Name: John Laprise
Submission ID: 9

Questions Concerning the Proposal as a Whole
1) Completeness and clarity: Is the combined proposal complete? Each of the operationalcommunity proposals contains aspects to be completed in the future when the proposal isimplemented. Is the combined proposal specified in sufficient detail such that it can beevaluated against the NTIA criteria?

Yes and Yes.

2) Compatibility and interoperability: Do the operational community proposals work
together in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements wherecompatibility appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between
the functions resolved in a workable manner?

Yes, No, Yes.

3) Accountability: Do the operational community proposals together include appropriateand properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA
functions? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal?

Yes and yes. What recourse does the multistakeholder community have if ICANN violates its own
policy? How long does this corrective action take to implement? What if ICANN simply ignores
policy? Would the community take ICANN to court? How long would this process take and whowould pay for it? In the meantime, what would be the status of the Internet administration andICANN policy decisions?

4) Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were includedin the operational community proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns
when considered in combination?

Yes. Accountability mechanisms are unworkable from a chronological point of view. In a worst casescenario where the Board recall provisions are invoked, it will likely take a minimum of a year fromstart to finish given the input and voting required from the various constituent organizations. If
ICANN were to do something so grievous as to invite the community to invoke this sanction, it isreasonable to conjecture that the action in question would pose a significant threat to the security,
stability and resiliency of the DNS. Moreover, nothing constrains the Board from pursuing further
courses of action contrary to the interests of the multistakeholder community while the latter
pursues sanctions nor is the Board constrained from altering policies to undermine the recallprocess. Furthermore, what is the status of decisions made by a Board during the process.
I would suggest that the initiation of sanctions also trigger a recusement period, eliminating theability of ICANN to alter rules and processes while they are being invoked and during which theBoard may not advance or initiate policy.

Questions Concerning NTIA Criteria5) Do you believe the proposal supports and enhances the multistakeholder model? If yes,
please explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe
are necessary.

Yes. Internet stakeholders will have augmented capacity to influence and even coerce ICANN should
the need arise. It alters the balance of power.

6) Do you believe the proposal maintains the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS?
If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications youbelieve are necessary.

No, see 4 above.

7) Do you believe the proposal meets the needs and expectations of the global customers
and partners of the IANA services? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why andwhat proposal modifications you believe are necessary. Please indicate if you are acustomer or partner of the IANA services.

No. Potential uncertainty and disruption when conflict arises between the community and ICANN.
See other points in this feedback.

8) Do you believe the proposal maintains the openness of the Internet? If yes, please
explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe arenecessary.

No. As a steward and administrator of the Internet, ICANN's records and processes should be fully
open and public. Full transparency is called for.

9) Do you have any concerns that the proposal is replacing NTIA's role with a governmentled or inter-governmental organization solution? If yes, please explain why and what
proposal modifications you believe are necessary. If not, please explain why.

No. The GAC's role is minimal and does not rise to the bar of "government-led." That said, it isunclear whether the GAC will sign off on the accountability measures when its voice is sodiminished.

10) Do you believe that the implementation of the proposal will continue to uphold theNTIA criteria in the future? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what
proposal modifications you believe are necessary.

No. NTIA oversight is not replaceable. While there are many concerns about effective US oversight,
it remains true that being beholden to the US government is a result of the significant coercive force
that the US government can potentially wield. This is not replicable. Absent that force, it is unlikely
the the NTIA criteria will continue to be upheld over the long run. One potential solution would begoing a step further than the Board recall mechanism: allow the community to petition the NTIA toreassert oversight and build such a clause into all IANA function contracts.

Questions Concerning ICG Report and Executive Summary
11) Do you believe the ICG report and executive summary accurately reflect all necessary
aspects of the overall proposal? If not, please explain what modifications you believe arenecessary.

Yes

General Questions
12) Do you have any general comments for the ICG about the proposal?

I commend all of the work of the many representatives and volunteers who worked very hard to deal
with an incredibly thorny issue.