March 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

FYI - new U.S. Senate letter
by Salaets, Ken March 4, 2016

March 4, 2016

UNITED STATES SENATE Sen. Ted Cruz Press Office FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Cruz Press Office: 202-228-7561 Rachael Slobodien: rachael_slobodien(a)cruz.senate.gov<mailto:rachael_slobodien@cruz.senate.gov> Phil Novack: phil_novack(a)cruz.senate.gov<mailto:phil_novack@cruz.senate.gov> March 3, 2016 Cruz, Lankford, and Lee Raise New Concerns About ICANN’s Relationship with Authoritarian China Senators send letter to ICANN Chairman Dr. Stephen Crocker WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) today sent a letter to Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Chairman Dr. Stephen Crocker, outlining new concerns that ICANN may have a direct operational relationship with the Chinese government and its potential implications for an Internet transition that ICANN is expected to approve in Morocco next week. Today’s letter<http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/20160303_CruzLankfordLee…> to Dr. Crocker follows a letter<http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2599> Cruz, Lankford, and Lee sent to ICANN’S CEO Fadi Chehadé last month. The letter to Mr. Chehadé stated serious concerns and requested information regarding his involvement with the World Internet Conference, organized by the Chinese government, a regime notorious for its censorship of the Internet and criminalization of forms of online speech. “Last month, we sent you a letter stating our concerns regarding ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé’s participation in the Chinese-government-sponsored World Internet Conference,” the senators wrote today. “Mr. Chehadé’s participation resulted in an agreement to co-chair a high-level advisory committee for the conference, which could make ICANN complicit in the Chinese censorship regime. Since sending our letter, additional evidence has come to light suggesting that ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government may be a systemic problem within the organization itself and not limited to a single individual.” Read the latest letter from Sens. Cruz, Lankford, and Lee to ICANN officials in its entirety here<http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/20160303_CruzLankfordLee…> and below: March 3, 2016 Dr. Stephen D. Crocker Chairman of the Board of Directors Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 30<x-apple-data-detectors://22> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536<x-apple-data-detectors://22> Dear Dr. Crocker, Last month, we sent you a letter stating our concerns regarding ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé’s participation in the Chinese-government-sponsored World Internet Conference. Mr. Chehadé’s participation resulted in an agreement to co-chair a high-level advisory committee for the conference, which could make ICANN complicit in the Chinese censorship regime. Since sending our letter, additional evidence has come to light suggesting that ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government may be a systemic problem within the organization itself and not limited to a single individual. A review of the past few years reveals that ICANN may have a direct operational relationship with the Chinese government. As you know, in April 2013, ICANN hosted its 46th public meeting in Beijing. According to your remarks, one of the hosts of ICANN’s meeting was Mr. Shang Bing, Vice Minister of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. As you must be aware, the Chinese government’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) is not only a central component of China’s censorship regime, but it has pressured American companies such as IBM, Microsoft, and Apple to reveal their products’ proprietary source code to ministry officials. Just recently, MIIT issued new regulations that will restrict foreign companies, including those based in the United States, from sharing digital content ranging from text to games to video. Nevertheless, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé stated in his opening remarks, “China is going to be a central part of where the Internet community, as we know it, is heading. And, therefore, in my clear discussions with the local responsible ministers, that from ICANN’s standpoint, engagement with China is not an option. It is not an option. If we do not engage with China at every level of our community, we, frankly, lose a part of our global legitimacy. We must and we will. And that’s why we’re here today.” In addition, ICANN announced during the meeting that it would open its first global engagement office in Beijing, which would be undertaken by the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC)—an organization that has not only helped implement Chinese censorship but is led by the Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications Regulation which is a part of MIIT.At the time of the announcement, Madame HU Qiheng, Honorary Chairman of CNNIC’s Steering Committee stated that the “ICANN Engagement Center-Beijing would be not only a new link for ICANN to better develop and promote China's Internet community, but also a new platform for China's Internet community to better contribute to the development of the global Internet.” The establishment of an official ICANN office in Beijing is extremely concerning and should have raised red flags within the United States Government. Especially considering CNNIC’s statement that it would “invest necessary human and material resources in the construction of the center and actively carry out its functions including the coordination, communication, as well as operation in order to provide effective, long-term and stable services for ICANN to serve China’s Internet industry.” To further put this decision into context, at the time of the announcement, Freedom House, an independent watchdog organization dedicated to the expansion of freedom and democracy around the world, ranked China in their report “Freedom on the Net 2013” just above Iran and Cuba on Internet freedom. And since ICANN opened its Engagement Center in Beijing, China’s record