and activities of such persons in light of their function as representatives of ICANN. Ideally, consideration of this bylaw should occur under the auspices of Work Stream 1. </td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52">1</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x51"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27pt" id="r25"> <td class="x62" style="height:26.25pt"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x245">2</td> <td class="x245">10</td> <td class="x245">11</td> <td class="x245">9</td> <td class="x245">3</td> <td class="x245">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r26"> <td class="x62" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x246">10.00%</td> <td class="x246">50.00%</td> <td class="x246">55.00%</td> <td class="x246">45.00%</td> <td class="x246">15.00%</td> <td class="x246">5.00%</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r27"> <td class="x64" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x70"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r28"> <td class="x64" style="height:34.8pt"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x48">Confusion/ Clarification<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;white-space:nowrap;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">    </span></td> <td class="x48">New Idea/Suggestion</td> <td class="x48">Concerns</td> <td class="x48">Agreement</td> <td class="x48">Disagreement</td> <td class="x48">Neutral</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r29"> <td class="x64" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x70"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r30"> <td class="x64" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x70"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r31"> <td class="x64" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x70"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r32"> <td class="x64" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x69"></td> <td class="x70"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r33"> <td class="x58" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r34"> <td class="x58" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r35"> <td class="x58" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r36"> <td class="x58" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r37"> <td class="x58" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r38"> <td class="x58" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r39"> <td class="x58" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r40"> <td class="x58" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r41"> <td class="x58" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r42"> <td class="x58" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r43"> <td class="x58" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r44"> <td class="x58" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:14.4pt" id="r45"> <td class="x58" style="height:14.4pt"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x28"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:103.5pt"></td> <td style="width:315.75pt"></td> <td style="width:232.5pt"></td> <td style="width:397.5pt"></td> <td style="width:131.25pt"></td> <td style="width:173.25pt"></td> <td style="width:145.5pt"></td> <td style="width:91.5pt"></td> <td style="width:132.75pt"></td> <td style="width:102pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="25" data-sheet-name="Enhances Accountability"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1563pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x28" id="c0" style="mso-width-source:userset;width:0pt;mso-width-alt:0pt"></col> <col class="x64" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x60" span="4" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x60" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:107px"></col> <col class="x60" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x57" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> <col span="2" style="width:61px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r0"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t1"><a name="RANGE!A1"></a></td> <td colspan="2" class="x285" style="border-right:2px solid windowtext">SUMMARY</td> <td class="x70" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:80.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td class="x53" style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.95pt" id="r1"> <td class="x28" style="height:34.95pt;overflow:hidden" id="t2"></td> <td colspan="3" class="x288" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext"> Of the responses, there was agreement that the CCWG-Accountability Proposal enhances ICANN's accountability. Four contributors expressed concerns including the proposed “Community Mechanism as Sole Member” model is untested.<br /></td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr class="x59" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:70.05pt" id="r2"> <td class="x59" style="height:70.05pt;overflow:hidden" id="t3"></td> <td class="x47">Do you agree that the CCWG-Accountability proposal enhances ICANN's accountability?</td> <td class="x48">Support areas</td> <td class="x48">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x48">Issue areas</td> <td class="x48">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x48">New Idea</td> <td class="x48">Concerns</td> <td class="x48">Agreement</td> <td class="x48">Diagreement</td> <td class="x48">Neutral</td> <td class="x186"></td> <td class="x59"></td> <td class="x59"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r3"> <td class="x28" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t4">1</td> <td class="x36">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">Proposal could enhance accountability</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x52"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> <td class="x77"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r4"> <td class="x28" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t5">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD Australia (auDA)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">General concerns</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:41.4pt" id="r5"> <td class="x28" style="height:41.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t6"></td> <td class="x36">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x51">Afnic agrees with the four building blocks that have been identified by the CCWG that are to be put in place in order for the IANA transition to occur.