Dear Co- Chair, You have two options either you attend the teleconference representing CCWG or you attend the teleconference expressing the view points off the co chairs only In the first option , you need to discuss the eventual questions and possible answers with CCWG In the second option you do not need that but you need to clearly emphasize that you expressing the views of Co Chairs which may not necessarily reflect the views of CCWG Regards KAVOUSS 2015-03-30 13:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Dear Mathiew , Dear

2015-03-30 13:05 GMT+02:00 Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na>:

...

Dear Co-Chairs,

what gives you the idea that they want to meet with the Co-Chairs (only)?

I do not think the Co-Chairs and/or individuals from ST have a mandate to speak on the substance of our deliberations, however I agree that such a call would be unwieldy if done by the plenum.

Hence, for transparency and accountability purposes, the call needs to be recorded and transcribed, and I propose that the transcription be reviewed by both sides and agreed upon as to accuracy prior to publication, and then published without redaction.

Where are the list of questions referred to below?

greetings, el

On 2015-03-30 12:11, Mathieu Weill wrote:

...

Dear Colleagues,

For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April).

Your inputs are welcome.

Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill

-------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : 'rickert@anwaelte.de' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>

Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:

You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February.

At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work.

We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses.

Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks?

* Wednesday, April 1^st : 10:00 – 11:00 EST * Thursday, April 2^nd : 11:00 – 12:00 EST * Friday, April 3^rd : 10:00 – 11:00 EST

We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too.

Thank you,

John

John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 | HealeyJ@gao.gov

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Mathieu, I agree with Ed and suggest that Sidley be consulted on this immediately. Excellent points have been made in this thread. However, I personally would not recommend "stonewalling" them and sending them to read our transcripts, etc. As between our two esteemed firms, Sidley has a significant presence in Washington and has lawyers deeply knowledgeable about dealing with the USG. Our team includes a former Congressman and a former General Counsel of the Deoartment of Commerce. We will need to work with them to determine how to respond and how to handle the interviews, since we have more background on how ICANN (the community) works and may also need to point out some of the congressional activities to date regarding IANA (they did watch the latest Senate hearing) -- and, of course, we are the client. Greg Shatan On Monday, March 30, 2015, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

Hi Mathieu,

Thanks for sharing this request with us.

I'm not particularly comfortable with placing you, Thomas and Leon in the position of representing the CCWG before a Congressional agency. I would simply direct the agency to our transcripts, recordings and documents, all online, should they want information about our activities. If after looking at these materials the G.A.O. has further questions they should feel free to submit them in writing and as a group we can chose how to respond and vet the responses together before sending them back to Congress.

My reluctance to fully comply with the GAO request, as proffered, is largely based upon the following reasons:

1. We're not a traditional heirarchical based organisation where chairs speak and direct the group. Rather it's the other way around. We all know this, you all know this, I'm not sure an outside organisation such as the GAO really would understand this to the extent necessary. I would hate to see your views be reinterpreted as representative of the entire groups as the GAO processes your interviews;

2. In the best of situations when interviewed by professionals folks occasionally misspeak. I don't believe that either yourself, Thomas or Leon are native English speakers. Word choice is sometimes a problem among non native speakers - I know it is for me when I converse in one of my secondary languages.. We saw this a bit in Istanbul where on occasion clarifications had to be made from the head table because the language used in presenting information was not precise and led to misinterpretations by some. I don't mean to be critical of the linguistic capability of our leadership trio - Leon, in particular, has an English language ability that surpasses my own. It's just in this highly politicised world I would hate for a moment of "misspeak" to be twisted or interpreted in a way it was not intended.

3. Politics. In a bygone era the G.A.O. truly was an independent nonpartisan research branch of Congress. I still want to believe it largely is. Sadly, with greater frequency the G.A.O. has been accused by some of being a bit more partisan in its research. I would hate to see anything said by the C.C.W.G. leadership used in a political manner by those charged with this investigation.

If, despite the foregoing, it is decided that it is in the best interest of all to go forward with the interview I would respectfully suggest the following:

1. It be made clear to the investigators that yourself, Thomas and Leon are speaking for yourselves and not for the group as a whole during your interview, and

2. Prior to agreeing to do so you confer with our independent counsel as to their views and advice on the matter.

None of the foregoing should in any way be interpreted as anything critical of our fine co-chairs. It's just that he environment, poisoned a bit by Mr. Chehade's less than positive characterisation of the CWG leadership and work, is one in which I believe that caution is advised.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill@afnic.fr');>> wrote:

...

Dear Colleagues,

For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April).

Your inputs are welcome.

Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill

-------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','HealeyJ@GAO.GOV');> Pour : ' rickert@anwaelte.de <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rickert@anwaelte.de');>' <rickert@anwaelte.de> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rickert@anwaelte.de');>, ' mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill@afnic.fr');>' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill@afnic.fr');>, ' leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe@sanchez.mx');>' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe@sanchez.mx');>

Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:

You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February.

At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work.

We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses.

Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks?

- Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST - Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST - Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST

We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too.