on Internet freedom has declined and was ranked last in the world in 2015. The following year, in June 2014, just three months after the Obama Administration announced its intent to transition key Internet domain name functions away from United States oversight, ICANN held its 50th public meeting in London, England. During the meeting, ICANN invited Lu Wei, Minister of the Cyberspace Administration of China, to provide an address during the opening ceremony. According to his official resume, Lu Wei also serves as the vice chair of the Central Propaganda Department.” The Chinese government also announced in December 2014 that Lu Wei would become the new chairperson of CNNIC—the very organization that had claimed to be operating ICANN’s global engagement office in Beijing. Given Wei’s central role within the Chinese government, it is not surprising that he supports the Obama Administration’s plan to end United States Government oversight and further globalize ICANN. Repeating a similar pattern to the 2013 meeting in Beijing, ICANN once again chose to further align itself with the Chinese government. During the London meeting, ICANN announced that it had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the China Academy of Telecommunication Research (CATR), which is a unit of MIIT and is the official think tank of the Chinese government. In the announcement, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé stated, “This marks another milestone in ICANN's globalization efforts after we established our first engagement center in Beijing last April….This partnership is a testament to how China—a country with over one fifth of the global Internet population and a vibrant Internet industry—can engage and contribute in the ICANN global community.” A few of the stated objectives of the Memorandum of Understanding are to promote the Chinese community’s participation in ICANN, align academic and public research, and improve ICANN’s communication with Chinese communities and deepen the understanding of ICANN by the Chinese government, media and, industry. This history leads us to a more recent issue that is currently under consideration by ICANN. XYZ.COM<http://xyz.com/>LLC (“XYZ”), a U.S. based registry operator, has submitted a Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) request to ICANN seeking approval to become the first foreign registry to operate within China. If ICANN’s Board of Directors approves this request, it will allow XYZ to become a complicit actor with China’s censorship regime. For example, XYZ will have to comply with Article 27 of Chinese Internet domain name regulations, China’s Constitution, and all other applicable laws, rules, and administrative regulations pertaining to Internet domain names. According to Article 27, any domain name registered or used by any organization or individual shall not include content that “are against the basic principles prescribed in the Constitution; jeopardize national security, leak state secrets, intend to overturn the government or disrupt of state integrity; harm national honor and national interests; instigate hostility or discrimination between different nationalities, or disrupt the national solidarity; violate the state religion policies or propagate cult and feudal superstition; spread rumors, disturb public order or disrupt social stability; spread pornography, obscenity, gambling, violence, homicide, terror or instigate crimes; insult, libel against others and infringe other people’s legal rights and interests; or other contents prohibited in laws, rules and administrative regulations.” Furthermore, XYZ will also have to comply with Article 34 and Article 35 of the Chinese Internet domain name regulations. Article 34 states that, “[i]n case the domain name is in violation of the provisions and the relevant laws and regulations,” XYZ “shall delete it and notify the domain name holder in written form.” Additionally, Article 35 states the requirement that “Domain Name Registry and Domain Name Registrars have the obligation of conducting website inspection in concert with the national governing departments, and request to suspend or cease the resolution service of the domain name concerned.” There is additional concern within ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization (“Business Constituency”), the business constituency group which represents commercial users of the Internet within ICANN. The Business Constituency has raised concerns that aspects of XYZ’s RSEP are too vague and need additional clarification. For example, the term “Chinese registrant” is too broad and could be interpreted to allow the extraterritorial application of Chinese censorship law to include residents of Hong Kong, a special administrative region within the People’s Republic of China. The Business Constituency also emphasized that “government-sponsored censorship of domain names for political purposes undermines a stable Internet ecosystem that promotes end-user confidence as a safe place to conduct business. It also limits the free flow of data and information, on which business users of the Internet rely in delivering services to end users.” We know that XYZ will comply with Chinese law. Indeed, it affirmed this commitment in its initial RSEP, which was filed with ICANN on October 9, 2015. Even though this RSEP was pulled at a later date, it described how a registry operator must comply with foreign laws. In the RSEP, XYZ stated, “if we receive a specific notification that the registration of the name is illegal in China, we will treat it the same as we treat any notification from any other government that a registration is illegal. Specifically, we will cancel the registration pursuant to our anti-abuse policies which allow us to‘cancel, ...any registration or transaction ... to comply with any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any dispute resolution process.’ This is identical to our current treatment of complaints from governments about illegal domain name registrations.” It is deeply troubling that ICANN would put registry operators in a position of becoming an actor within the Chinese censorship regime. There is concern that this action could be an example of ICANN’s desire to build a close relationship with the Chinese government which could continue to move in a troubling direction once the United States Government ends its oversight. These concerns were recently confirmed by a member of the Non-Connected Party House’s (NCPH) Commercial Stakeholder Group who participated in a meeting with ICANN in February 2016 and stated, “The ICANN board wants to engage more with China and India following the IANA transition, which somewhat explains the board’s decision not to take action against Chehadé.” In order to gain a better understanding of the potential implications of ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government and its impact on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition, we request that you provide a response to the following questions as soon as possible, but no later than 9:00 a.m<x-apple-data-detectors://26>. on <x-apple-data-detectors://26> Friday, March 11, 2016<x-apple-data-detectors://26>. 1. Please state when you first learned that ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé had agreed to co-chair a high-level advisory committee for the Chinese government’s state-sponsored World Internet Conference. a. Please provide a yes-or-no answer to the following question: Did you agree with Fadi Chehadé’s decision to co-chair a high level advisory committee for the World Internet Conference? b. Did ICANN’s Board of Directors approve of Fadi Chehadé’s decision to co-chair a high level advisory committee for the World Internet Conference? c. Did any member of ICANN’s Board of Directors ask Fadi Chehadé to step down from his position as CEO and President of ICANN? d. Please provide the meeting minutes, attendance records, and all other documents associated with ICANN’s Board of Directors’ meeting(s) with Fadi Chehadé in which his commitment to co-chair a high level advisory committee for the World Internet Conference was discussed. 2. Please provide a yes-or-no answer to the following question: It has been reported that ICANN’s Board of Directors took no action against Fadi Chehadé because “[t]he view eventually prevailed that no reactive action should be taken lest China lose face.” Did ICANN refrain from taking action against Fadi Chehadé due to concern that China may lose face? 3. Fadi Chehadé has been called on to recuse himself from all discussions and negotiations pertaining to the IANA transition given a confirmed personal conflict of interest with the Chinese government. Has ICANN taken any action to ensure that Fadi Chade will recuse himself from the IANA transition? If no, please describe the reason for ICANN’s inaction. 4. During ICANN’s 46th public meeting in Beijing, Fadi Chehadé stated, “China is going to be a central part of where the Internet community, as we know it, is heading. And, therefore, in my clear discussions with the local responsible ministers, that from ICANN’s standpoint, engagement with China is not an option. It is not an option. If we do not engage with China at every level of our community, we, frankly, lose a part of our global legitimacy. We must and we will. And that’s why we’re here today.” Do you agree with the statement that ICANN will lose part of its global legitimacy if it does not engage with China at every level of the community? 5. When ICANN announced it was opening its first global engagement office in Beijing, the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) stated that it would “invest necessary human and material resources in the construction of the center and actively carry out its functions including the coordination, communication, as well as operation in order to provide effective, long-term and stable services for ICANN to serve China’s Internet industry.” Please provide yes-or-no answers to the following questions: a. Did CNNIC invest human and material resources in the construction of ICANN’s global engagement office in Beijing? b. Is CNNIC actively carrying out the functions, coordination, communication, or operation of ICANN’s global engagement office in Beijing? c. Do any individuals associated with CNNIC or the Chinese government have a formal or informal role in ICANN’s global engagement office in Beijing? 6. ICANN currently lists the address for each hub office and engagement office on its website except for the engagement office in Beijing. Please provide the address of ICANN’s engagement office in Beijing. 7. When Lu Wei, Minister of the Cyberspace Administration of China and Incumbent Vice Minister of the Central Propaganda Department, assumed the role of the Chairperson of CNNIC in December 2014, did ICANN take any action to ensure that its global engagement office in Beijing was not being used to carry out censorship for the Chinese government? 8. Do you agree with the Business Constituency’s concern that the term “Chinese registrant” in XYZ’s RSEP is too broad and could be interpreted to allow the extraterritorial application of Chinese censorship law to include residents of Hong Kong? 9. Do you agree that approval of XYZ’s RSEP will place XYZ in a position of having to comply with government-sponsored censorship of domain names for political purposes, which will undermine a stable Internet ecosystem? 10. A member of the Non-Connected Party House’s (NCPH) Commercial Stakeholder Group recently stated, “The ICANN board wants to engage more with China and India following the IANA transition, which somewhat explains the board’s decision not to take action against Chehadé.” a. Please describe ICANN’s plans for engagement with China following a potential IANA transition. b. Did ICANN’s post IANA transition plans with China play any role in the decision not to take action against Fadi Chehadé? We appreciate your cooperation in this very important matter and look forward to your response at the stated date and time. Please contact Sean McLean (Senator Cruz), Sarah Seitz (Senator Lankford), and Christy Knese (Senator Lee) of our staffs if there are any questions regarding this request. Sincerely, [Signed by Senators Cruz, Lee and Lankford] cc: Mr. Fadi Chehadé, Chief Executive Officer, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers The Honorable Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce

2 1

Fwd: SAC 080: SSAC Approval of CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations
by Thomas Rickert March 2, 2016

March 2, 2016

Dear colleagues, please see the attached letter from Patrik Fältström, which just came in. Thomas -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: SAC 080: SSAC Approval of CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations Datum: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 16:15:00 +0100 Von: Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> An: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net> Kopie (CC): SSAC <ssac(a)icann.org> See attached PDF for the original. The Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), in its capacity as a Chartering Organization of the ICANN Cross-Community Working Group on Accountability, received an invitation on 23 February 2016 to consider and approve the Working Group’s Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations. The SSAC, having duly considered it, hereby approves the Supplemental Final Proposal and congratulates the Working Group on its accomplishment. Patrik Fältström Chair, ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) on behalf of the SSAC

4 3

The Currently Re-Finalized Proposal as Hardcopy
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse March 2, 2016

March 2, 2016

Dear Co-Chairs. can you please arrange that the participants and members coming to Marrakesh find a single pages (back empty) hardcopy of the Proposal on their desk at Friday's F2F? Does not have to be bound, but if it is in a ring binder please make it available in A4 and corresponding 2 Ring Binder (the famous Leitz Ordner) and Letter/3 Ring Binder (US). Or at least for those who would like one. If it's bound why not put it into the ICANN goodie bag? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4

6 7

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015
by WUKnoben March 2, 2016