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r6"> <td class="x28" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t7">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x51">Proposal could enhance accountability</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r7"> <td class="x28" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t8">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x51">Proposal could enhance accountability</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r8"> <td class="x28" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t9">1</td> <td class="x41">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x51">Proposal could enhance accountability</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r9"> <td class="x28" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t10">1</td> <td class="x36">Dyn</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">It does not enhance accountability</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:165.6pt" id="r10"> <td class="x28" style="height:165.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t11">1</td> <td class="x39">Government of Kuwait</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">If the dimensions of accountability according to paragraph 123 are: transparency, consultations, review and redress, then there are so far satisfactory processes that is currently into place within ICANN as an organization to address these dimensions. These processes can be reviewed and changed in a gradual manner.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r11"> <td class="x28" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t12">1</td> <td class="x36">JPNIC (Japan Network Information Center)</td> <td class="x51">Proposal could enhance accountability</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r12"> <td class="x28" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t13">1</td> <td class="x36">Luis Hecht</td> <td class="x51">Proposal could enhance accountability</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r13"> <td class="x28" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t14">1</td> <td class="x39">MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)</td> <td class="x51">Proposal could enhance accountability</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r14"> <td class="x28" style="height:82.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t15">1</td> <td class="x36">NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">There are important improvements in accountability mechanisms, but there are also flaws in the proposal that are likely to undercut those improvements.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:110.4pt" id="r15"> <td class="x28" style="height:109.65pt;overflow:hidden" id="t16">1</td> <td class="x45">NRO (Number Resource Organization)</td> <td class="x194">N/A</td> <td class="x248">N/A</td> <td class="x248">"As noted by the Sidley Austin LLP and Adler &amp; Colvin High Level Review of Jones Day Analysis re CCWG Second Proposal of 1 September 2015, the proposed “Community Mechanism as Sole Member” model is untested when considered at this point in time. As such, it is not possible to determine if the proposal would enhance ICANN’s accountability to the Internet community, as there does not appear to be period for its testing and evaluation prior to NTIA IANA Stewardship transition."</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.45pt" id="r16"> <td class="x247" style="height:25.95pt;overflow:hidden" id="t17">12</td> <td class="x249"></td> <td class="x214"></td> <td class="x214"></td> <td class="x214"></td> <td class="x211">0</td> <td class="x211">0</td> <td class="x211">4</td> <td class="x211">7</td> <td class="x211">2</td> <td class="x211">2</td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:27.45pt" id="r17"> <td class="x28" style="height:27.45pt;overflow:hidden" id="t18"></td> <td class="x249"></td> <td class="x214"></td> <td class="x214"></td> <td class="x214"></td> <td class="x212">0%</td> <td class="x212">0%</td> <td class="x212">33%</td> <td class="x212">58%</td> <td class="x212">17%</td> <td class="x212">17%</td> <td class="x57"></td> <td class="x53"></td> <td class="x53"></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:0pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:80.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="26" data-sheet-name="Chartering Organizations"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1479pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x28" id="c0" style="mso-width-source:userset;width:0pt;mso-width-alt:0pt"></col> <col class="x64" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x70" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x60" span="4" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x60" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:117px"></col> <col class="x60" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:103px"></col> <col class="x57" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.05pt" id="r0"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.05pt;overflow:hidden" id="t1"><a name="RANGE!A1"></a></td> <td colspan="2" class="x278" style="border-right:2px solid #000000">SUMMARY</td> <td class="x70" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x70" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td class="x60" style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td class="x57" style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:85.95pt" id="r1"> <td class="x28" style="height:85.95pt;overflow:hidden" id="t2"></td> <td colspan="3" class="x275" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext">There was no significant opposition to transmitting the proposal to the Chartering Organizations 14 of the 92 submissions responded to the question specifically. Of these 9 were in support, 3 had concerns, 4 were in disagreement and 2 were neutral. 20 of the 92 submission generally supported the proposal without specifically mentioning this point. (see Overall Support tab) 3 of the 90 submissions were against the proposal overall without specifically mentioning this point (see Overall Disagreement tab). Elements flagged as problematic for Chartering Organizations include: Lack of clarity regarding the Sole Membership Model; Membership voting structure; Community Veto; ST18; Loopholes in the mission statement and core values must be closed; ICANN Board/Jones Day reaction; Limitations on ICANN’s ability to use the DNS to regulate Internet services.