July 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update
by Marilyn Cade July 20, 2016

July 20, 2016

Ken, Loriright. but we are not asking for that kind of reporting. We are asking for something more factual and more about informing the community of ICANN, not just the IRS. :-) I think we want a bit more and a general sort of 'rule' of openness. So, if you accept a contract with ICANN, expect it to be known, just as the contracts to do a Review are, and state what you do for ICANN. I respect ICANN having consultants, and hiring people to do awareness and engagement to explain the IANA transition, or fund travel for the Chairs of the CCWG, etc. to provide awareness, this is within, in my view, the role of the organization in fulfilling its mission. So, I may be more flexible than some. After all, I spend most of my business life trying to explain IG in developing countries, and trying to find funders to allow me to do that. :-) ICANN is not a client but in my view, as I do broader IG work, creating understanding about what ICANN does and does not do is real work. It is important and if we, the community, are not aware of its importance, then we misunderstand how we need to support ICANN, broadly, as awareness.... We are very fortunate to have this opportunity, as this will build the support needed for ICANN to be more internationalized. I suspect we are all on the same page - mostly -- and thus, I hope we will ask for the facts and figures, and then focus on what is needed to continue to build support for the transition in the US, and well beyond. M From: kstubbs(a)afilias.info Subject: Re: [community-finance] [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update To: paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com; marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; psc(a)vlaw-dc.com; brett.schaefer(a)heritage.org; xavier.calvez(a)icann.org CC: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; icann-board(a)icann.org; executive-team(a)icann.org; commsteam(a)icann.org; community-finance(a)icann.org; finance-staff(a)icann.org Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:37:05 -0400 I believe Lori is correct here. IRS requirements on disclosures are usually quite specific here Ken Stubbs On 7/20/16 10:32, Lori Schulman wrote: I don’t believe that 501©3 orgs can consider any consulting fees confidential as the top fees are required to be reported on the 990. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 10:16 AM To: 'Marilyn Cade' <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; 'Phil Corwin' <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; 'Schaefer, Brett' <brett.schaefer(a)heritage.org>; 'Xavier J. Calvez' <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>; icann-board(a)icann.org; 'Executive Team' <executive-team(a)icann.org>; 'COMMS Team' <commsteam(a)icann.org>; community-finance(a)icann.org; 'Finance Staff' <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update I agree completely with Marilyn and Phil. I have been on both sides of non-disclosure agreements – both ones requested by me and ones requested by my clients. Typically, a client (in the position of ICANN) may request that a consultant sign an NDA so as to protect the confidentiality of its efforts or its intellectual property. Sometimes a consultant might have a proprietary methodology or process that they are using on behalf of the client that they wish to protect. Neither circumstance applies here that I can see. And in no case that I am aware of has a client ever asked me to keep confidential my fee … I don’t broadcast them, but I’m in the private sector. For ICANN, which is an NGO acting in the global public interest, I cannot see any reason at all why ICANN would want or agree to a confidentiality arrangement as to the size of the fee paid. Xavier – can you tell us what the rationale is? I may be missing something ….. Thanks Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 9:05 AM To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; Schaefer, Brett <brett.schaefer(a)heritage.org>; Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>; icann-board(a)icann.org; Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>; COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>; community-finance(a)icann.org; Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update I support Phil's clarifying explanation. I also think that anyone who is in this category, should have to declare if they re also representing companies in a SO/AC. Or advising governments. In the BC, we do not allow an ICANN consultant to be a BC member, regardless of the amount, but if someone is a backdoor advisor to ICANN and also a group of entities, in a SO/AC, that would not be so obvious, but I think that for integrity sake, of course, any such entity would recuse themselves from advising companies, while also advising ICANN. And I would expect ICANN to disqualify such entities as their consultants. Thanks, Phil, for this useful clarification. M From: psc(a)vlaw-dc.com To: Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org; xavier.calvez(a)icann.org Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:48:08 +0000 CC: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; icann-board(a)icann.org; executive-team(a)icann.org; commsteam(a)icann.org; community-finance(a)icann.org; finance-staff(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update In the U.S. much of what used to be done by registered lobbyists is now performed by “strategic advisors” who walk right up to the line of what constitutes lobbying (and maybe a few inches over), and nonetheless facilitate door opening to key members of Congress and the Executive branch, and who “educate” rather than “lobby” members of both branches of government. So while the seven firms may not be engaged in what is considered lobbying under current U.S. law, they are still likely engaged in helping to assure officials outcomes desired by ICANN corporate. It is for that reason – as well as for the exercise of effective oversight over ICANN budgeting and expenditures – that the community should have more data on this. If ICANN is prohibited by its contracts with these firms from disclosing its expenditures that is unfortunate – and in the future I would hope that ICANN would tell any firms being considered for such duties that its own transparency obligations to the community preclude it from agreeing to such restrictions (I’d wager that the majority of the firms would waive confidentiality rather than lose the contract). At a minimum, ICANN should disclose the aggregate amounts spent with these seven firms since they were engaged – surely their contracts don’t bar such aggregate reporting. 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: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:04 PM To: Xavier J. Calvez Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability; icann-board(a)icann.org; Executive Team; COMMS Team; community-finance(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, Are you saying that ICANN’s contracts for Education/Engagement/Advice with (1) Albright Stonebridge Group LLC, (2) Edelman, (3) Interface Media, (4) Rice Hadley Gates LLC, (5) Summit Strategies International LLC, (6) WBC Global, and (7) Wiley Rein LLP each contain confidentiality provisions that prohibit ICANN from disclosing the specific amount paid to each of these individual vendors? Does this only apply to the CCWG and the public or does it also apply to other parts of the ICANN community, specifically the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees? Thank you for the link on lobbying disclosures. For those who are interested, here are ICANN’s lobbying expenditures based on the disclosure website of the U.S. Congress. I do have a couple of additional questions. Would this source capture lobbying exclusively directed toward the US Executive Branch? Has ICANN spent any funds during this period lobbying governments other than the US? Thank you, Brett Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 6:30 PM To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability; Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Brett, Yes, the information I provided in my latest email had been included in some previous communication. I just wanted to make sure you had a clear visibility on this information, which provides for (i) categories of expenses, (ii) the individual names of the vendors grouped for each category, and (iii) the total value of the expenses for each category. With respect to the contractual obligations of confidentiality in commercial contracts, ICANN is subject to them, like all business organizations. That said, we disclose what we can consistent with standard business confidentiality provisions in vendor contracts. We cannot disclose the specific amount of spend with each vendor but we were able to disclose the names of the service providers engaged. Regarding the lobbying expenses, as you are aware, both organizations that hire lobbyists and firms that lobby on behalf of organizations are required under U.S. federal law to file lobbying disclosure reports. In addition to ICANN’s quarterly lobbying disclosures posted on our website, you can find the amounts ICANN has paid to individual outside lobbying firms at http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx. I hope this helps and clarifies. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:07 AM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, This is pretty much the same information that was provided before. I am asking for a breakdown of how much was paid to each vender in the lobbying category (Akin Gump, etc.) and the education/engagement/advice category (Albright Stoneridge, etc.). Thank you, Brett On Jul 13, 2016, at 8:13 PM, Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear Brett, In response to your question listed below on 22 June: the detailed information provided on Other professional fees (other than legal fees, detailed in a separate section of the “Transition project cost” expense webpage, on the IANA Stewardship Transition webpage) can be found in the section called “Professional Services – Expenses Breakdown”. Within this section, you will find a link to a document that provides the list of Professional Services (other than legal fees) incurred, by category, with the names of the vendors, and the total amount of expenditures for the category. This link is copied below and was provided in my first answer to your question. I have also attached the file to which this link refers in case the link would not work for you. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-profe… If this not addressing your question, please let me know. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:45 AM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Brett, Thank you for following up. I will make sure to respond no later than the end of this week. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:38 AM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, Thanks for promising to get this information to me in Helsinki. Do you have an estimate for when it will be provided? Thanks, Brett Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: Schaefer, Brett Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:39 PM To: 'Xavier J. Calvez'; community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability Cc: Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, I appreciate the detailed breakdown on the legal fees That is indeed what I was looking for though I would think it useful to have the totals provided in the summary document. However, I did not see similar information for lobbying or education/ engagement/advice in the links provided. In fact, the only specific information that I saw listed is for Jamie Hedlund at $200,000. No information on other individual firms or vendors is listed at all – only the top line budget expenditure in the summary document link originally sent around. Could you provide that information? Thanks, Brett From: Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 10:43 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability Cc: Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Dear all, It appears that the first link in my email further below (detail of legal fees by firm) does not resolve correctly. Please use the below instead. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-legal… Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 1:01 PM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Dear Brett, Thank you for your interest and question. We currently publish the list of all vendors from whom ICANN obtain services in relation to the IANA Stewardship transition. The $$ value of the services received is aggregated by category of expenses, which you mention below (US Government affairs, Education/engagement/advice,…). This presentation is driven by 2 factors: providing clarity as to the type of services received, and abiding by the contractual obligation of confidentiality in force with each of the vendors (resulting from standard business sensitive information). We do publish however the detail of the legal advice, by firm and by working group, on this same page (see for example the link to the report of fees by firm: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-legal…) You will also find more information relative to ICANN’s lobbying in the following blog published a few months ago. In this blog, you will also find links to the disclosure reports that ICANN makes on lobbying activities. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lobbying-disclosures-contributions-20…. Lastly, further information on lobbying appears in ICANN’s form 990 (Schedule C, Part II-B. On page 33/73 of the FY15 form 990 published at the following link): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2015-form-990-10may16-en.pdf I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have further questions. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:54 PM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, Thank you. Could you please provide a more detailed breakdown of legal advice, US government affairs, and educations/engagement/advice? In each category, there are multiple firms/vendors listed (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-profe…) I would appreciate the amount provided to each individual vendor. If it is provided somewhere, I would appreciate you letting me know where to find it. Much appreciated, Brett Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Xavier J. Calvez Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 12:10 AM To: community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability Cc: Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Dear all, You find at the link below the updated project’s expenses as of FY16 Q3 (from July 2014 to March 2016). As indicated a few months ago, we have added new detailed information on the staff support with the individual positions, names and percentages of effort over the period. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 <iana-stewardship-expenses-professional-vendor-01jun16-en.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ community-finance mailing list community-finance(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/community-finance