March 2, 2016

>From a business perspective I fully agree with Michele. There should be a transparent mechanism for ICANN’s procurement process and practice which from time to time should come under a review. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 3:08 PM To: Xavier J. Calvez ; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org ; community-finance(a)icann.org ; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org ; icann-board(a)icann.org Cc: global_leadership(a)icann.org ; Senior Management Team Subject: Re: [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015 Xavier Thanks for sharing this information. It’s useful, though I suspect it’ll raise as many questions as it answers. One thing I did notice was in relation to the legal fees. Doing some back of the envelope calculations and noting how much ICANN generally spends on legal fees one question did come to mind, and this in relation to ICANN’s overall budgeting. How often does ICANN change law firms? Has ICANN ever changed law firms? As far as I can tell Jones Day has been doing ICANN’s legal work since ICANN’s formation Has ICANN ever put its external legal work out to any form of tender? While I know that people can argue that legal advice is not purely a numbers game, I’m also pretty sure that there are other law firms out that that would provide a similar service and potentially at a lower price. And my comments are no reflection on the quality of Jones Day’s work, but considering how much ICANN pays is legal fees per year I think it’s a question someone should ask. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <community-finance-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "xavier.calvez(a)icann.org" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 1 March 2016 at 07:13 To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org> Cc: Senior Management Team <senior-management-team(a)icann.org>, Global Leadership <global_leadership(a)icann.org> Subject: [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015 Dear all, Please find below a link to the quarterly update as of 31 December 2015 of the IANA Stewardship transition projects expenses. This update provides for the project’s costs from 1 July 2014 until 31 December 2015 (18 months). https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez CFO ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office: +1 (310) 301-5838 Fax: +1 (310) 957-2348 Cell: +1 (805) 312-0052 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ community-finance mailing list community-finance(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/community-finance

1 0

Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015
by Xavier J. Calvez March 2, 2016

March 2, 2016

Dear all, Please find below a link to the quarterly update as of 31 December 2015 of the IANA Stewardship transition projects expenses. This update provides for the project's costs from 1 July 2014 until 31 December 2015 (18 months). https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez CFO ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office: +1 (310) 301-5838 Fax: +1 (310) 957-2348 Cell: +1 (805) 312-0052

5 8

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015
by Phil Corwin March 1, 2016

March 1, 2016

I have heard many long-time members of the ICANN community opine that Jones Day, in coordination with the General Counsel (who is a former Jones Day attorney), wields decisive behind-the-scenes power within ICANN. The issue is not cost, or quality of the legal work, but a persistent mindset regarding the interplay between the Corporation and the Community. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: community-finance-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:community-finance-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 9:09 AM To: Xavier J. Calvez; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; icann-board(a)icann.org Cc: global_leadership(a)icann.org; Senior Management Team Subject: Re: [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015 Xavier Thanks for sharing this information. It’s useful, though I suspect it’ll raise as many questions as it answers. One thing I did notice was in relation to the legal fees. Doing some back of the envelope calculations and noting how much ICANN generally spends on legal fees one question did come to mind, and this in relation to ICANN’s overall budgeting. How often does ICANN change law firms? Has ICANN ever changed law firms? As far as I can tell Jones Day has been doing ICANN’s legal work since ICANN’s formation Has ICANN ever put its external legal work out to any form of tender? While I know that people can argue that legal advice is not purely a numbers game, I’m also pretty sure that there are other law firms out that that would provide a similar service and potentially at a lower price. And my comments are no reflection on the quality of Jones Day’s work, but considering how much ICANN pays is legal fees per year I think it’s a question someone should ask. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <community-finance-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:community-finance-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "xavier.calvez(a)icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org>" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday 1 March 2016 at 07:13 To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, "community-finance(a)icann.org<mailto:community-finance@icann.org>" <community-finance(a)icann.org<mailto:community-finance@icann.org>>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>, "icann-board(a)icann.org<mailto:icann-board@icann.org>" <icann-board(a)icann.org<mailto:icann-board@icann.org>> Cc: Senior Management Team <senior-management-team(a)icann.org<mailto:senior-management-team@icann.org>>, Global Leadership <global_leadership(a)icann.org<mailto:global_leadership@icann.org>> Subject: [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015 Dear all, Please find below a link to the quarterly update as of 31 December 2015 of the IANA Stewardship transition projects expenses. This update provides for the project’s costs from 1 July 2014 until 31 December 2015 (18 months). https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez CFO ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office: +1 (310) 301-5838 Fax: +1 (310) 957-2348 Cell: +1 (805) 312-0052 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4537/11693 - Release Date: 02/25/16