Thank you,

John

John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 | HealeyJ@gao.gov <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','HealeyJ@gao.gov');>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Hi Greg, Mathieu, all I am just thinking aloud here; I am not sure i understand where/why Sidley comes into this picture. A meeting with CCWG Co-chairs was requested, i don't think we need legal firm's advice on that, neither do we need their participation....i think we just need to determine if it should happen or not. My personal preference would have been to refer them to CCWG informational pages or for it to be informal (i.e in their individual capacity) as Kavouss indicated. Nevertheless, i agree with your comment about not being so blunt. I will then suggest that Co-Chairs attend the meeting in their capacity as co-chairs with the intent of providing informational reference and providing clarification to them based on any question they ask relating to ccwg processes and status. Any hypothetical question that may be asked should be refereed to the ccwg; its important that the co-chairs don't attempt to address issues that is pending clearly finalised direction within the ccwg. The meeting recordings may also need to be recorded for documentation purposes. That said, i think we should note that the US may not be the only country following this process and so we need to be mindful of the preference given to different departments in US. Think about a scenario where my country for instance writes the co-chairs with the similar intent of interacting with you in order to improve their participation. Regards On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Mathieu,

I agree with Ed and suggest that Sidley be consulted on this immediately. Excellent points have been made in this thread. However, I personally would not recommend "stonewalling" them and sending them to read our transcripts, etc. As between our two esteemed firms, Sidley has a significant presence in Washington and has lawyers deeply knowledgeable about dealing with the USG. Our team includes a former Congressman and a former General Counsel of the Deoartment of Commerce. We will need to work with them to determine how to respond and how to handle the interviews, since we have more background on how ICANN (the community) works and may also need to point out some of the congressional activities to date regarding IANA (they did watch the latest Senate hearing) -- and, of course, we are the client.

Greg Shatan

On Monday, March 30, 2015, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

...

Hi Mathieu,

Thanks for sharing this request with us.

I'm not particularly comfortable with placing you, Thomas and Leon in the position of representing the CCWG before a Congressional agency. I would simply direct the agency to our transcripts, recordings and documents, all online, should they want information about our activities. If after looking at these materials the G.A.O. has further questions they should feel free to submit them in writing and as a group we can chose how to respond and vet the responses together before sending them back to Congress.

My reluctance to fully comply with the GAO request, as proffered, is largely based upon the following reasons:

1. We're not a traditional heirarchical based organisation where chairs speak and direct the group. Rather it's the other way around. We all know this, you all know this, I'm not sure an outside organisation such as the GAO really would understand this to the extent necessary. I would hate to see your views be reinterpreted as representative of the entire groups as the GAO processes your interviews;

2. In the best of situations when interviewed by professionals folks occasionally misspeak. I don't believe that either yourself, Thomas or Leon are native English speakers. Word choice is sometimes a problem among non native speakers - I know it is for me when I converse in one of my secondary languages.. We saw this a bit in Istanbul where on occasion clarifications had to be made from the head table because the language used in presenting information was not precise and led to misinterpretations by some. I don't mean to be critical of the linguistic capability of our leadership trio - Leon, in particular, has an English language ability that surpasses my own. It's just in this highly politicised world I would hate for a moment of "misspeak" to be twisted or interpreted in a way it was not intended.

3. Politics. In a bygone era the G.A.O. truly was an independent nonpartisan research branch of Congress. I still want to believe it largely is. Sadly, with greater frequency the G.A.O. has been accused by some of being a bit more partisan in its research. I would hate to see anything said by the C.C.W.G. leadership used in a political manner by those charged with this investigation.

If, despite the foregoing, it is decided that it is in the best interest of all to go forward with the interview I would respectfully suggest the following:

1. It be made clear to the investigators that yourself, Thomas and Leon are speaking for yourselves and not for the group as a whole during your interview, and

2. Prior to agreeing to do so you confer with our independent counsel as to their views and advice on the matter.

None of the foregoing should in any way be interpreted as anything critical of our fine co-chairs. It's just that he environment, poisoned a bit by Mr. Chehade's less than positive characterisation of the CWG leadership and work, is one in which I believe that caution is advised.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

...

Dear Colleagues,

For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April).

Your inputs are welcome.

Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill

-------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : ' rickert@anwaelte.de' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>

Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:

You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February.

At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work.

We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses.

Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks?

- Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST - Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST - Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST

We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too.

Thank you,

John

John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 | HealeyJ@gao.gov

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !