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update
by Marilyn Cade July 20, 2016

July 20, 2016

Ken, Loriright. but we are not asking for that kind of reporting. We are asking for something more factual and more about informing the community of ICANN, not just the IRS. :-) I think we want a bit more and a general sort of 'rule' of openness. So, if you accept a contract with ICANN, expect it to be known, just as the contracts to do a Review are, and state what you do for ICANN. I respect ICANN having consultants, and hiring people to do awareness and engagement to explain the IANA transition, or fund travel for the Chairs of the CCWG, etc. to provide awareness, this is within, in my view, the role of the organization in fulfilling its mission. So, I may be more flexible than some. After all, I spend most of my business life trying to explain IG in developing countries, and trying to find funders to allow me to do that. :-) ICANN is not a client but in my view, as I do broader IG work, creating understanding about what ICANN does and does not do is real work. It is important and if we, the community, are not aware of its importance, then we misunderstand how we need to support ICANN, broadly, as awareness.... We are very fortunate to have this opportunity, as this will build the support needed for ICANN to be more internationalized. I suspect we are all on the same page - mostly -- and thus, I hope we will ask for the facts and figures, and then focus on what is needed to continue to build support for the transition in the US, and well beyond. M From: kstubbs(a)afilias.info Subject: Re: [community-finance] [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update To: paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com; marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; psc(a)vlaw-dc.com; brett.schaefer(a)heritage.org; xavier.calvez(a)icann.org CC: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; icann-board(a)icann.org; executive-team(a)icann.org; commsteam(a)icann.org; community-finance(a)icann.org; finance-staff(a)icann.org Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:37:05 -0400 I believe Lori is correct here. IRS requirements on disclosures are usually quite specific here Ken Stubbs On 7/20/16 10:32, Lori Schulman wrote: I don’t believe that 501©3 orgs can consider any consulting fees confidential as the top fees are required to be reported on the 990. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 10:16 AM To: 'Marilyn Cade' <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; 'Phil Corwin' <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; 'Schaefer, Brett' <brett.schaefer(a)heritage.org>; 'Xavier J. Calvez' <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>; icann-board(a)icann.org; 'Executive Team' <executive-team(a)icann.org>; 'COMMS Team' <commsteam(a)icann.org>; community-finance(a)icann.org; 'Finance Staff' <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update I agree completely with Marilyn and Phil. I have been on both sides of non-disclosure agreements – both ones requested by me and ones requested by my clients. Typically, a client (in the position of ICANN) may request that a consultant sign an NDA so as to protect the confidentiality of its efforts or its intellectual property. Sometimes a consultant might have a proprietary methodology or process that they are using on behalf of the client that they wish to protect. Neither circumstance applies here that I can see. And in no case that I am aware of has a client ever asked me to keep confidential my fee … I don’t broadcast them, but I’m in the private sector. For ICANN, which is an NGO acting in the global public interest, I cannot see any reason at all why ICANN would want or agree to a confidentiality arrangement as to the size of the fee paid. Xavier – can you tell us what the rationale is? I may be missing something ….. Thanks Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 9:05 AM To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; Schaefer, Brett <brett.schaefer(a)heritage.org>; Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>; icann-board(a)icann.org; Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>; COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>; community-finance(a)icann.org; Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update I support Phil's clarifying explanation. I also think that anyone who is in this category, should have to declare if they re also representing companies in a SO/AC. Or advising governments. In the BC, we do not allow an ICANN consultant to be a BC member, regardless of the amount, but if someone is a backdoor advisor to ICANN and also a group of entities, in a SO/AC, that would not be so obvious, but I think that for integrity sake, of course, any such entity would recuse themselves from advising companies, while also advising ICANN. And I would expect ICANN to disqualify such entities as their consultants. Thanks, Phil, for this useful clarification. M From: psc(a)vlaw-dc.com To: Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org; xavier.calvez(a)icann.org Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:48:08 +0000 CC: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; icann-board(a)icann.org; executive-team(a)icann.org; commsteam(a)icann.org; community-finance(a)icann.org; finance-staff(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update In the U.S. much of what used to be done by registered lobbyists is now performed by “strategic advisors” who walk right up to the line of what constitutes lobbying (and maybe a few inches over), and nonetheless facilitate door opening to key members of Congress and the Executive branch, and who “educate” rather than “lobby” members of both branches of government. So while the seven firms may not be engaged in what is considered lobbying under current U.S. law, they are still likely engaged in helping to assure officials outcomes desired by ICANN corporate. It is for that reason – as well as for the exercise of effective oversight over ICANN budgeting and expenditures – that the community should have more data on this. If ICANN is prohibited by its contracts with these firms from disclosing its expenditures that is unfortunate – and in the future I would hope that ICANN would tell any firms being considered for such duties that its own transparency obligations to the community preclude it from agreeing to such restrictions (I’d wager that the majority of the firms would waive confidentiality rather than lose the contract). At a minimum, ICANN should disclose the aggregate amounts spent with these seven firms since they were engaged – surely their contracts don’t bar such aggregate reporting. 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: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:04 PM To: Xavier J. Calvez Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability; icann-board(a)icann.org; Executive Team; COMMS Team; community-finance(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, Are you saying that ICANN’s contracts for Education/Engagement/Advice with (1) Albright Stonebridge Group LLC, (2) Edelman, (3) Interface Media, (4) Rice Hadley Gates LLC, (5) Summit Strategies International LLC, (6) WBC Global, and (7) Wiley Rein LLP each contain confidentiality provisions that prohibit ICANN from disclosing the specific amount paid to each of these individual vendors? Does this only apply to the CCWG and the public or does it also apply to other parts of the ICANN community, specifically the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees? Thank you for the link on lobbying disclosures. For those who are interested, here are ICANN’s lobbying expenditures based on the disclosure website of the U.S. Congress. I do have a couple of additional questions. Would this source capture lobbying exclusively directed toward the US Executive Branch? Has ICANN spent any funds during this period lobbying governments other than the US? Thank you, Brett Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 6:30 PM To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability; Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Brett, Yes, the information I provided in my latest email had been included in some previous communication. I just wanted to make sure you had a clear visibility on this information, which provides for (i) categories of expenses, (ii) the individual names of the vendors grouped for each category, and (iii) the total value of the expenses for each category. With respect to the contractual obligations of confidentiality in commercial contracts, ICANN is subject to them, like all business organizations. That said, we disclose what we can consistent with standard business confidentiality provisions in vendor contracts. We cannot disclose the specific amount of spend with each vendor but we were able to disclose the names of the service providers engaged. Regarding the lobbying expenses, as you are aware, both organizations that hire lobbyists and firms that lobby on behalf of organizations are required under U.S. federal law to file lobbying disclosure reports. In addition to ICANN’s quarterly lobbying disclosures posted on our website, you can find the amounts ICANN has paid to individual outside lobbying firms at http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx. I hope this helps and clarifies. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:07 AM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, This is pretty much the same information that was provided before. I am asking for a breakdown of how much was paid to each vender in the lobbying category (Akin Gump, etc.) and the education/engagement/advice category (Albright Stoneridge, etc.). Thank you, Brett On Jul 13, 2016, at 8:13 PM, Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear Brett, In response to your question listed below on 22 June: the detailed information provided on Other professional fees (other than legal fees, detailed in a separate section of the “Transition project cost” expense webpage, on the IANA Stewardship Transition webpage) can be found in the section called “Professional Services – Expenses Breakdown”. Within this section, you will find a link to a document that provides the list of Professional Services (other than legal fees) incurred, by category, with the names of the vendors, and the total amount of expenditures for the category. This link is copied below and was provided in my first answer to your question. I have also attached the file to which this link refers in case the link would not work for you. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-profe… If this not addressing your question, please let me know. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:45 AM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Brett, Thank you for following up. I will make sure to respond no later than the end of this week. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:38 AM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, Thanks for promising to get this information to me in Helsinki. Do you have an estimate for when it will be provided? Thanks, Brett Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: Schaefer, Brett Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:39 PM To: 'Xavier J. Calvez'; community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability Cc: Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, I appreciate the detailed breakdown on the legal fees That is indeed what I was looking for though I would think it useful to have the totals provided in the summary document. However, I did not see similar information for lobbying or education/ engagement/advice in the links provided. In fact, the only specific information that I saw listed is for Jamie Hedlund at $200,000. No information on other individual firms or vendors is listed at all – only the top line budget expenditure in the summary document link originally sent around. Could you provide that information? Thanks, Brett From: Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 10:43 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability Cc: Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Dear all, It appears that the first link in my email further below (detail of legal fees by firm) does not resolve correctly. Please use the below instead. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-legal… Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 1:01 PM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Dear Brett, Thank you for your interest and question. We currently publish the list of all vendors from whom ICANN obtain services in relation to the IANA Stewardship transition. The $$ value of the services received is aggregated by category of expenses, which you mention below (US Government affairs, Education/engagement/advice,…). This presentation is driven by 2 factors: providing clarity as to the type of services received, and abiding by the contractual obligation of confidentiality in force with each of the vendors (resulting from standard business sensitive information). We do publish however the detail of the legal advice, by firm and by working group, on this same page (see for example the link to the report of fees by firm: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-legal…) You will also find more information relative to ICANN’s lobbying in the following blog published a few months ago. In this blog, you will also find links to the disclosure reports that ICANN makes on lobbying activities. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lobbying-disclosures-contributions-20…. Lastly, further information on lobbying appears in ICANN’s form 990 (Schedule C, Part II-B. On page 33/73 of the FY15 form 990 published at the following link): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2015-form-990-10may16-en.pdf I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have further questions. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:54 PM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, Thank you. Could you please provide a more detailed breakdown of legal advice, US government affairs, and educations/engagement/advice? In each category, there are multiple firms/vendors listed (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-profe…) I would appreciate the amount provided to each individual vendor. If it is provided somewhere, I would appreciate you letting me know where to find it. Much appreciated, Brett Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Xavier J. Calvez Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 12:10 AM To: community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability Cc: Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Dear all, You find at the link below the updated project’s expenses as of FY16 Q3 (from July 2014 to March 2016). As indicated a few months ago, we have added new detailed information on the staff support with the individual positions, names and percentages of effort over the period. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 <iana-stewardship-expenses-professional-vendor-01jun16-en.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ community-finance mailing list community-finance(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/community-finance