</td> <td class="x70"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x60"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x50" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:102pt" id="r2"> <td class="x59" style="height:102pt;overflow:hidden" id="t3"></td> <td class="x46">Are there elements of this proposal that would prevent you from approving it transmission to Chartering Organizations?</td> <td class="x47">Support areas</td> <td class="x47">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x47">Issue areas</td> <td class="x48">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x48">New Idea</td> <td class="x48">Concerns</td> <td class="x48">Agreement</td> <td class="x48">Disagreement</td> <td class="x48">Neutral</td> <td class="x49"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r3"> <td class="x28" style="height:55.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t4">1</td> <td class="x36">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">While the BC is generally supportive of the CCWG’s 2nd draft, there are several elements of the proposal that raise concerns that, if left unresolved, could make it difficult for the BC to support the final proposal. </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69.6pt" id="r4"> <td class="x28" style="height:69.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t5">1</td> <td class="x36">CCG-NULD (Centre for Communication Governance National Law University Delhi)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">There are certain aspects of the proposal, which need to be resolved: Lack of clarity regarding the Sole Membership Model; Membership voting structure; Community Veto.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r5"> <td class="x28" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t6">1</td> <td class="x39">ccTLD France (Afnic)</td> <td class="x51">No items that would prevent transmission</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r6"> <td class="x28" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t7">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x51">No items that would prevent transmission</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r7"> <td class="x28" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t8">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x51">No items that would prevent transmission</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r8"> <td class="x60" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t9">1</td> <td class="x41">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x51">No items that would prevent transmission</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r9"> <td class="x28" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t10">1</td> <td class="x36">Dyn</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Would not approve submission to Chartering Organizations.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r10"> <td class="x28" style="height:69pt;overflow:hidden" id="t11"></td> <td class="x36">Government of Brazil</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x64">Brazil firmly rejects ST 18 and fails to see why approval of the IANA stewardship transition proposal should be held hostage of a decision in that regard. </td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:55.2pt" id="r11"> <td class="x28" style="height:55.2pt;overflow:hidden" id="t12"></td> <td class="x36">Government of France</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">We therefore thank the CCWG for considering that the French Government shall formally object to any approval by GAC of a final proposal that would not leave Bylaws Article XI.2.1.j unchanged.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:69pt" id="r12"> <td class="x28" style="height:69pt;overflow:hidden" id="t13">1</td> <td class="x36">IGP (Internet Governance Project)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">Would not approve submission to Chartering Organizations for following reasons: The SMCM voting allocations do not make sense; The composition of the SMCM must be fixed and stable; Loopholes in the mission statement and core values must be closed; ICANN Board/Jones Day reaction. </td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x67">1</td> <td class="x67"></td> <td class="x58"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r13"> <td class="x60" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t14">1</td> <td class="x36">JPNIC (Japan Network Information Center)</td> <td class="x51">No items that would prevent transmission</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r14"> <td class="x60" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t15">1</td> <td class="x36">Luis Hecht</td> <td class="x51">No items that would prevent transmission</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r15"> <td class="x28" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t16">1</td> <td class="x39">MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)</td> <td class="x51">No items that would prevent transmission</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:138pt" id="r16"> <td class="x28" style="height:138pt;overflow:hidden" id="t17">1</td> <td class="x36">NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">There are also two possible exceptions to the crucial limitation, expressed in paragraph 187, on ICANN’s ability to use the DNS to regulate Internet services and content. One is contained under the heading Freedom to Contract and the other is in Core Value 7. Taken together, these aspects of the proposal reduce our confidence that the proposal will meet the NTIA requirements regarding accountability, the openness of the Internet and the requirement that ICANN not be government­led. Moreover, they would seem likely to attract adverse attention in US Congressional hearings.</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr class="x57" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:82.8pt" id="r17"> <td class="x60" style="height:82.05pt;overflow:hidden" id="t18">1</td> <td class="x36">NRO (Number Resource Organization)</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x51">The Internet numbers community will be relying predominantly upon contractual measures for<br />ICANN accountability, and as such has no fundamental objection to CCWG proposal.