2 2

TR: Transition and Accountability Cost - Next Step
by Mathieu Weill March 1, 2016

March 1, 2016

Dear Colleagues, Please find below an update from the Board Finance Committee on a proposed way forward regarding the management of the Transition Project costs. This is a particularly timely contribution to our F2F meeting in Marrakech. We have specifically invited the Finance Committee members to attend the part of our meeting where we plan to discuss this topic. Best and safe travels to all, Mathieu De : Cherine Chalaby [mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org] Envoyé : mardi 1 mars 2016 18:34 À : Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert; Jonathan Robinson; fuhr(a)etno.eu Cc : louie(a)louie.net; Alan Greenberg; byron.holland(a)cira.ca; thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch; James M. Bladel; Robles Oscar; Fältström Patrik; BFC; Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Akram Atallah; David Olive Objet : Transition and Accountability Cost - Next Step Dear CCWG and CWG co-chairs, Transition and Accountability Cost Further to our call on 9 February 2016 to discuss the cost of the Transition and Accountability work, I have had follow-up calls with the leaders of the SO/AC Chartering Organisations, and I am pleased to report to you that we have reached an agreement on a way forward. Historical Perspective Historically, it has not been not part of the multi-stakeholder model to have any one person or even a small group given the authority to make decisions, including on costs. Furthermore, the SOs/ACs have not been able to obtain information about detailed costs for their work, meetings, staff time, etc. Nevertheless, given the large sums of money involved: USD 25 millions in FY15 and FY16 and a further potential expenditure of USD 6-9 million in FY17, it would be good practice to produce reliable estimates and to manage costs going forward. This would represent a change of culture for the ICANN community. Therefore, it would be best to adopt a two-step approach in order to get the gradual buy-in of the community. Step1 entails developing reliable estimates, and Step 2 entails deciding how best to manage cost. Agreement on Step1 - Developing Reliable Estimates (4-6 weeks) The leaders of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations agreed that it is imperative to get a good handle and clarity on past and future expenditures. First we must undertake an in-depth analysis of past expenditures in FY15 and FY16 (up to Marrakech) and understand where and how money was spent. From what we will learn, we should be in a position to estimate future expenditures for the remainder of FY16 (from Marrakech to end of Financial Year in June), and for all of FY17. We must also identify potential problem areas and develop ways to address them, one-by-one. With such plans, we can then present to the CCWG and CWG co-chairs what is likely possible and what is likely to be problematic in terms of cost control mechanisms. We agreed that Step1 should be undertaken, on a pilot basis, by a small dedicated Project Cost Support Team (PCST) and should not last more than 4-6 weeks. The PCST will consist of four members: a project manager, a legal manager, a financial planner and a project administrator. The ICANN CEO will be responsible for selecting these individuals. The desired selection criteria are: competent, respected and trusted by the community, familiarity with ICANN transition and Accountability work and available on a full-time basis for 4-6 weeks. ICANN will pay for the PCST. The leaders of the SO/AC Chartering Organisations as well as the CCWG and CWG co-chairs will be informed of the cost of the PCST. The PCST is neither a decision making nor a management team. The PCST is a support function to the CCWG and CWG co-chairs. It must therefore coordinate closely with the co-chairs while undertaking Step1. Given that the Draft FY17 Budget will be posted on 5 March 2016, a place holder of USD 6-9 millions has been included in the draft budget for Transition and Accountability work in FY17. This figure will be adjusted once the PCST completes Step 1. It is therefore desirable to start Step1 as soon as possible. Next Call It was agreed that we should set up a call once Step1 is completed (around mid to end April) to review the findings of the PCST and to agree collectively on how best to manage cost going forward (Step 2). I sincerely hope that you are supportive of the pilot work we agreed to undertake. Please do not hesitate to ask me any questions. Best regards, Cherine