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 20, 2016

July 20, 2016

Agree totally with you on the importance of this work in WS2 Chuck... *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> On 20 July 2016 at 12:48, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > This is a good example of why I thought that ‘Transparency’ should have > been in Work Stream 1 instead of Work Stream 2 but it is way too late for > that now. I think we just need to seriously focus on the ‘Transparency’ > work in Work Stream 2. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* community-finance-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > community-finance-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marilyn Cade > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2016 7:04 PM > *To:* Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Paul Rosenzweig > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability; Schaefer, Brett; > icann-board(a)icann.org; Executive Team; COMMS Team; > community-finance(a)icann.org; Finance Staff > *Subject:* Re: [community-finance] [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship > Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update > > > > I am a consultant to an NGO, on the Board of an NGO, and I represent > companies and trade associations. > > > > Usually the confidentiality clause is about WHAT one does, and eliminating > conflicts with other clients. > > > > If these consultants are unable to acknowledge that they are ICANN > consultants, this is a problem.If they are afraid to declare the amount > they are receiving as consultant, I am concerned. And if they are > simultaneously a consultant to a group of AC/SO entities and ICANN, then > they need to declare that. > > > > M > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > From: michele(a)blacknight.com > To: paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 22:30:20 +0000 > CC: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; commsteam(a)icann.org; > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; icann-board(a)icann.org; > executive-team(a)icann.org; Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org; > community-finance(a)icann.org; finance-staff(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [community-finance] [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - > Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update > > Xavier > > > > Is ICANN imposing the confidentiality you refer to, or is it the vendors? > > > > Regards > > > > Michele > > Mr Michele Neylon > > Blacknight Hosting & Domains > > http://www.blacknight.host/ > > http://www.mneylon.social > > Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal > > > On 19 Jul 2016, at 19:59, Paul Rosenzweig < > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: > > Xavier > > > > May I follow up on Brett’s question by also asking whether those > confidentiality provisions are part of ICANN’s standard contracts with all > vendors or are they only part of the agreements with these particular > vendors? > > > > Thanks > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 > > www.redbranchconsulting.com > > My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ > > > > *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [ > mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Schaefer, > Brett > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:04 PM > *To:* Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability < > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>; icann-board(a)icann.org; > Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>; COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>; > community-finance(a)icann.org; Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses > - FY16 Q3 update > > > > Xavier, > > > > Are you saying that ICANN’s contracts for Education/Engagement/Advice with > (1) Albright Stonebridge Group LLC, (2) Edelman, (3) Interface Media, (4) > Rice Hadley Gates LLC, (5) Summit Strategies International LLC, (6) WBC > Global, and (7) Wiley Rein LLP each contain confidentiality provisions that > prohibit ICANN from disclosing the specific amount paid to each of these > individual vendors? > > > > Does this only apply to the CCWG and the public or does it also apply to > other parts of the ICANN community, specifically the Supporting > Organizations and Advisory Committees? > > > > Thank you for the link on lobbying disclosures. For those who are > interested, here are ICANN’s lobbying expenditures based on the disclosure > website of the U.S. Congress. > > > > <image001.png> > > > > I do have a couple of additional questions. Would this source capture > lobbying exclusively directed toward the US Executive Branch? Has ICANN > spent any funds during this period lobbying governments other than the US? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Brett > > > ------------------------------ > > *Brett* *Schaefer* > > * Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy* > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org > > *From:* Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org > <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>] > *Sent:* Monday, July 18, 2016 6:30 PM > *To:* Schaefer, Brett > *Cc:* community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; > CCWG-Accountability; Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; > Finance Staff > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses > - FY16 Q3 update > > > > Brett, > > Yes, the information I provided in my latest email had been included in > some previous communication. I just wanted to make sure you had a clear > visibility on this information, which provides for (i) categories of > expenses, (ii) the individual names of the vendors grouped for each > category, and (iii) the total value of the expenses for each category. > > With respect to the contractual obligations of confidentiality in > commercial contracts, ICANN is subject to them, like all business > organizations. That said, we disclose what we can consistent with standard > business confidentiality provisions in vendor contracts. We cannot disclose > the specific amount of spend with each vendor but we were able to disclose > the names of the service providers engaged. > > Regarding the lobbying expenses, as you are aware, both organizations that > hire lobbyists and firms that lobby on behalf of organizations are required > under U.S. federal law to file lobbying disclosure reports. In addition to > ICANN’s quarterly lobbying disclosures posted on our website, you can find > the amounts ICANN has paid to individual outside lobbying firms at > http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx. > > I hope this helps and clarifies. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Best, > > Xavier > > > > Xavier Calvez > > ICANN > > CFO > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > > Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 > > Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 > > Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 > > > > > > *From: *"Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> > *Date: *Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:07 AM > *To: *Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > *Cc: *"community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, " > cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, > CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, Executive > Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, " > icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff < > finance-staff(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses > - FY16 Q3 update > > > > Xavier, > > > > This is pretty much the same information that was provided before. I am > asking for a breakdown of how much was paid to each vender in the lobbying > category (Akin Gump, etc.) and the education/engagement/advice category > (Albright Stoneridge, etc.). > > > > Thank you, > > > > Brett > > > On Jul 13, 2016, at 8:13 PM, Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > wrote: > > Dear Brett, > In response to your question listed below on 22 June: the detailed > information provided on Other professional fees (other than legal fees, > detailed in a separate section of the “Transition project cost” expense > webpage, on the IANA Stewardship Transition webpage) can be found in the > section called “Professional Services – Expenses Breakdown”. Within this > section, you will find a link to a document that provides the list of > Professional Services (other than legal fees) incurred, by category, with > the names of the vendors, and the total amount of expenditures for the > category. This link is copied below and was provided in my first answer > to your question. I have also attached the file to which this link refers > in case the link would not work for you. > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-profe… > > If this not addressing your question, please let me know. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Best, > > Xavier > > > > Xavier Calvez > > ICANN > > CFO > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > > Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 > > Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 > > Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *Brett* *Schaefer* > > * Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy* > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org > > *From: *Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > *Date: *Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:45 AM > *To: *"Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org>, " > community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, " > cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, > CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > *Cc: *Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team < > commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, > Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses > - FY16 Q3 update > > > > Brett, > > Thank you for following up. > > I will make sure to respond no later than the end of this week. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Best, > > Xavier > > > > Xavier Calvez > > ICANN > > CFO > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > > Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 > > Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 > > Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 > > > > > > *From: *"Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> > *Date: *Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:38 AM > *To: *Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, " > community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, " > cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, > CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > *Cc: *Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team < > commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, > Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *RE: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses > - FY16 Q3 update > > > > Xavier, > > > > Thanks for promising to get this information to me in Helsinki. Do you > have an estimate for when it will be provided? > > > > Thanks, > > > Brett > > > ------------------------------ > > *Brett* *Schaefer* > > * Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy* > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org > > *From:* Schaefer, Brett > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:39 PM > *To:* 'Xavier J. Calvez'; community-finance(a)icann.org; > cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability > *Cc:* Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff > *Subject:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses > - FY16 Q3 update > > > > Xavier, > > > > I appreciate the detailed breakdown on the legal fees That is indeed what > I was looking for though I would think it useful to have the totals > provided in the summary document. > > > > However, I did not see similar information for lobbying or education/ > engagement/advice in the links provided. In fact, the only specific > information that I saw listed is for Jamie Hedlund at $200,000. No > information on other individual firms or vendors is listed at all – only > the top line budget expenditure in the summary document link originally > sent around. > > > > Could you provide that information? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Brett > > > > *From:* Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org > <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2016 10:43 AM > *To:* Schaefer, Brett; community-finance(a)icann.org; > cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability > *Cc:* Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses > - FY16 Q3 update > > > > Dear all, > > It appears that the first link in my email further below (detail of legal > fees by firm) does not resolve correctly. Please use the below instead. > > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-legal… > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > Best, > > Xavier > > > > Xavier Calvez > > ICANN > > CFO > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > > Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 > > Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 > > Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 > > > > > > *From: *Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > *Date: *Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 1:01 PM > *To: *"Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org>, " > community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, " > cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, > CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > *Cc: *Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team < > commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, > Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses > - FY16 Q3 update > > > > Dear Brett, > > Thank you for your interest and question. > > We currently publish the list of all vendors from whom ICANN obtain > services in relation to the IANA Stewardship transition. The $$ value of > the services received is aggregated by category of expenses, which you > mention below (US Government affairs, Education/engagement/advice,…). This > presentation is driven by 2 factors: providing clarity as to the type of > services received, and abiding by the contractual obligation of > confidentiality in force with each of the vendors (resulting from standard > business sensitive information). > > We do publish however the detail of the legal advice, by firm and by > working group, on this same page (see for example the link to the report of > fees by firm: *https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-legal-firm-fy16-01jun16-en.pdf) > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-legal…>* > . > > You will also find more information relative to ICANN’s lobbying in the > following blog published a few months ago. In this blog, you will also find > links to the disclosure reports that ICANN makes on lobbying activities. > > *https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lobbying-disclosures-contributions-2015-11-18-en > <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lobbying-disclosures-contributions-20…>.* > > Lastly, further information on lobbying appears in ICANN’s form 990 > (Schedule C, Part II-B. On page 33/73 of the FY15 form 990 published at the > following link): > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2015-form-990-10may16-en.pdf > > I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have further questions. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Best, > > Xavier > > > > Xavier Calvez > > ICANN > > CFO > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > > Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 > > Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 > > Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 > > > > > > *From: *"Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> > *Date: *Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:54 PM > *To: *Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, " > community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, " > cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, > CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > *Cc: *Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team < > commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, > Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *RE: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses > - FY16 Q3 update > > > > Xavier, > > > > Thank you. Could you please provide a more detailed breakdown of legal > advice, US government affairs, and educations/engagement/advice? In each > category, there are multiple firms/vendors listed ( > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-profe…) > I would appreciate the amount provided to each individual vendor. If it is > provided somewhere, I would appreciate you letting me know where to find > it. > > > > Much appreciated, > > > > Brett > > > ------------------------------ > > *Brett* *Schaefer* > > * Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy* > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org > > *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [ > mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Xavier > J. Calvez > *Sent:* Saturday, June 18, 2016 12:10 AM > *To:* community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; > CCWG-Accountability > *Cc:* Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff > *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - > FY16 Q3 update > > > > Dear all, > > You find at the link below the updated project’s expenses as of FY16 Q3 > (from July 2014 to March 2016). As indicated a few months ago, we have > added new detailed information on the staff support with the individual > positions, names and percentages of effort over the period. > > > > *https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs > <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs>* > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > Best, > > Xavier > > > > Xavier Calvez > > ICANN > > CFO > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > > Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 > > Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 > > Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 > > > > <iana-stewardship-expenses-professional-vendor-01jun16-en.pdf> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >

2 1

Legal Committee and WS2 budget - new proposal
by Mathieu Weill July 20, 2016

July 20, 2016

Dear Colleagues, Based on the feedback received during last week's call, as well as on the robust discussion on the list, we are suggesting a revised approach for the Legal Committee : - Composition based on previous Legal executive team - Co-chairs remain budget owners, working with support from the PCST - Legal committee may direct requests to external firms, on a case by case assessment taking into account costs, skills as well as potential requirement for "independent" advice. We believe this strikes a good balance between the need to manage costs efficiently and responsibly, and the ability for our group to request independent advice when needed. Depending on the feedbacks, we will report on our progress to the Board Finance Committee and SO/AC leaders during a call that has been arranged at the BFC's request on Monday 25 July. Best regards, Mathieu Weill Co-chair

13 16

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update
by Marilyn Cade July 20, 2016

July 20, 2016

I am a consultant to an NGO, on the Board of an NGO, and I represent companies and trade associations. Usually the confidentiality clause is about WHAT one does, and eliminating conflicts with other clients. If these consultants are unable to acknowledge that they are ICANN consultants, this is a problem.If they are afraid to declare the amount they are receiving as consultant, I am concerned. And if they are simultaneously a consultant to a group of AC/SO entities and ICANN, then they need to declare that. M From: michele(a)blacknight.com To: paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 22:30:20 +0000 CC: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; commsteam(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; icann-board(a)icann.org; executive-team(a)icann.org; Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org; community-finance(a)icann.org; finance-staff(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [community-finance] [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier Is ICANN imposing the confidentiality you refer to, or is it the vendors? Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 19 Jul 2016, at 19:59, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: Xavier May I follow up on Brett’s question by also asking whether those confidentiality provisions are part of ICANN’s standard contracts with all vendors or are they only part of the agreements with these particular vendors? Thanks Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:04 PM To: Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>; icann-board(a)icann.org; Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>; COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>; community-finance(a)icann.org; Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, Are you saying that ICANN’s contracts for Education/Engagement/Advice with (1) Albright Stonebridge Group LLC, (2) Edelman, (3) Interface Media, (4) Rice Hadley Gates LLC, (5) Summit Strategies International LLC, (6) WBC Global, and (7) Wiley Rein LLP each contain confidentiality provisions that prohibit ICANN from disclosing the specific amount paid to each of these individual vendors? Does this only apply to the CCWG and the public or does it also apply to other parts of the ICANN community, specifically the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees? Thank you for the link on lobbying disclosures. For those who are interested, here are ICANN’s lobbying expenditures based on the disclosure website of the U.S. Congress. <image001.png> I do have a couple of additional questions. Would this source capture lobbying exclusively directed toward the US Executive Branch? Has ICANN spent any funds during this period lobbying governments other than the US? Thank you, Brett Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 6:30 PM To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability; Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Brett, Yes, the information I provided in my latest email had been included in some previous communication. I just wanted to make sure you had a clear visibility on this information, which provides for (i) categories of expenses, (ii) the individual names of the vendors grouped for each category, and (iii) the total value of the expenses for each category. With respect to the contractual obligations of confidentiality in commercial contracts, ICANN is subject to them, like all business organizations. That said, we disclose what we can consistent with standard business confidentiality provisions in vendor contracts. We cannot disclose the specific amount of spend with each vendor but we were able to disclose the names of the service providers engaged. Regarding the lobbying expenses, as you are aware, both organizations that hire lobbyists and firms that lobby on behalf of organizations are required under U.S. federal law to file lobbying disclosure reports. In addition to ICANN’s quarterly lobbying disclosures posted on our website, you can find the amounts ICANN has paid to individual outside lobbying firms at http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx. I hope this helps and clarifies. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:07 AM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, This is pretty much the same information that was provided before. I am asking for a breakdown of how much was paid to each vender in the lobbying category (Akin Gump, etc.) and the education/engagement/advice category (Albright Stoneridge, etc.). Thank you, Brett On Jul 13, 2016, at 8:13 PM, Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear Brett, In response to your question listed below on 22 June: the detailed information provided on Other professional fees (other than legal fees, detailed in a separate section of the “Transition project cost” expense webpage, on the IANA Stewardship Transition webpage) can be found in the section called “Professional Services – Expenses Breakdown”. Within this section, you will find a link to a document that provides the list of Professional Services (other than legal fees) incurred, by category, with the names of the vendors, and the total amount of expenditures for the category. This link is copied below and was provided in my first answer to your question. I have also attached the file to which this link refers in case the link would not work for you. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-profe… If this not addressing your question, please let me know. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:45 AM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Brett, Thank you for following up. I will make sure to respond no later than the end of this week. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:38 AM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, Thanks for promising to get this information to me in Helsinki. Do you have an estimate for when it will be provided? Thanks, Brett Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: Schaefer, Brett Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:39 PM To: 'Xavier J. Calvez'; community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability Cc: Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, I appreciate the detailed breakdown on the legal fees That is indeed what I was looking for though I would think it useful to have the totals provided in the summary document. However, I did not see similar information for lobbying or education/ engagement/advice in the links provided. In fact, the only specific information that I saw listed is for Jamie Hedlund at $200,000. No information on other individual firms or vendors is listed at all – only the top line budget expenditure in the summary document link originally sent around. Could you provide that information? Thanks, Brett From: Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 10:43 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability Cc: Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Dear all, It appears that the first link in my email further below (detail of legal fees by firm) does not resolve correctly. Please use the below instead. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-legal… Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 1:01 PM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Dear Brett, Thank you for your interest and question. We currently publish the list of all vendors from whom ICANN obtain services in relation to the IANA Stewardship transition. The $$ value of the services received is aggregated by category of expenses, which you mention below (US Government affairs, Education/engagement/advice,…). This presentation is driven by 2 factors: providing clarity as to the type of services received, and abiding by the contractual obligation of confidentiality in force with each of the vendors (resulting from standard business sensitive information). We do publish however the detail of the legal advice, by firm and by working group, on this same page (see for example the link to the report of fees by firm: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-legal…) You will also find more information relative to ICANN’s lobbying in the following blog published a few months ago. In this blog, you will also find links to the disclosure reports that ICANN makes on lobbying activities. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lobbying-disclosures-contributions-20…. Lastly, further information on lobbying appears in ICANN’s form 990 (Schedule C, Part II-B. On page 33/73 of the FY15 form 990 published at the following link): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2015-form-990-10may16-en.pdf I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have further questions. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:54 PM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, Thank you. Could you please provide a more detailed breakdown of legal advice, US government affairs, and educations/engagement/advice? In each category, there are multiple firms/vendors listed (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-profe…) I would appreciate the amount provided to each individual vendor. If it is provided somewhere, I would appreciate you letting me know where to find it. Much appreciated, Brett Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Xavier J. Calvez Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 12:10 AM To: community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability Cc: Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Dear all, You find at the link below the updated project’s expenses as of FY16 Q3 (from July 2014 to March 2016). As indicated a few months ago, we have added new detailed information on the staff support with the individual positions, names and percentages of effort over the period. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 <iana-stewardship-expenses-professional-vendor-01jun16-en.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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