+1 Chris D and +1 Greg. Let’s not inhibit useful dialogue Chris LaHatte Ombudsman Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman Confidentiality All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:32 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request Seun, Thanks for your email. My suggestion to seek advice from Sidley was in response to some of the more aggressive suggestions on how to respond to the GAO request. I never suggested that Sidley participate. I think that if our chairs speak in their individual capacity and have a reasonable idea of what to expect, there's no need for legal advice. However, I would not want to refuse the request without legal advice. The GAO inquiry has been requested by the US Congressional committee that oversees the Department of Commerce, and thus NTIA (and thus oversight on the IANA transition). That is the context of this particular request. I don't think speaking to the GAO shows any kind of "preference"; the fact that the GAO is asking for this discussion reflects the US Government's particular involvement in the IANA transition. That said, I don't expect that our chairs would blithely turn down a request from another government to discuss the work of the CCWG. Best regards, Greg On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> > wrote: Hi Greg, Mathieu, all I am just thinking aloud here; I am not sure i understand where/why Sidley comes into this picture. A meeting with CCWG Co-chairs was requested, i don't think we need legal firm's advice on that, neither do we need their participation....i think we just need to determine if it should happen or not. My personal preference would have been to refer them to CCWG informational pages or for it to be informal (i.e in their individual capacity) as Kavouss indicated. Nevertheless, i agree with your comment about not being so blunt. I will then suggest that Co-Chairs attend the meeting in their capacity as co-chairs with the intent of providing informational reference and providing clarification to them based on any question they ask relating to ccwg processes and status. Any hypothetical question that may be asked should be refereed to the ccwg; its important that the co-chairs don't attempt to address issues that is pending clearly finalised direction within the ccwg. The meeting recordings may also need to be recorded for documentation purposes. That said, i think we should note that the US may not be the only country following this process and so we need to be mindful of the preference given to different departments in US. Think about a scenario where my country for instance writes the co-chairs with the similar intent of interacting with you in order to improve their participation. Regards On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: Mathieu, I agree with Ed and suggest that Sidley be consulted on this immediately. Excellent points have been made in this thread. However, I personally would not recommend "stonewalling" them and sending them to read our transcripts, etc. As between our two esteemed firms, Sidley has a significant presence in Washington and has lawyers deeply knowledgeable about dealing with the USG. Our team includes a former Congressman and a former General Counsel of the Deoartment of Commerce. We will need to work with them to determine how to respond and how to handle the interviews, since we have more background on how ICANN (the community) works and may also need to point out some of the congressional activities to date regarding IANA (they did watch the latest Senate hearing) -- and, of course, we are the client. Greg Shatan On Monday, March 30, 2015, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> > wrote: Hi Mathieu, Thanks for sharing this request with us. I'm not particularly comfortable with placing you, Thomas and Leon in the position of representing the CCWG before a Congressional agency. I would simply direct the agency to our transcripts, recordings and documents, all online, should they want information about our activities. If after looking at these materials the G.A.O. has further questions they should feel free to submit them in writing and as a group we can chose how to respond and vet the responses together before sending them back to Congress. My reluctance to fully comply with the GAO request, as proffered, is largely based upon the following reasons: 1. We're not a traditional heirarchical based organisation where chairs speak and direct the group. Rather it's the other way around. We all know this, you all know this, I'm not sure an outside organisation such as the GAO really would understand this to the extent necessary. I would hate to see your views be reinterpreted as representative of the entire groups as the GAO processes your interviews; 2. In the best of situations when interviewed by professionals folks occasionally misspeak. I don't believe that either yourself, Thomas or Leon are native English speakers. Word choice is sometimes a problem among non native speakers - I know it is for me when I converse in one of my secondary languages.. We saw this a bit in Istanbul where on occasion clarifications had to be made from the head table because the language used in presenting information was not precise and led to misinterpretations by some. I don't mean to be critical of the linguistic capability of our leadership trio - Leon, in particular, has an English language ability that surpasses my own. It's just in this highly politicised world I would hate for a moment of "misspeak" to be twisted or interpreted in a way it was not intended. 3. Politics. In a bygone era the G.A.O. truly was an independent nonpartisan research branch of Congress. I still want to believe it largely is. Sadly, with greater frequency the G.A.O. has been accused by some of being a bit more partisan in its research. I would hate to see anything said by the C.C.W.G. leadership used in a political manner by those charged with this investigation. If, despite the foregoing, it is decided that it is in the best interest of all to go forward with the interview I would respectfully suggest the following: 1. It be made clear to the investigators that yourself, Thomas and Leon are speaking for yourselves and not for the group as a whole during your interview, and 2. Prior to agreeing to do so you confer with our independent counsel as to their views and advice on the matter. None of the foregoing should in any way be interpreted as anything critical of our fine co-chairs. It's just that he environment, poisoned a bit by Mr. Chehade's less than positive characterisation of the CWG leadership and work, is one in which I believe that caution is advised. Kind Regards, Ed Morris On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> > wrote: Dear Colleagues, For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April). Your inputs are welcome. Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV <mailto:HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> > Pour : 'rickert@anwaelte.de' <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> >, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> >, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> > Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill: You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February. At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work. We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses. Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks? * Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST * Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST * Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too. Thank you, John John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 <tel:%28202%29%20512-5006> | HealeyJ@gao.gov <mailto:HealeyJ@gao.gov> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !

Based on the questions outlined in the GAO brief I think that the meeting may not align with a broad overview of the methodology and structure, if they are willing to talk about that and not delve into specific questions on experience of the co-chairs, risk identification, stakeholder representation and the extent that the NTIAs criteria are sufficient, then this may be a different discussion. B But as outlined their questions are very specific, and I would say tailored to looking at the transition in a certain manner. We need to quell our willingness to share here and be very careful in how we approach this. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 6:46 PM To: Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request Dear Mathieu As far as I understand the GAO has been put in charge to review the IANA transition process and inform Congress. At this point I think it would be very useful to fully brief them on the methodology, working groups structure and expected timelines for the broader community inputs. It is in any case the best opportunity to explain the whole system to the people who are going to evaluate its results and make recommendations to the lawmakers. If you convinced them, they will convince the lawmakers in a way that is not possible during open hearings. I would refrain in the brief from any content issue at this time. Best of luck Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8335 2487 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA On Mar 30, 2015, at 4:11 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April). Your inputs are welcome. Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV><mailto:HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : 'rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>' <rickert@anwaelte.de><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill: You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February. At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work. We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I'll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please "reply all" so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses. Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks? · Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 - 11:00 EST · Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 - 12:00 EST · Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 - 11:00 EST We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you'd like to be part of that meeting, too. Thank you, John John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 | HealeyJ@gao.gov<mailto:HealeyJ@gao.gov> <GAOHQ-#7198516-v2-EXTERNAL_STAKEHOLDER_QUESTIONS_-_FOR_DISTRIBUTION.DOCX>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

I believe that this may be the same list that the GAO have used to frame their discussions with other stakeholders (CDT has met with them). The "meeting" will be a discussion. The questions are for guidance. I concur with Greg - care and thoughtfulness should guide the discussion. I have full confidence that our Chairs will give a balanced and factual representation of the discussions that we have been engaged in to date. Matthew On 3/30/2015 7:26 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

I agree that we should approach the GAO's request with care and thoughtfulness. On the other hand, I don't think we can view this is a request that we can simply accept or reject as we see fit, or where we can freely negotiate the content and direction of the questions.