</td> <td class="x51">N/A</td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66"></td> <td class="x66">1</td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r18"> <td class="x66" style="height:12.3pt;overflow:hidden" id="t19">13</td> <td class="x62"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x211">0</td> <td class="x211">0</td> <td class="x211">2</td> <td class="x211">8</td> <td class="x211">4</td> <td class="x211">2</td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r19"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t20"></td> <td class="x62"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x92"></td> <td class="x212">0%</td> <td class="x212">0%</td> <td class="x212">15%</td> <td class="x212">62%</td> <td class="x212">31%</td> <td class="x212">15%</td> <td class="x57"></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:0pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:87.75pt"></td> <td style="width:77.25pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div><div class="cells-worksheet" data-sheet-number="27" data-sheet-name="CWG Requirements"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:1545pt"> <colgroup> <col class="x28" id="c0" style="mso-width-source:userset;width:0pt;mso-width-alt:0pt"></col> <col class="x44" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x32" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x32" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:215px"></col> <col class="x32" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:425px"></col> <col class="x43" span="6" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:120px"></col> <col class="x30" style="mso-width-source:userset;background:none;width:61px"></col> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.05pt" id="r0"> <td class="x28" style="height:13.05pt;overflow:hidden" id="t1"><a name="RANGE!A1"></a></td> <td colspan="2" class="x278" style="border-right:2px solid #000000">SUMMARY</td> <td class="x32" style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td class="x32" style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td class="x43" style="width:90pt"></td> <td class="x43" style="width:90pt"></td> <td class="x43" style="width:90pt"></td> <td class="x43" style="width:90pt"></td> <td class="x43" style="width:90pt"></td> <td class="x43" style="width:90pt"></td> <td class="x30" style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:148.05pt" id="r1"> <td class="x28" style="height:148.05pt;overflow:hidden" id="t2"></td> <td colspan="3" class="x288" style="border-bottom:1px solid windowtext"> There was no significant disagreement that the proposal met the requirements set by the CWG-Stewardship. 14 of 92 submissions responded specifically to the question, including the CWG-Stewardship (see comments below). Of the 14 specific submissions 8 were in support,4 had concerns, 2 were in disagreement and 3 were neutral. 20 of the 92 submission generally supported the proposal without specifically mentioning this point. (see Overall Support tab). 3 of the 92 submissions were against the proposal overall without specifically mentioning this point. (see Overall Disagreement tab). Concerns include: 1) The CWG proposal is “significantly dependent and expressly conditioned” on the work of the CCWG; 2) Since PTI will be the sole entity responsible for the exercise of the IANA functions, and since PTI, as a separate legal entity from ICANN, cannot be considered to be ‘ICANN’ nor comprised of ICANN staff, it will not be bound by any ICANN bylaw in respect to the existing or enhanced IRP. It appears that the enhanced IRP would not apply to PTI, and therefore not to IANA decisions. There is a request for clarification for this element.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The CCWG report only provides a mechanism, through the IRP, to challenge a decision by the board to not implement a recommendation of the IANA Function Review team. It does not appear to offer a mechanism for community approval of an SCWG. It is suggested that this power be clearly detailed as a community power in order to meet the requirements of the CWG.<br /><br /></td> <td class="x32"></td> <td class="x43"></td> <td class="x43"></td> <td class="x43"></td> <td class="x43"></td> <td class="x43"></td> <td class="x43"></td> <td class="x30"></td> </tr> <tr class="x23" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:73.05pt" id="r2"> <td class="x59" style="height:73.05pt;overflow:hidden" id="t3"></td> <td class="x33">Does this proposal meet the requirements set forward by the CWG-Stewardship?</td> <td class="x34">Support areas</td> <td class="x34">Neutral areas</td> <td class="x34">Issue areas</td> <td class="x35">Confusion/ Clarification</td> <td class="x35">New Idea</td> <td class="x35">Concerns</td> <td class="x35">Agreement</td> <td class="x35">Disagreement</td> <td class="x35">Neutral</td> <td class="x27"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r3"> <td class="x28" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t4">1</td> <td class="x36">BC (Business Constituency)</td> <td class="x37">In general, the BC perceives that the CCWG draft meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final proposal. </td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x61">1</td> <td class="x61"></td> <td class="x61"></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:111pt" id="r4"> <td class="x28" style="height:111pt;overflow:hidden" id="t5">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD Canada (CIRA)</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">May not meet the requirements of the CWG. Since PTI will be the sole entity responsible for the exercise of the IANA functions, and since PTI, as a separate legal entity from ICANN, cannot be considered to be ‘ICANN’ nor comprised of ICANN staff, it will not be bound by any ICANN bylaw in respect to the existing or enhanced IRP. It appears that the enhanced IRP would not apply to PTI, and therefore not to IANA decisions. We believe that this element must be fully clarified in the next iteration of this proposal. </td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38">1</td> <td class="x61"></td> <td class="x61"></td> <td class="x61">1</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r5"> <td class="x28" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t6">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD New Zealand (Internet NZ)</td> <td class="x40">Yes</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x61"></td> <td class="x61"></td> <td class="x61">1</td> <td class="x61"></td> <td class="x61"></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r6"> <td class="x28" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t7">1</td> <td class="x36">ccTLD United Kingdom (Nominet)</td> <td class="x37">Yes</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x61"></td> <td class="x61"></td> <td class="x61">1</td> <td class="x61"></td> <td class="x61"></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:83.4pt" id="r7"> <td class="x28" style="height:83.