2 1

Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
by MSSI Secretariat July 18, 2016

July 18, 2016

Good day all, In preparation for your call, CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #2 <https://community.icann.org/x/FyOOAw> - Tuesday, 12 July @ 20:00 - 22:00 UTC. Time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Accountabilit…> Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome, SOI 2. Articles of Incorporation : finalize submission 3. Appointment of rapporteurs for WS2 - next steps 4. Legal Cost Control Mechanism : initial discussion 5. AOB 6. Closing Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Thank you! With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN- Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

31 61

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
by Alan Greenberg July 16, 2016

July 16, 2016

I presume that the inten of having a "default" was that it was what we should use if there were not need for external counsel. I am tired of endless discussions which do not change anything. Regardless of which is "default" or exactly what that means, we will have to make a case-by-case choice. Alan At 15/07/2016 02:44 PM, Rudolph Daniel wrote: >There would seem to be an issue with "default" >is there any substantive difference if we >consider independent legal council "default" >with the availability of icann inhouse legal >services to compliment . That would also suggest the need for fiscal restraint >rd > > >Rudi Daniel ><http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Da…>danielcharles >consulting > > > >On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Hello, > >By default means always considering use of ICANN >legal staff first before going independent. I >don't think this should require a dialout as I >think we all agree that CCWG should have access >to independent legal whenever required. > >Regards >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On 15 Jul 2016 19:00, "farzaneh badii" ><<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com> wrote: >No. Using the independent legal advisers >responsibly does not mean that we have to have a default approach. > >I wonder what the next steps would be on this >issue. Perhaps co-chairs can help us on this ? >Are we going to have a call and discuss this and come up with a solution? > >On 15 July 2016 at 19:46, Seun Ojedeji ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >+1 on ensuring access to independent legal >adviser whenever required by CCWG. This would >imply referring to internal legal(staff) by >default and then call for independent legal >advice whenever the group sense there is need >for clarification (or when the issues at hand is warranted). > >Regards >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On 15 Jul 2016 13:19, "James M. Bladel" ><<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com> wrote: >Agree with Keith. > >CCWG must preserve the use of independent legal >advisors, but use this responsibly, and with an >eye on controlling costs. Ultimately, it is >gTLD registrants picking up the bill, and we >need to ensure that this work is mindful of their interests. > >Thanks > >J. > >From: ><<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> >on behalf of Keith Drazek <<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>kdrazek(a)verisign.com> >Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 16:53 >To: Phil Corwin ><<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, >Matthew Shears ><<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>mshears(a)cdt.org>, Greg >Shatan ><<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, >Robin Gross <<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>robin(a)ipjustice.org> >Cc: Accountability Cross Community ><<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG >ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC > >Agreed. Access to independent legal advice was never in question. > > > >That said, in the interest of controlling costs, >I have no problem seeking input from ICANNâs >internal lawyers on issues that are deemed >non-contentious or where potential conflicts do not exist. > > > >I am obligated to report that the Registries >Stakeholder Group is very, very concerned about >the cost of legal fees from WS1 and wants to >ensure the CCWG is efficient with its future >spending. I know weâre developing cost-control >mechanisms for WS2, and Iâve advised my SG >accordingly, but this will continue to receive attention from the RySG. > > > >Hollyâs question and the response about >budgeting vis-Ã -vis ICANNâs outside counsel >was instructive. Any and all outside counsel >expenses will require certification. > > > >So, let me reiterate my viewthe CCWG must have >acccess to independent legal advice. We must >ensure costs are controlled and resources are >used efficiently. If that means selectively >turning to ICANNâs lawyers on occasion, I can >and do support that, but not at the expense of >our ability to seek independent advice. > > > >Regards, >Keith > > > >From: ><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] >On Behalf Of Phil Corwin >Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 5:34 PM >To: Matthew Shears; Greg Shatan; Robin Gross >Cc: Accountability Cross Community >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG >ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC > > > >Access to independent legal advice for WS2 >issues is fundamental and should be non-negotiable > > > >Use your power, Empowered Community > > > >Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal >Virtualaw LLC >1155 F Street NW >Suite 1050 >Washington, DC 20004 ><tel:202-559-8597>202-559-8597/Direct ><tel:202-559-8750>202-559-8750/Fax ><tel:202-255-6172>202-255-6172/Cell > >Twitter: @VlawDC > >"Luck is the residue of design" --- Branch Rickey > >From:<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>mshears(a)cdt.org > >Sent:July 14, 2016 5:26 PM > >To:<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com; ><mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>robin(a)ipjustice.org > >Cc:<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > >Subject:Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG >ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC > > > >+ 1 well said Robin. > > > >On 14/07/2016 03:20, Greg Shatan wrote: > >Robin, > > > >Agree 100%. > > > >Greg > >On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Robin Gross ><<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>robin(a)ipjustice.org> wrote: > >It is simply a non-starter to suggest that CCWG >would lose its right to independent counsel at >this stage. I am struggling to understand >*where* the suggestion to start this debate all >over again even came from. We have very >important issues on our agenda for WorkStream 2 >that require independence of legal advice: >transparency of board deliberations, reforming >the DIDP, the CEP, etc., which all involve >trying to reform the policies that were created >by the in-house legal dept. It is silly to >suggest that we must seek the legal advice from >those who created the policies we are trying to >reform as that would be counter-productive to our goals. > >Additionally it was revealed in yesterdayâs >calls, that ICANNâs legal dept fees will be >added to the CCWGâs independent fees, so CCWG >will be billed for the in-house efforts to >resist our reforms (and we wonât be given >access to the legal advice that we would be >paying for). I think it is extremely important >the legal fees NOT be conflated together. We >need to understand what the separate costs are, >and we cannot be held responsible for spending >on Jones Day that is outside of our >control. Fees that ICANN corporate undertakes >must be separated from fees that CCWG undertakes >or the proposed budget process makes absolutely >no sense, unless it was intended to tie CCWGâs >hands and give ICANN corporate a blank check to spend resisting our reforms. > >This is an important issue that we cannot roll >over on, or everything else we try to do from >here on out will be of questionable value. This >settled debate should not be re-opened, despite >the huge win for ICANN corporate if were to >succeed in over-turning this groupâs previous >decision on this critical matter of independence of legal advice. > >Thanks, >Robin > > > > > On Jul 13, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Niels ten Oever > <<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>lists(a)nielstenoever.net> wrote: > > > > Also +1 to Greg and +1 to James > > > > On 07/13/2016 10:50 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: > >> Thanks, Greg. +1. Fully agree. > >> > >> CCWG shall retain the ability to ask for independent advice. Also agree > >> that continuing with Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin is the best option. > >> > >> + 1 also to James previous email about not reopening the debate. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Tanya > >> > >> > >> On 13/07/16 22:42, Greg Shatan wrote: > >>> Siva, > >>> > >>> The reasons are all in the record. Please go back and read all of the > >>> materials and discussions relating to our desire and choice to hire > >>> independent counsel. If you have any specific questions after that, > >>> please ask them. > >>> > >>> I will briefly say the following: > >>> > >>> 1. This has nothing to do with competence, although being generally > >>> competent and competent in a specific area are two different things. > >>> > >>> 2. Where we needed first-hand knowledge or history, we've turned to > >>> ICANN legal as one source for such things. That won't change. Advice > >>> is another thing entirely. > >>> > >>> 3. Ask yourself "Who is ICANN legal's client?" and you will have > >>> answered your own question. > >>> > >>> Greg > >>> > >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, > Sivasubramanian M <<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>isolatedn(a)gmail.com > >>> <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Greg, > >>> > >>> âHow valid are your assumptions? What are the reasons for this > >>> unwillingness to make use of ICANN Legal, who are competent, have > >>> first hand knowledge and a complete understanding of the legal > >>> nuances on matters concerning ICANN, may I ask?â Saves money on > >>> most matters requiring legal advice, and should there be areas > >>> that require specialized advice, we could seek external advice. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Greg Shatan > >>> <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > >>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com');>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> I object, and I think many others objected, to the idea that > >>> advice from inhouse (i.e., ICANN legal) should be the > >>> "default." We retained independent counsel to the CCWG for > >>> good reason > >>> âsâ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> and those reasons are still applicable today. I hope we don't > >>> need to rehash that. > >>> > >>> We need the continued ability and discretion to go directly to > >>> CCWG's counsel. Requesting inhouse to solicit an opinion from > >>> an external counsel is not only "cumbersome," it's absolutely > >>> antithetical to the relationship between CCWG and its > >>> independent counsel. > >>> > >>> I strongly believe that the "default" must be the status quo, > >>> i.e., that the CCWG (through reasonable processes) has the > >>> ability and discretion to turn to its own counsel. Further, I > >>> strongly believe that CCWG's independent counsel must remain > >>> Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin. They have been up a > >>> tremendous learning curve and worked with us every step of the > >>> way. It would be folly to cast that aside. It's worth noting > >>> that Sidley is a full-service law firm with offices outside > >>> the US in Beijing, Brussels, Geneva, Hong Kong, London, > >>> Munich, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney and Tokyo. I'm confident > >>> that Sidley (and Adler) will (a) tell us when they don't have > >>> the expertise to help us, and (b) work with us on working > >>> methods to make our use of the firms more cost-effective. > >>> > >>> Greg > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Rudolph Daniel > >>> <<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>rudi.daniel(a)gmail.com > >>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>rudi.daniel(a)gmail.com');>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Based on comments on the call today, IMO; A good body of > >>> knowledge was accquired on the subject of legal requests > >>> in wg1. WG2 legal resources would be both inhouse and > >>> external, from start, We should be much more efficient > >>> this time around. Each sub however will have their needs > >>> and there may be requests applicable across the subgroups > >>> and/or specific to a subgroup. > >>> So, that suggests close relationship between budget > >>> control and the former legal request team [reconfigured > >>> and/or augmented] who would have to coordinate requests > >>> across ws2 sub > >>> groups as i see it. > >>> What determines the initial choice inhouse/external > >>> resources may be a matter of consensus, but it may be > >>> prudent to consider the process as [default] inhouse with > >>> the flexible and necessary option of external sources by > >>> consensus [as the fog clears so to speak]. I think it may > >>> be cumbersome to request inhouse to solicit an opinion > >>> from an external, because there may arise an instance > >>> where; on the strength of an opinion, [inhouse or > >>> external] ; a wg2 may wish to reframe and seek > >>> alternative advise elswhere. > >>> rd > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Rudi Daniel > >>> /danielcharles consulting > >>> > <<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Da…>http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Da…>/ > >>> * > >>> * > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Vinay Kesari > >>> <<mailto:vinay.kesari@gmail.com>vinay.kesari(a)gmail.com > >>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:vinay.kesari@gmail.com>vinay.kesari(a)gmail.com');>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> I was unfortunately unable to join the call as I was > >>> on a flight at the time, my apologies. I've just had a > >>> chance to catch up on the Adobe Connect recording, and > >>> I'm happy to reconfirm my willingness and availability > >>> to serve as a rapporteur. Also, I agree with the > >>> thrust of Kavouss' comment at 0:24:30, and affirm my > >>> commitment to serve impartially. I look forward to > >>> working with Greg on the jurisdiction subgroup. > >>> > >>> Separately, on the issue of allocation of legal > >>> requests, I agree that we need further discussion, and > >>> endorse creating an Option 3 based on the points made > >>> and the specific requirements of the different WS2 > >>> subgroups. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Vinay > >>> > >>> > >>> On 12 July 2016 at 20:55, Mathieu Weill > >>> <<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr > >>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr');>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Colleagues, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Attached is a short set of slides to support our > >>> discussion on agenda item #4 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Talk to you in a few hours > >>> > >>> Mathieu > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *De > :*<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org > >>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org');> > >>> > [mailto:<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org > >>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org');>] > >>> *De la part de* MSSI Secretariat > >>> *EnvoyÃ© :* lundi 11 juillet 2016 19:46 > >>> *Ã :* CCWG-Accountability > >>> *Objet :* [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT > >>> Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Good day all, > >>> > >>> In preparation for your call, CCWG Accountability > >>> WS2 Meeting #2 > >>> > <<https://community.icann.org/x/FyOOAw>https://community.icann.org/x/FyOOAw> > Tuesday, > >>> 12 July @ 20:00 22:00 UTC. Time zone converter > >>> here > >>> > <<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Accountabilit…>http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Accountabilit…> > >>> > >>> > >>> *Proposed Agenda:* > >>> > >>> 1. Welcome, SOI > >>> > >>> 2. > >>> Articles of Incorporation : finalize submission > >>> > >>> 3. > >>> Appointment of rapporteurs for WS2 next steps > >>> > >>> 4. > >>> Legal Cost Control Mechanism : initial discussion > >>> > >>> 5. AOB > >>> > >>> 6. Closing > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *Adobe Connect: > >>> > *<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/>https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ > >>> <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thank you! > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> With kind regards, > >>> > >>> Brenda Brewer > >>> > >>> MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant > >>> > >>> ICANN-**Internet Corporation for Assigned Names > >>> and Numbers > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org');> > >>> > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org');> > >>> > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org');> > >>> > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org');> > >>> > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Sivasubramanian M > <<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >> > > > > -- > > Niels ten Oever > > Head of Digital > > > > Article 19 > > <http://www.article19.org>www.article19.org > > > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > >-- > > > >-------------- > >Matthew Shears > >Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > >Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > ><tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>+ 44 771 2472987 > > > >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. ><https://www.avast.com/antivirus>www.avast.com > > > >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com >Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12558 - Release Date: 07/04/16 >Internal Virus Database is out of date. > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > >-- >Farzaneh > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:p4t8tZsYRMEtnIUlXqtpL2QarivWIiCQ1uAWlQ043vv01vxVWJDfUZbPtSDBozyxURh8Wbdz4YdXFUpyO0Nz8WxZ5ZJap793kqg7QQbkQ+LX1BU1qyGxTIyBzVPn4nsdkmJgZTVDHksNzyRWon3iI3zeZQoTrU8NaiOmgzJpztPH5l6FxKy5Z+1L1Q/eyTFBlflFuAXl8sdo/cWNX3fT4Q== > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