Greg

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:54 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:

Based on the questions outlined in the GAO brief I think that the meeting may not align with a broad overview of the methodology and structure, if they are willing to talk about that and not delve into specific questions on experience of the co-chairs, risk identification, stakeholder representation and the extent that the NTIAs criteria are sufficient, then this may be a different discussion. B

But as outlined their questions are very specific, and I would say tailored to looking at the transition in a certain manner. We need to quell our willingness to share here and be very careful in how we approach this.

*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 6:46 PM *To:* Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

Dear Mathieu

As far as I understand the GAO has been put in charge to review the IANA transition process and inform Congress.

At this point I think it would be very useful to fully brief them on the methodology, working groups structure and expected timelines for the broader community inputs.

It is in any case the best opportunity to explain the whole system to the people who are going to evaluate its results and make recommendations to the lawmakers. If you convinced them, they will convince the lawmakers in a way that is not possible during open hearings.

I would refrain in the brief from *_any_* content issue at this time.

Best of luck

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________

email: crg@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8335 2487 <tel:%2B506%208335%202487> (cel) +506 4000 2000 <tel:%2B506%204000%202000> (home) +506 2290 3678 <tel:%2B506%202290%203678> (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000

San Jose, COSTA RICA

On Mar 30, 2015, at 4:11 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April).

Your inputs are welcome.

Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill

-------- Message transféré --------

*Sujet : *

April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs

*Date : *

Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000

*De : *

Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> <mailto:HealeyJ@GAO.GOV>

*Pour : *

'rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>' <rickert@anwaelte.de> <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>

Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:

You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February.

At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work.

We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses.

Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks?

·Wednesday, April 1^st : 10:00 – 11:00 EST

·Thursday, April 2^nd : 11:00 – 12:00 EST

·Friday, April 3^rd : 10:00 – 11:00 EST

We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too.

Thank you,

John

John Healey, Senior Analyst

Physical Infrastructure Team

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548

(202) 512-5006 <tel:%28202%29%20512-5006> | HealeyJ@gao.gov <mailto:HealeyJ@gao.gov>

<GAOHQ-#7198516-v2-EXTERNAL_STAKEHOLDER_QUESTIONS_-_FOR_DISTRIBUTION.DOCX>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987

+1 … Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_me dium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015> From: Matthew Shears [mailto:mshears@cdt.org] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:17 PM To: Greg Shatan; James Gannon Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request I believe that this may be the same list that the GAO have used to frame their discussions with other stakeholders (CDT has met with them). The "meeting" will be a discussion. The questions are for guidance. I concur with Greg - care and thoughtfulness should guide the discussion. I have full confidence that our Chairs will give a balanced and factual representation of the discussions that we have been engaged in to date. Matthew On 3/30/2015 7:26 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: I agree that we should approach the GAO's request with care and thoughtfulness. On the other hand, I don't think we can view this is a request that we can simply accept or reject as we see fit, or where we can freely negotiate the content and direction of the questions. Greg On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:54 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net> > wrote: Based on the questions outlined in the GAO brief I think that the meeting may not align with a broad overview of the methodology and structure, if they are willing to talk about that and not delve into specific questions on experience of the co-chairs, risk identification, stakeholder representation and the extent that the NTIAs criteria are sufficient, then this may be a different discussion. B But as outlined their questions are very specific, and I would say tailored to looking at the transition in a certain manner. We need to quell our willingness to share here and be very careful in how we approach this. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 6:46 PM To: Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request Dear Mathieu As far as I understand the GAO has been put in charge to review the IANA transition process and inform Congress. At this point I think it would be very useful to fully brief them on the methodology, working groups structure and expected timelines for the broader community inputs. It is in any case the best opportunity to explain the whole system to the people who are going to evaluate its results and make recommendations to the lawmakers. If you convinced them, they will convince the lawmakers in a way that is not possible during open hearings. I would refrain in the brief from any content issue at this time. Best of luck Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: crg@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8335 2487 <tel:%2B506%208335%202487> (cel) +506 4000 2000 <tel:%2B506%204000%202000> (home) +506 2290 3678 <tel:%2B506%202290%203678> (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA On Mar 30, 2015, at 4:11 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> > wrote: Dear Colleagues, For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April). Your inputs are welcome. Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <mailto:HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : 'rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ' <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> <rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> ' <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> ' <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill: You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February. At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work. We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses. Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks? * Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST * Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST * Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too. Thank you, John John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 <tel:%28202%29%20512-5006> | <mailto:HealeyJ@gao.gov> HealeyJ@gao.gov <GAOHQ-#7198516-v2-EXTERNAL_STAKEHOLDER_QUESTIONS_-_FOR_DISTRIBUTION.DOCX>__ _____________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987

