<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">David Olive has written again to chairs asking for input on “enterprise risks” by 1 April. At <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-risk-management-process-23jan15-en.pdf" class="">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-risk-management-process-23jan15-en.pdf</a> you will find the staff’s own construction of what these risks entail. There are some areas of connection to things we’ve said here and some disjunctures. Why staff should be doing this rather than the community is a whole other question.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We are supposed to provide 5. If we come to agreement on just 5 then Rafik can submit them on behalf of NCSG. If we identify more than 5 we want to highlight than NCUC and NPOC can provide additional listings. Either way, the process needs coordination.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In our prior conversation, people listed the following points.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0px;" class="">1. The first, overarching risk is if staff and leadership think of ICANN as an corporation with “enterprise risks” rather than a community-driven global governance mechanism with global public responsibilities and associated risks.</div><div style="margin: 0px; min-height: 22px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="margin: 0px;" class="">2. There’s a risk that once the tie to the US government is severed ICANN will be found guilty of being a monopoly under antitrust/competition law in California (Cartwright Ace), the USA (Sherman), the EU (TFEU 101-109) or in some other jurisdiction.</div><div style="margin: 0px; min-height: 22px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="margin: 0px;" class="">3. There’s a risk of a lack of confidence in the domain name system as adequately protecting consumer security and privacy leading to widespread adoption of alternative mechanisms. </div><div style="margin: 0px; min-height: 22px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="margin: 0px;" class="">4. There’s a risk of over reliance on commercial gTLD profits as driving ICANNs planning and growth, leading to planning that is not focussed on ICANNs core mission. </div><div style="margin: 0px; min-height: 22px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="margin: 0px;" class="">5. There’s a risk of alternative, external, policy discussion outside ICANN community due to lack of engagement - for example, ICANNs fate being part of US congressional politics is an example of this form of risk.</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Please compare these to the staff list, see if there’s tweaks/additions to suggest, and we can go from there. We have two weeks.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Bill</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>