4 4

Speech by Larry Strickling
by Chris Disspain July 15, 2016

July 15, 2016

All, FYI below the text of a speech Assistant Secretary Strickling just gave at the IGF-USA. Video at https://www.igf-usa.org/igf-usa-2106-live-video/ <https://www.igf-usa.org/igf-usa-2106-live-video/> Cheers, Chris Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information The Internet Governance Forum USA Washington, D.C. July 14, 2016 --As Prepared for Delivery-- I come here today to speak out for freedom. Specifically, Internet freedom. I come here to speak out for free speech and civil liberties. I come here to speak out in favor of the transition of the U.S. government’s stewardship of the domain name system to the global multistakeholder community. And I come here to speak out against what former NTIA Administrator John Kneuer has so aptly called the “hyperventilating hyperbole” that has emerged since ICANN transmitted the consensus transition plan to us last March. Protecting Internet freedom and openness has been a key criterion for the IANA transition from the day we announced it in March 2014. The best way to preserve Internet freedom is to depend on the community of stakeholders who own and operate, transact business and exchange information over the myriad of networks that comprise the Internet. Free expression is protected by the open, decentralized nature of the Internet, the neutral manner in which the technical aspects of the Internet are managed and the commitment of stakeholders to maintain openness. Freedom House reported that “Internet freedom around the world has declined for the fifth consecutive year ...” Its prescription for defending Internet freedom is to encourage the U.S. government to “complet[e] the transition to a fully privatized Domain Name System.” What will not be effective to protect Internet freedom is to continue the IANA functions contract. That contract is too limited in scope to be a tool for protecting Internet freedom. It simply designates ICANN to perform the technical IANA functions of managing the database of protocol parameters, allocating IP numbers and processing changes to the root zone file. It does not grant NTIA any authority over ICANN’s day-to-day operations or the organization’s accountability to the stakeholder community. The transition plan goes beyond any authority that NTIA or the U.S. government has today by enhancing the power of stakeholders to ensure ICANN’s accountability. For example, the U.S. government has no ability to reject an ICANN budget or to remove an ICANN board member—two of the new enumerated community powers. Extending the contract, as some have asked us to do, could actually lead to the loss of Internet freedom we all want to maintain. The potential for serious consequences from extending the contract beyond the time necessary for ICANN to complete implementation of the transition plan is very real and has implications for ICANN, the multistakeholder model and the credibility of the United States in the global community. Privatizing the domain name system has been a goal of Democratic and Republican administrations since 1997. Prior to our 2014 announcement to complete the privatization, some governments used NTIA’s continued stewardship of the IANA functions to justify their demands that the United Nations, the International Telecommunication Union or some other body of governments take control over the domain name system. Failing to follow through on the transition or unilaterally extending the contract will only embolden authoritarian regimes to intensify their advocacy for government-led or intergovernmental management of the Internet via the United Nations. Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and retired Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright recently noted in Politico that rejecting or even delaying the transition would be a gift to those governments threatened by a free and open Internet. The Global Commission on Internet Governance, a group of leading experts from around the world, echoed this message by recently calling on the U.S. Government to adopt the proposal and to meet the September 2016 target date for the transition of the IANA functions. Failure to do so, the Commission said, would “send the wrong message to the international community, increase distrust, and will likely encourage some governments to pursue their own national or even regional Internets.” Over the past two years, the global Internet community, comprised of businesses, technical experts, public interest groups and governments, has engaged in one of the most compelling demonstrations of a multistakeholder process ever undertaken. The transition plan is a thoughtful proposal that was developed through consensus over two years by hundreds of stakeholders around the world. Stakeholders spent more than 26,000 working hours on the proposal, exchanged more than 33,000 messages on mailing lists, held more than 600 meetings and calls and incurred millions of dollars of legal fees. Given the intensive level of effort that went into constructing the transition plan and obtaining support for it from all parts of the ICANN community, it is no surprise that the community supports the transition and wants to see the United States follow through on its long-standing, bipartisan commitment to privatize the domain name system. I realize that the transition raises many important questions. None are more important than the ones we asked in March 2014 when we laid out the criteria for the transition. We said then that the plan must: support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance; maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS; meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and maintain the openness of the Internet. In addition, we said we would not accept a plan that replaced NTIA’s role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Upon the community’s completion of the plan, NTIA led an intensive interagency review to ensure the plan met these criteria. On June 9, we found that the plan satisfied each and every one of our criteria. We also evaluated the proposal against relevant internal control principles, as recommended by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). We separately engaged a panel of corporate governance experts to review the ICANN accountability proposal. The experts concluded that the proposal is consistent with sound principles of good governance. Despite the open and transparent two-year process that developed the plan, the many pages of documentation provided by the community to describe and support the plan, and the exhaustive review we conducted, misperceptions and outright misrepresentations about the plan continue to circulate. I will use the remainder of my time to correct the record on many of these claims. Among the most persistent misconceptions is that we are giving away the Internet. First off, we do not control the Internet. It is simply not true, and people who really understand the Internet know it is not true. No one controls the Internet. The Internet is a network of networks that operates with the cooperation of stakeholders around the world. The most significant operational change required by the transition is to end the largely clerical role NTIA plays in reviewing updates to the root zone file. Even more extreme (and wrong) is the claim that we are giving the Internet away to Russia, China, and other authoritarian governments that want to censor content on the Internet. No one has set forth even a plausible scenario as to how that could happen, and the fact is it simply will not happen as a result of completing the transition. Within ICANN, the transition proposal does not expand the role of governments vis-à-vis other stakeholders. The bylaws retain the prohibition on government officials serving as voting board members. The role of governments in ICANN policymaking remains advisory. Under the proposal, governments will continue through the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to provide input to the Board in the normal course of business. As is currently the case, the Board is free to reject GAC advice. Today, the Board does give special consideration to consensus GAC advice. The transition proposal codifies current practice through a bylaw change that defines consensus as agreement to which no one formally objects. Now it is true that under the proposal, the threshold for rejecting such GAC consensus advice does increase from 50 percent to 60 percent. However, given the codification of “consensus” in the bylaws, this standard only applies to advice from governments to which no government, including the United States, has objected. The GAC has the potential to participate in the Empowered Community, but only at a level commensurate with other stakeholders. Notably, the GAC cannot unilaterally exercise the community powers. Moreover, the bylaws expressly prohibit the GAC from participating in the community powers when the issue in contention is a Board action on GAC advice. Some argue that authoritarian countries are not going to give up their goal of having governments control the domain name system and that the United States is daft for thinking that this transition will change those countries. We would be silly if we thought that, but that has never been our goal. We have never thought we would persuade authoritarian regimes that our view of the Internet is the best approach, but what matters is what the rest of the world thinks. There we have made great progress over the last few years. At the ITU’s World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai in 2012, 89 countries joined in a resolution to expand the authority of the ITU relative to Internet issues. The United States was in the minority that day. However, since then, we have worked hard with countries in the developing world to build support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. Due in part to our transition announcement and due in part to focused diplomacy of the U.S. government coordinated by the State Department, we have made a lot of progress, as represented by the fact that almost 30 of those 89 countries have now demonstrated their support for multistakeholder governance of the domain name system by joining in the Governmental Advisory Committee’s consensus position to move the transition proposal forward. Another claim now making the rounds is that the transition plan is a radical proposal that is being rushed through by the Obama Administration. How can anyone call a longstanding bipartisan policy to privatize the Internet radical? The direction to privatize the domain name system goes back nearly twenty years. The community spent two years to develop its plan. No one rushed the community effort. To the contrary, we extended the contract for a year when the community said it needed more time to complete its work. Nothing is being rushed here and to suggest otherwise is to ignore the facts. Another false claim is the fear that ICANN will move its headquarters abroad once the transition is complete and “flee” the reach of U.S. law. However, this ignores the fact that the stakeholder community has spent the last two years building an accountability regime for ICANN that at its core relies on California law and on ICANN to remain a California corporation. ICANN’s own bylaws confirm that “the principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America.” ICANN’s Board cannot change this bylaw over the objection of the stakeholder community. Additionally, ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation already state that ICANN “is organized under California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law.” Changes to the Articles of Incorporation now require support of a 75 percent majority of the empowered community. ICANN is a California corporation and will remain so. Other claims keep popping up and I do not have time today to correct every misstatement being made about the transition. For example, after living for two years under an appropriations restriction that prohibits us from using appropriated funds to relinquish our responsibility for the domain name system, it is now asserted that this restriction prevents us even from reviewing the transition plan. Yet this claim ignores the fact that at the same time Congress approved the restriction, it also directed NTIA "to conduct a thorough review and analysis of any proposed transition" and to provide quarterly reports on the process to Congress. In the last couple of weeks, I have heard new concerns about the possible antitrust liability of a post-transition ICANN. However, this concern ignores the fact that ICANN in its policymaking activities has always been and will continue to be subject to antitrust laws. I could go on but let me close with some observations on the multistakeholder process. There is no question that within ICANN, the last two years have strengthened the multistakeholder model as it is practiced there. Moreover, the accomplishments of the process at ICANN are serving as a powerful example to governments and other stakeholders of how to use the process to reach consensus on the solutions to complex and difficult issues. However, as we work toward completing the transition, we must recognize that the multistakeholder model will continue to face challenges. It is important that we remain dedicated to demonstrating our support and respect for the multistakeholder approach in all the venues where it is used. We do not show respect for the multistakeholder process when we wait until the process is over and the community has reached consensus and then propose a two-year trial of the plan without ever asking the community to consider such an option. We do not show respect for the multistakeholder process when we do not participate for two years and then afterwards say we preferred an option that the community considered and rejected. Closer to home, here at the IGF-USA, we need to respect the process by working to expand participation beyond the Beltway and to support the inclusion of new stakeholders on a nationwide basis in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner. This kind of growth requires a strong foundation, which is why NTIA supports the work of the IGF-USA’s new Sustainability Working Group. This group is working to develop a governance structure to guide the organizational process and to ensure that there is diverse, inclusive and multistakeholder engagement. In closing, thanks to all of you for your interest and involvement in IGF-USA and in the IANA transition. I want to particularly thank those of you here today who actually contributed your time, effort, and creativity to reaching consensus on the IANA transition plan. Your hard work and dedication has been truly inspiring. Thank you for listening.