FYI this what GAO told me about the scope of their study when I asked today. Best, Carl While there have been some bills introduced in Congress related to GAO and the proposed IANA transition, so far, none of those bills has become law. We are involved in our current engagement on the proposed transition at the request of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce-Chairman Fred Upton, Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn, Member John Shimkus-and its Subcommittee on Communications and Technology - Chairman Greg Walden. In addition, Rep. Mike Kelly and Rep. Todd Rokita are requesters for this work. Our objectives are as follows: (1) What process is being used to develop a transition proposal, and how is the process considering risks associated with the transition, as identified by stakeholders? (2) How is NTIA planning to use its core requirements to evaluate a transition proposal, and what, if any, additional criteria could help NTIA with this evaluation? Our basic methodology is to review documentation and interview a variety of stakeholders, including officials with multiple federal agencies, ICANN, and others with technical expertise or an interest in the IANA functions, and to monitor the transition process. We are also evaluating various established GAO criteria that might be applicable. As Chuck mentioned, we are planning to complete a product in July 2015. Thanks very much for your interest - From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 4:34 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request Thank you all for your comments and views. We will definitely need to discuss this in our call tomorrow. With regards to going to the external lawyer for advice on this interview, I am afraid that falls out of the scope of the engagement letter we have signed with them. Their scope is to provide advice regarding governance and the development of structures and/or solutions for enhancing the accountability of ICANN but not in the field of the CCWGs interaction with third parties, may these be governmental or private. Let's discuss this in detail tomorrow. Thanks again for the fruitful thoughts. Best regards, León El 30/03/2015, a las 13:34, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> escribió: +1 ... Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image001.jpg><http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...> From: Matthew Shears [mailto:mshears@cdt.org] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:17 PM To: Greg Shatan; James Gannon Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request I believe that this may be the same list that the GAO have used to frame their discussions with other stakeholders (CDT has met with them). The "meeting" will be a discussion. The questions are for guidance. I concur with Greg - care and thoughtfulness should guide the discussion. I have full confidence that our Chairs will give a balanced and factual representation of the discussions that we have been engaged in to date. Matthew On 3/30/2015 7:26 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: I agree that we should approach the GAO's request with care and thoughtfulness. On the other hand, I don't think we can view this is a request that we can simply accept or reject as we see fit, or where we can freely negotiate the content and direction of the questions. Greg On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:54 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Based on the questions outlined in the GAO brief I think that the meeting may not align with a broad overview of the methodology and structure, if they are willing to talk about that and not delve into specific questions on experience of the co-chairs, risk identification, stakeholder representation and the extent that the NTIAs criteria are sufficient, then this may be a different discussion. B But as outlined their questions are very specific, and I would say tailored to looking at the transition in a certain manner. We need to quell our willingness to share here and be very careful in how we approach this. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 6:46 PM To: Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request Dear Mathieu As far as I understand the GAO has been put in charge to review the IANA transition process and inform Congress. At this point I think it would be very useful to fully brief them on the methodology, working groups structure and expected timelines for the broader community inputs. It is in any case the best opportunity to explain the whole system to the people who are going to evaluate its results and make recommendations to the lawmakers. If you convinced them, they will convince the lawmakers in a way that is not possible during open hearings. I would refrain in the brief from any content issue at this time. Best of luck Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8335 2487<tel:%2B506%208335%202487> (cel) +506 4000 2000<tel:%2B506%204000%202000> (home) +506 2290 3678<tel:%2B506%202290%203678> (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA On Mar 30, 2015, at 4:11 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April). Your inputs are welcome. Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV><mailto:HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : 'rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>' <rickert@anwaelte.de><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill: You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February. At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work. We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I'll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please "reply all" so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses. Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks? * Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 - 11:00 EST * Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 - 12:00 EST * Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 - 11:00 EST We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you'd like to be part of that meeting, too. Thank you, John John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006<tel:%28202%29%20512-5006> | HealeyJ@gao.gov<mailto:HealeyJ@gao.gov> <GAOHQ-#7198516-v2-EXTERNAL_STAKEHOLDER_QUESTIONS_-_FOR_DISTRIBUTION.DOCX>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Colleagues With due respect to all, I think you are overreacting and over thinking the GAO request quite a bit. Greg is precisely right that this is an invitation to a conversation – not something we can manage the scope of. Either we say “no” or we say “yes” and if we say “yes” they will ask whatever they want to ask. I should add that GAO is transparent – so the way they induce acceptance is their practice of noting on the public record who declined to speak with them in whole or in part. That image: “We requested the opportunity to speak with the co-Chairs of the CCWG, but they declined our request ….” Is about the worst thing I could imagine for public confidence in our work. More importantly, as Carlos correctly pointed out, though these are relatively modest staffers, their report when issued will have significant influence with Congress. Now it may be that we don’t care about that – but assuming we do it is incumbent upon us to put our best foot forward. If, hypothetically, the report found critical flaws in our work and reported same that would, even if completely incorrect, be very disruptive. Conversely, if it lauds our work as thoughtful etc., it would be of great benefit to our efforts. To the extent the report errs, if it does so because we did not engage we would have nobody but ourselves to blame. So the bottom line is that, I think, we should say “yes” with some enthusiasm. We have work product of which we are justifiably proud and if we can’t say that to the GAO, I would wonder why. To be sure, the co-chairs should not bind the CCWG and should make clear they do not speak “on behalf of” the group – but they can and should be authorized to tout our work as useful and an essential step to satisfying the NTIA (and, derivatively, Congress) that the transition will occur without a loss of accountability. That having been said, I do think that the Co-Chairs might reasonably ask for an extra week or two – so that the meeting would occur after our proposal is released to the public for comment, as we anticipate will happen in mid-late April. Then the Co-Chairs will have substance to talk about. This is also something GAO will understand as they are often all about good process. Bear in mind, however, that the GAO has deadlines of its own. I believe I was told (though I can’t recall by whom) that the House Committee has demanded this report no later than June 30 …. Regards Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 2:26 PM To: James Gannon Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request I agree that we should approach the GAO's request with care and thoughtfulness. On the other hand, I don't think we can view this is a request that we can simply accept or reject as we see fit, or where we can freely negotiate the content and direction of the questions. Greg On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:54 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net> > wrote: Based on the questions outlined in the GAO brief I think that the meeting may not align with a broad overview of the methodology and structure, if they are willing to talk about that and not delve into specific questions on experience of the co-chairs, risk identification, stakeholder representation and the extent that the NTIAs criteria are sufficient, then this may be a different discussion. B But as outlined their questions are very specific, and I would say tailored to looking at the transition in a certain manner. We need to quell our willingness to share here and be very careful in how we approach this. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 6:46 PM To: Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request Dear Mathieu As far as I understand the GAO has been put in charge to review the IANA transition process and inform Congress. At this point I think it would be very useful to fully brief them on the methodology, working groups structure and expected timelines for the broader community inputs. It is in any case the best opportunity to explain the whole system to the people who are going to evaluate its results and make recommendations to the lawmakers. If you convinced them, they will convince the lawmakers in a way that is not possible during open hearings. I would refrain in the brief from any content issue at this time. Best of luck Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: crg@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8335 2487 <tel:%2B506%208335%202487> (cel) +506 4000 2000 <tel:%2B506%204000%202000> (home) +506 2290 3678 <tel:%2B506%202290%203678> (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA On Mar 30, 2015, at 4:11 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote: Dear Colleagues, For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April). Your inputs are welcome. Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <mailto:HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : 'rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ' <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> <rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> ' <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> ' <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill: You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February. At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work. We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses. Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks? * Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST * Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST * Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too. Thank you, John John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 <tel:%28202%29%20512-5006> | <mailto:HealeyJ@gao.gov> HealeyJ@gao.gov <GAOHQ-#7198516-v2-EXTERNAL_STAKEHOLDER_QUESTIONS_-_FOR_DISTRIBUTION.DOCX>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Oh no I agree that the request should definitely be honored, but we needs to be very clear on how we present the work and that any conversations that the chairs have are either in their personal capacities or within a clearly defined scope if speaking on behalf of the group. From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:26 PM To: James Gannon Cc: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request I agree that we should approach the GAO's request with care and thoughtfulness. On the other hand, I don't think we can view this is a request that we can simply accept or reject as we see fit, or where we can freely negotiate the content and direction of the questions. Greg On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:54 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Based on the questions outlined in the GAO brief I think that the meeting may not align with a broad overview of the methodology and structure, if they are willing to talk about that and not delve into specific questions on experience of the co-chairs, risk identification, stakeholder representation and the extent that the NTIAs criteria are sufficient, then this may be a different discussion. B But as outlined their questions are very specific, and I would say tailored to looking at the transition in a certain manner. We need to quell our willingness to share here and be very careful in how we approach this. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 6:46 PM To: Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request Dear Mathieu As far as I understand the GAO has been put in charge to review the IANA transition process and inform Congress. At this point I think it would be very useful to fully brief them on the methodology, working groups structure and expected timelines for the broader community inputs. It is in any case the best opportunity to explain the whole system to the people who are going to evaluate its results and make recommendations to the lawmakers. If you convinced them, they will convince the lawmakers in a way that is not possible during open hearings. I would refrain in the brief from any content issue at this time. Best of luck Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8335 2487<tel:%2B506%208335%202487> (cel) +506 4000 2000<tel:%2B506%204000%202000> (home) +506 2290 3678<tel:%2B506%202290%203678> (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA On Mar 30, 2015, at 4:11 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April). Your inputs are welcome. Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV><mailto:HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : 'rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>' <rickert@anwaelte.de><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill: You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February. At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work. We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses. Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks? • Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST • Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST • Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too. Thank you, John John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006<tel:%28202%29%20512-5006> | HealeyJ@gao.gov<mailto:HealeyJ@gao.gov> <GAOHQ-#7198516-v2-EXTERNAL_STAKEHOLDER_QUESTIONS_-_FOR_DISTRIBUTION.DOCX>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Hi Chris,