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015
by Marilyn Cade March 1, 2016

March 1, 2016

Ah, I should have read from the start of this string. My apologies. I welcome the details you referenced, Padmini, and appreciate that I was sort of out of sync. "I-pad -itis" , or whatever excuse it is when my device is smarter than I am in terms of when a string started. Apologies for that. I will try to do better. M From: michele(a)blacknight.com To: pdmnbaruah(a)gmail.com; marilynscade(a)hotmail.com CC: senior-management-team(a)icann.org; global_leadership(a)icann.org; icann-board(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; community-finance(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015 Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:48:00 +0000 Marilyn – yes – seems you confused me and someone else Also I never suggested that ICANN had to change law firms, but I was asking about if they’d done anything about putting it out to tender etc., I disagree with maintaining a supplier for business services solely on the basis of “history”. While that might be a factor, it should only be one of several, including how competitive the rates are. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Padmini <pdmnbaruah(a)gmail.com> Date: Tuesday 1 March 2016 at 14:45 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Cc: Senior Management Team <senior-management-team(a)icann.org>, Global Leadership <global_leadership(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, Michele Neylon <michele(a)blacknight.com> Subject: RE: [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015 Dear Marilyn, I believe that was a concern raised by Mr. Neylon. My queries were the same as Ms. Marda, reposting them again from her email : "1. Under the expenses breakdown for Professional Services, what is the exact breakdown for "travel support including visas"? 2. Under the same head, what constitute "other miscellaneous services"? 3. Under the head of "US Government Affairs (Lobbying)" - could you provide us with details of what the lobbyists did, what was said, and who they spoke to? In case you are not in a position to provide these details, could you kindly refer me to somebody who can? 4. Under the head of "Education/Engagement/Advice", I can't help but notice that perhaps some of the most powerful lobbyists are named. In the absence of a detailed report explaining their work with and for ICANN, we cannot make an informed distinction between their work and that of the lobbyists. Please provide us with details of their work, or direct me to somebody who may be able to provide me with this information? " I too agree with your point in law firms Regards Padmini I am not of the view to pursue changing law firms at this time. Jones Day is an excellent global law firm. And there is also rationale to maintain the history and expertise. Instead, I would like to continue the idea of independent legal advisor to the Board, separate from the Corporate Law Firm that advises the Corporation. It has been a long standing interest of mine to have independent legal advisor to the Board to advise on public interest issues, and would, I think, be a strengthening of overall independence of the Directors. It could be part of a new initiatives during a Review of the Board, not linked to the present Accountabiity CCWG, as we must, after all, launch the great work that has been done by the two WGs. BUT, I see this as outside the present CCWG, and future work on a Review of the Board WG. Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 19:45:16 +0530 From: pdmnbaruah(a)gmail.com To: michele(a)blacknight.com CC: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; icann-board(a)icann.org; community-finance(a)icann.org; senior-management-team(a)icann.org; global_leadership(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015 Good evening, Thank you so much for this information. I also have the same queries as Vidushi about ICANN's finances , would appreciate a more comprehensive breakdown along the lines that she has raised as well. Regards On Mar 1, 2016 7:40 PM, "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele(a)blacknight.com> wrote: Xavier Thanks for sharing this information. It’s useful, though I suspect it’ll raise as many questions as it answers. One thing I did notice was in relation to the legal fees. Doing some back of the envelope calculations and noting how much ICANN generally spends on legal fees one question did come to mind, and this in relation to ICANN’s overall budgeting. How often does ICANN change law firms? Has ICANN ever changed law firms? As far as I can tell Jones Day has been doing ICANN’s legal work since ICANN’s formation Has ICANN ever put its external legal work out to any form of tender? While I know that people can argue that legal advice is not purely a numbers game, I’m also pretty sure that there are other law firms out that that would provide a similar service and potentially at a lower price. And my comments are no reflection on the quality of Jones Day’s work, but considering how much ICANN pays is legal fees per year I think it’s a question someone should ask. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <community-finance-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "xavier.calvez(a)icann.org" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 1 March 2016 at 07:13 To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org> Cc: Senior Management Team <senior-management-team(a)icann.org>, Global Leadership <global_leadership(a)icann.org> Subject: [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015 Dear all, Please find below a link to the quarterly update as of 31 December 2015 of the IANA Stewardship transition projects expenses. This update provides for the project’s costs from 1 July 2014 until 31 December 2015 (18 months). https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez CFO ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office: +1 (310) 301-5838 Fax: +1 (310) 957-2348 Cell: +1 (805) 312-0052 _______________________________________________ community-finance mailing list community-finance(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/community-finance _______________________________________________ community-finance mailing list community-finance(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/community-finance