5 4

CCWG-Accountability - Explanations of changes to the Articles of Incorporation
by Bernard Turcotte July 14, 2016

July 14, 2016

All, As per the action item from out meeting of last July 12th (in response to a request from Brett Schaefer) please find attached the explanation document that was previously published regarding the changes to the Articles of Incorporation. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Comment for Public Consultation on Articles of Incorporation (AOC)
by Greg Shatan July 13, 2016

July 13, 2016

All, For added clarity, I propose the following change: *Original Language in Revised Bylaws:* the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 54 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet*,* as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process*,* by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“*Bylaws*”). *Proposed Language:* the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 54 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“*Bylaws*”). *Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process.* Basically, what I've done is to remove the long inserted phrase about determining the GPI (between the two red commas in the original language above) and then try to "unpack" that phrase into sentences. Thrusting this phrase in the middle of the sentence was clearly causing two comprehension problems, even though the drafting was technically correct. In addition to the previously discussed comprehension problem around the word "may," the mid-sentence insertion of the phrase obscured the connection between the final words ("by carrying out the mission...") and the thought that it was completing ("the Corporation shall ... pursue the charitable and public purposes of [x] and [y]..."). Removing the inserted phrase makes the primary narrative thrust of the sentence clear: "*the Corporation shall ... pursue the charitable and public purposes of [x] and [y] by by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws.*" [Note: I'm using "x" and "y" instead of the actual language to make the sentence shorter and easier to follow.] Lawyers love long sentences (I've seen some go on for 20 lines or more), and they love inserting explanatory or qualifying phrases in the middle of the sentences, such as this phrase inserted solely to show how such phrases are inserted, so that such sentences can run on. Lawyers will also use the word "such" in a somewhat futile effort to indicate that the word following (in this case, "sentences") was already used in the sentence and is being referred to again with the same meaning. These drafting habits unfortunately make following the main thread of a sentence increasingly difficult. They also force awkward phrasing of the inserted clauses, since these clauses have to be drafted as referential fragments, rather than self-sufficient sentences. Ultimately, readability and clarity of meaning suffers. I hope that my suggested change clarifies the main thread of the sentence, and also clarifies the meaning of the inserted phrase. Greg On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org> wrote: > All, > > The ICANN restated articles of incorporation is not on the critical path > so we are able to accommodate an extension of the public comment period. > The close of the public comment period has been extended to 13 July. > > Trang > > From: James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> > Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 2:24 PM > To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com>, Thomas Rickert < > thomas(a)rickert.net>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, " > leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross > Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, Bernard Turcotte < > turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com>, Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org>, Yuko > Green <yuko.green(a)icann.org> > > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Comment for Public > Consultation on Articles of Incorporation (AOC) > > Hi All, > In light of this and some other conversations I think that we need to take > at least 24hours to review this comment and ensure that it is a consensus > comment of the CCWG before we file it, Im not sure if a 24-48hr delay in > the filing of the CCWG comment would have a major impact downstream in the > timelines, I have cc’d Trang and Yuko who may be able to respond to that. > > I think that we may have let the AoI slip under our radar a little with > all of the parallel work that is going on and we need to make sure that we > get this comment correct first time and to do that we nee to do it with a > full set of inputs and considerations by the CCWG members and I don’t feel > we have this yet. I know that we are working to tight deadlines, but we > need to make sure that we do this right. > > -JG > > From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday 6 July 2016 at 21:45 > To: James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> > Cc: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com>, Thomas Rickert < > thomas(a)rickert.net>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, " > leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross > Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, Bernard Turcotte < > turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Comment for Public > Consultation on Articles of Incorporation (AOC) > > It's unfortunate that we don't have time to run this by our counsel, as I > would be interested in their views. Here are mine. > > I would recommend against filing these comments. > > FIRST, I disagree with the second point raised. Substituting "shall" for > "may" would incorrectly imply that there is a *requirement* that a > determination of the global public interest *must* take place. We have > not asked for such a requirement and we have not specified any such > requirement, which would render this statement nebulous, ambiguous and > undefined. As currently drafted, *if* a determination of the global > public interest takes place it will be done by the multistakeholder > community using a bottom-up multistakeholder process, but there is > (properly) no language *requiring* that such a determination be made. > > If anyone believes that Final Recommendation 1, para 51 *requires* the > initiation of a process to determine the global public interest, that > should either be a part of Work Stream 2 or a huge implementation item for > Work Stream 1. As far as I can see, it is neither -- which further proves > that changing "may" to "shall" goes beyond the recommendations of the CCWG. > > SECOND, I also disagree with the third point raised. "Organized" is > commonly used in Articles of Incorporation (indeed, in some states, such as > Massachusetts, a non-profit corporation files Articles of Organization > rather than Articles of Incorporation). As our counsel pointed out on the > last call, the California official form for Articles of Incorporation uses > the term "organized." (See attached) It is a best practice to stick > closely to the official language provided by the jurisdiction -- here it is > "organized." This is demonstrated in model California Articles of > Incorporation prepared by Public Counsel, a pro bono law firm, and > available online (see attached or > http://www.publiccounsel.org/publications?id=0059) It would be far > preferable if we were to accept the clarification that "organized" is > what's used in this circumstance, rather than to recommend a change that is > at best meaningless and at worst creates the potential for confusion (since > one always looks for meaning in any change, and confusion could fill the > void created by the meaninglessness of this change). To paraphrase > Shakespeare, I don't think the confusion is in the document, it is in > ourselves (or at least in some of us) -- and it would be better for us to > adjust our understanding of the document, rather than to adjust the > document to suit our misunderstanding. > > Of course, the language of the CCWG comment is relatively undemanding -- > we only ask that "counsel" (whose counsel? ICANN's?) or "the drafters" > (why the difference?) review the language. We do not justify our > quasi-recommendations of changes, other than by saying that we are confused > by the word "organized" and by demonstrating that we are confused about > what is permissive and what is required. > > Frankly, I'm far from sure that this comment is widely supported, other > than by apathy or lack of time. I think it would be a mistake for either > of these two recommendations (?) to be adopted, and I hope that counsel/the > drafters, upon further review, let the original drafting stand. > > The only thing I agree with is the trivial change from "further" to > "future," which at least does not make matters worse. This is hardly worth > a comment by itself. > > In sum, I reiterate that I would recommend against filing these comments. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I agree. This is a legal document, and we should have the benefit of >> counsel on this. >> >> Greg >> >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:36 PM, James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> >> wrote: >> >>> While not able to certify anything, if there are issues that our counsel >>> see I think its important that they are raised. >>> >>> -James >>> >>> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of >>> "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> >>> Date: Wednesday 6 July 2016 at 20:32 >>> To: Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, Mathieu Weill < >>> mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, "leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, >>> Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, >>> Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> >>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Comment for Public >>> Consultation on Articles of Incorporation (AOC) >>> >>> Dear Co-Chairs and CCWG-Accountability Members and Participants, Please >>> let us know if you want Sidley and/or Adler to comment on this before you >>> post it. We will not do so unless instructed to. Holly >>> >>> >>> >>> *HOLLY J. GREGORY* >>> Partner and Co-Chair, Global Corporate Governance & Executive >>> Compensation Practice >>> >>> >>> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP *+1 212 839 5853 >>> holly.gregory(a)sidley.com >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [ >>> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>> <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Bernard >>> Turcotte >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 06, 2016 3:27 PM >>> *To:* Accountability Cross Community >>> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Comment for Public >>> Consultation on Articles of Incorporation (AOC) >>> >>> >>> >>> All, >>> >>> >>> >>> Please find attached the draft comment to the ICANN public consultation >>> on the Articles of Incorporation from the leadership. >>> >>> >>> >>> These comments are based on the questions raised during the CCWG meeting >>> on the AOC and in consideration of Sam Eisner's response to those questions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please respond to the list ASAP if you have comments as this public >>> consultation closes in a few hours. >>> >>> >>> >>> Bernard Turcotte >>> >>> ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG Co-Chairs. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> **************************************************************************************************** >>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is >>> privileged or confidential. >>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any >>> attachments and notify us >>> immediately. >>> >>> >>> **************************************************************************************************** >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>> >>> >> >

21 28