I get that some people are concerned in the way you have expressed. What I’m not clear about is ‘what is the fear?’. We have 3 very experienced people chairing the CCWG. What are we concerned that they’ll do?

Chris

As more information has become available about the study the less pensive I am about it. It obviously is a much wider and more encompassing study than we alerted to at the start of this thread. I certainly have complete confidence in the knowledge and intent of our co-chairs. However... My concern is more about linguistics and culture. We have had misunderstandings during this process which have been attributed to bad word choice or poor selection of communication vehicle. That shouldn't be a problem if this were more of a European style government inquiry, a U.K. style White Paper for example. Linguistic errors and misunderstandings are easily corrected in nonpartisan studies. However, having worked for a period on The Hill I can tell you that all G.A.O. studies are not created equal. Yes, you can use them to find 'the truth', such as it is, in an unbiased way. You can also use them to get data to buttress the position you have already decided you want to have. It perhaps shouldn't be that way but at times it is. Requester Mike Kelly was the author of the Defending Internet Freedom Act of 2014. Requesters Blackburn, Shimkus and Rokita were all co-sponsors of the DOTCOM Act. I would suggest that these fine Congresspeople aren't looking to develop their position, they more likely are looking for information to buttress it. As we now know this is a wide ranging study involving many interested parties then, yes, I would agree that our co-chairs should participate. However I'd suggest they should not do so hoping to convince anyone of anything but rather should, as has been suggested, merely provide procedural information rather than any information of substance or opinion. Ed