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015
by Padmini March 1, 2016

March 1, 2016

Good evening, Thank you so much for this information. I also have the same queries as Vidushi about ICANN's finances , would appreciate a more comprehensive breakdown along the lines that she has raised as well. Regards On Mar 1, 2016 7:40 PM, "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" < michele(a)blacknight.com> wrote: > Xavier > > Thanks for sharing this information. It’s useful, though I suspect it’ll > raise as many questions as it answers. > > One thing I did notice was in relation to the legal fees. Doing some back > of the envelope calculations and noting how much ICANN generally spends on > legal fees one question did come to mind, and this in relation to ICANN’s > overall budgeting. > How often does ICANN change law firms? > Has ICANN ever changed law firms? As far as I can tell Jones Day has been > doing ICANN’s legal work since ICANN’s formation > Has ICANN ever put its external legal work out to any form of tender? > > While I know that people can argue that legal advice is not purely a > numbers game, I’m also pretty sure that there are other law firms out that > that would provide a similar service and potentially at a lower price. And > my comments are no reflection on the quality of Jones Day’s work, but > considering how much ICANN pays is legal fees per year I think it’s a > question someone should ask. > > Regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > http://www.blacknight.host/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://ceo.hosting/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: <community-finance-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of " > xavier.calvez(a)icann.org" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > Date: Tuesday 1 March 2016 at 07:13 > To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" < > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" < > community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" < > cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org > > > Cc: Senior Management Team <senior-management-team(a)icann.org>, Global > Leadership <global_leadership(a)icann.org> > Subject: [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses > Information as of 31 December 2015 > > Dear all, > > Please find below a link to the quarterly update as of 31 December 2015 of > the IANA Stewardship transition projects expenses. This update provides for > the project’s costs from 1 July 2014 until 31 December 2015 (18 months). > > > > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs > > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Thank you. > > Best, > > > > Xavier > > > > Xavier Calvez > > CFO > > ICANN > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > > > > Office: +1 (310) 301-5838 > > Fax: +1 (310) 957-2348 > > Cell: +1 (805) 312-0052 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > community-finance mailing list > community-finance(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/community-finance > >

2 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Engagement Session | 13:30 UTC | Monday, 7 March | Marrakech-Room Atlas
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse March 1, 2016

March 1, 2016

This clashes with TechDay. Please note my apology. el On 2016-03-01 14:55, Brenda Brewer wrote: [...] > *_CCWG-Accountability Engagement Session _* [...] > *Monday, 7 March **2016* from 13:30– 15:00 UTC [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 0