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t8"></td> <td class="x36">CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology)</td> <td class="x37">CDT believes that the current proposal satisfies the dependencies outlined in the CWG Stewardship proposal. </td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">We would note, however, that the CWG proposal is “significantly dependent and expressly conditioned” on the work of the CCWG and we would not want to see the powers and enhancements that the CCWG is proposing be weakened or undermined. If they were to be weakened or undermined the transition would be in jeopardy. </td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x61"></td> <td class="x61">1</td> <td class="x61">1</td> <td class="x61"></td> <td class="x61"></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr class="x30" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r8"> <td class="x60" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t9">1</td> <td class="x36">CWG-Stewardship</td> <td class="x37">Yes</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38">1</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x30"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:207.6pt" id="r9"> <td class="x28" style="height:207.6pt;overflow:hidden" id="t10">1</td> <td class="x41">CyberInvasion Ltd </td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">Does this proposal meet the requirements set forward by the CWG-Stewardship?<br />We express uncertainty in relation to the CWG requirement for the IANA budget. We<br />believe that further details on the ring fencing of the IANA budget and the interrelationship<br />between the budgetary process for PTI and ICANN as its parent entity are required before<br />the CWG requirement for a stable budget process can be considered fully met.</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x61"></td> <td class="x61">1</td> <td class="x61"></td> <td class="x61"></td> <td class="x61">1</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr class="x30" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r10"> <td class="x60" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t11">1</td> <td class="x36">Dyn</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">No</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38">1</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x30"></td> </tr> <tr class="x30" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r11"> <td class="x60" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t12">1</td> <td class="x36">JPNIC (Japan Network Information Center)</td> <td class="x37">Yes</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38">1</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x30"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:17.4pt" id="r12"> <td class="x28" style="height:17.4pt;overflow:hidden" id="t13">1</td> <td class="x36">Luis Hecht</td> <td class="x37">Yes</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38">1</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x30"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r13"> <td class="x28" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t14">1</td> <td class="x39">MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)</td> <td class="x37">Yes</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38">1</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x30"></td> </tr> <tr class="x30" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r14"> <td class="x60" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t15">1</td> <td class="x36">NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group)</td> <td class="x37">Yes</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38">1</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x30"></td> </tr> <tr class="x30" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:34.8pt" id="r15"> <td class="x60" style="height:34.8pt;overflow:hidden" id="t16">1</td> <td class="x36">NRO (Number Resource Organization)</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x40">CWG requirements (for names to decide)</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38">1</td> <td class="x30"></td> </tr> <tr class="x30" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:179.4pt" id="r16"> <td class="x60" style="height:178.65pt;overflow:hidden" id="t17">1</td> <td class="x41">US Chamber of Commerce</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">N/A</td> <td class="x37">The ICG report states that the creation of a Separation Cross-Community Working (SCWG) requires approval “by both of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils (each by a supermajority vote, according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority), and will need to be approved by the ICANN Board after a public comment period, as well as a community mechanism derived from the CCWG-Accountability process.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>The CCWG report, however, only provides a mechanism, through the IRP, to challenge a decision by the board to not implement a recommendation of the IANA Function Review team.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>It does not appear to offer a mechanism for community approval of an SCWG.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">  </span>This power should be clearly detailed as a community power in order to meet the requirements of the CWG.</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38">1</td> <td class="x38">1</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x38">1</td> <td class="x38"></td> <td class="x30"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r17"> <td class="x38" style="height:12.3pt;overflow:hidden" id="t18">13</td> <td class="x102"></td> <td class="x63"></td> <td class="x63"></td> <td class="x63"></td> <td class="x209">0</td> <td class="x209">1</td> <td class="x209">4</td> <td class="x209">9</td> <td class="x209">2</td> <td class="x209">3</td> <td class="x30"></td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:13.8pt" id="r18"> <td class="x168" style="height:12.3pt;overflow:hidden" id="t19"></td> <td class="x102"></td> <td class="x63"></td> <td class="x63"></td> <td class="x63"></td> <td class="x210">0%</td> <td class="x210">8%</td> <td class="x210">31%</td> <td class="x210">69%</td> <td class="x210">15%</td> <td class="x210">23%</td> <td class="x30"></td> </tr> <tr style="display:none"> <td style="width:0pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:161.25pt"></td> <td style="width:318.75pt"></td> <td style="width:90pt"></td> <td style="width:90pt"></td> <td style="width:90pt"></td> <td style="width:90pt"></td> <td style="width:90pt"></td> <td style="width:90pt"></td> <td style="width:45.75pt"></td> </tr> </tbody></table></div>