Hi Chris, No fear mongering here, just any consultations with the GAO need to be considered on how they are framed as to the work of this group, seemingly innocuous statements can be very easily misinterpreted or turned to support a variety of views that may be supportive or combatative to the work we are all doing. Having heard that GAO is consulting with a number of stakeholders my concerns are tempered somewhat but I still think that this needs to be handled carefully. Some of my initial thoughts based on the discussion brief are inline below, for some of this I am playing devil's advocate as to how the responses could be utilized: Topics for Discussion 1. What is your experience related to the IANA functions and NTIA's role? JG: This is a question that may be asked of the chairs in their personal capacity, no issue here at all. 2. How would you describe NTIA's current role with regard to the IANA functions (e.g., stewardship, administrative/clerical, backstop, etc)? JG: This is a factual question best answered by IANA or NTIA 3. If you consider the implications of transitioning NTIA's role to a global multistakeholder community, what are the potential risks, if any, that come to mind? a. What risks can you identify if the transition does occur (i.e., such as any technical, operational, or accountability risks that are currently mitigated by NTIA's contract with ICANN)? b. What are the potential risks if the transition does not occur? c. Are you aware of the list of contingencies being considered by the cross-community working group on enhancing ICANN accountability (CCWG-Accountability)? If so, to what extent do you think this is a comprehensive list? Which risks, if any, are present regardless of NTIA's oversight role? JG: I would have concerns that answers to this question could be used to bolster some who wish to see this transition fail. Stress testing and risk management can never be fully comprehensive but this can very easily be built into a narrative. 4. Who, specifically, of the multi-stakeholder community might be most impacted by a transition of NTIA's role? Are these potentially-impacted stakeholders sufficiently represented by the discussion and efforts to develop a transition proposal? a. [If stakeholder is from one of the multi-stakeholder constituency groups in ICANN] What is the process for raising concerns that arise from the perspective of your constituency to the multi-stakeholder community and to what extent do you think this process is effective in ensuring that all issues are considered in policy development and decisionmaking? JG: Again I would have concerns that a narrative could be built around balance and bias. I think the section on policy development and decision making is outside of the remit of this group, we are not examining the fundamentals of ICANNS multistakeholderism, if this question is framed specifically as to the multistakeholder composition of the CCWGs composition then I see less of an issue with this question. 5. What are the most important issues for the transition proposal to address? Do you have a view on what structure or approach could most effectively address these issues? JG: Great topic for interaction, can see definite value for both sides in discussing this. · What factors should be considered when evaluating transition proposals? To what extent do NTIA's core requirements address potential risks? (From the preamble: The extent to which NTIA's core requirements for the transition provide an effective framework to evaluate the transition proposal.) JG: The first part of this question perfect again a great topic to discuss, the second part I do not believe is for us to define. The NTIA has delivered to us its requirements and we are working towards them, I don't feel it's the position of the CCWG to assess if those requirements are adequate or not. As I said above if the GAO is meeting with multiple groups in order to build a solid balanced and informed opinion to deliver to the requesting parties then I support us engaging in that process, indeed even if the CCWG was the sole interviewee I would support the meeting, but I still believe that solid ground rules for any engagement which may reflect on the work of the group need to be established. I have 100% confidence in our co-chairs, but we need to give them all of the information and a solid framework of how responses on behalf of the group may be presented. If the chairs are to meet purely in their personal capacities then much of what I said may be moot but that has yet to be determined. James From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 10:26 PM To: James Gannon Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request Hi James, I get that some people are concerned in the way you have expressed. What I'm not clear about is 'what is the fear?'. We have 3 very experienced people chairing the CCWG. What are we concerned that they'll do? Cheers, Chris On 31 Mar 2015, at 08:22 , James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Oh no I agree that the request should definitely be honored, but we needs to be very clear on how we present the work and that any conversations that the chairs have are either in their personal capacities or within a clearly defined scope if speaking on behalf of the group. From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:26 PM To: James Gannon Cc: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request I agree that we should approach the GAO's request with care and thoughtfulness. On the other hand, I don't think we can view this is a request that we can simply accept or reject as we see fit, or where we can freely negotiate the content and direction of the questions. Greg On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:54 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Based on the questions outlined in the GAO brief I think that the meeting may not align with a broad overview of the methodology and structure, if they are willing to talk about that and not delve into specific questions on experience of the co-chairs, risk identification, stakeholder representation and the extent that the NTIAs criteria are sufficient, then this may be a different discussion. B But as outlined their questions are very specific, and I would say tailored to looking at the transition in a certain manner. We need to quell our willingness to share here and be very careful in how we approach this. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 6:46 PM To: Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request Dear Mathieu As far as I understand the GAO has been put in charge to review the IANA transition process and inform Congress. At this point I think it would be very useful to fully brief them on the methodology, working groups structure and expected timelines for the broader community inputs. It is in any case the best opportunity to explain the whole system to the people who are going to evaluate its results and make recommendations to the lawmakers. If you convinced them, they will convince the lawmakers in a way that is not possible during open hearings. I would refrain in the brief from any content issue at this time. Best of luck Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8335 2487<tel:%2B506%208335%202487> (cel) +506 4000 2000<tel:%2B506%204000%202000> (home) +506 2290 3678<tel:%2B506%202290%203678> (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA On Mar 30, 2015, at 4:11 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April). Your inputs are welcome. Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV><mailto:HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : 'rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>' <rickert@anwaelte.de><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill: You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February. At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work. We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I'll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please "reply all" so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses. Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks? * Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 - 11:00 EST * Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 - 12:00 EST * Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 - 11:00 EST We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you'd like to be part of that meeting, too. Thank you, John John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006<tel:%28202%29%20512-5006> | HealeyJ@gao.gov<mailto:HealeyJ@gao.gov> <GAOHQ-#7198516-v2-EXTERNAL_STAKEHOLDER_QUESTIONS_-_FOR_DISTRIBUTION.DOCX>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Hi, Works for me. And i agree with the analysis that says not talking or getting restrictive about what can and can't be answered would be worse. We need to be transparent. This list is transparent. Even our anxiety about speaking to them is transparent. So they already know our concerns. I trust our chairs enough to think it will be ok. And I think our chairs can point them at others to speak to if they wish - like the leaders of various sub-efforts, if that seems reasonable from what comes out in their consultations. I also think that we will, perforce, need to be equally open with other investigative processes that may want to take a look at the work we are doing. Should there be any. avri On 30-Mar-15 17:30, Greg Shatan wrote:

It's become fairly clear to me that this will be a relatively informal discussion and that our chairs will be speaking in their individual capacities. The GAO has been speaking to many people involved and engaged in the IANA transition in one way or the other. This is just another discussion along those lines.

Greg

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:22 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:

Oh no I agree that the request should definitely be honored, but we needs to be very clear on how we present the work and that any conversations that the chairs have are either in their personal capacities or within a clearly defined scope if speaking on behalf of the group.____

__ __

*From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 7:26 PM *To:* James Gannon *Cc:* Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request____

__ __

I agree that we should approach the GAO's request with care and thoughtfulness. On the other hand, I don't think we can view this is a request that we can simply accept or reject as we see fit, or where we can freely negotiate the content and direction of the questions.____

__ __

Greg____

__ __

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:54 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:____

Based on the questions outlined in the GAO brief I think that the meeting may not align with a broad overview of the methodology and structure, if they are willing to talk about that and not delve into specific questions on experience of the co-chairs, risk identification, stakeholder representation and the extent that the NTIAs criteria are sufficient, then this may be a different discussion. B____

____

But as outlined their questions are very specific, and I would say tailored to looking at the transition in a certain manner. We need to quell our willingness to share here and be very careful in how we approach this.____

____

*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 6:46 PM *To:* Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request____

____

Dear Mathieu____

____

As far as I understand the GAO has been put in charge to review the IANA transition process and inform Congress.____

____

At this point I think it would be very useful to fully brief them on the methodology, working groups structure and expected timelines for the broader community inputs.____

It is in any case the best opportunity to explain the whole system to the people who are going to evaluate its results and make recommendations to the lawmakers. If you convinced them, they will convince the lawmakers in a way that is not possible during open hearings.____

____

I would refrain in the brief from *_any_* content issue at this time.____

____

Best of luck____

____

____

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________

email: crg@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8335 2487 <tel:%2B506%208335%202487> (cel) +506 4000 2000 <tel:%2B506%204000%202000> (home) +506 2290 3678 <tel:%2B506%202290%203678> (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000____

San Jose, COSTA RICA____

____

____

____

____

____

On Mar 30, 2015, at 4:11 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:____

____

Dear Colleagues,

For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April).

Your inputs are welcome.

Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill____

-------- Message transféré -------- ____

*Sujet : *____

April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs____

*Date : *____

Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000____

*De : *____

Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> <mailto:HealeyJ@GAO.GOV>____

*Pour : *____

'rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>' <rickert@anwaelte.de> <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>____

____

Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:____

____

You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February. ____

____

At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work.____

____

We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses.____

____

Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks?____

· Wednesday, April 1^st : 10:00 – 11:00 EST____

· Thursday, April 2^nd : 11:00 – 12:00 EST____

· Friday, April 3^rd : 10:00 – 11:00 EST____

____

We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too.____

____

Thank you,____

____

John____

____

____

John Healey, Senior Analyst____

Physical Infrastructure Team____

U.S. Government Accountability Office____

441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548____

(202) 512-5006 <tel:%28202%29%20512-5006> | HealeyJ@gao.gov <mailto:HealeyJ@gao.gov>____

____

____

____

<GAOHQ-#7198516-v2-EXTERNAL_STAKEHOLDER_QUESTIONS_-_FOR_DISTRIBUTION.DOCX>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community____

____

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community____

__ __

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

Eberhard, Here is a PDF of the attachment. Greg Shatan On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:

There is NOTHING informal here. The GAO whether partisan or not is collecting data that will go to decision makers in congress.

This is EXTREMELY important and we only have one shot at getting this right.

I do not see any request to deal with co-chairs specifically, but then I am still waiting for their Questions in PDF and am beginning to be disturbed by the delay, by the way.

The co-chairs do not have a mandate here, we have not yet arrived at anything close to consensus.

Meeting with the full plenum will be unwieldy on the onther hand, so we need to record and transcribe in order to be able to review afterwards.

This needs to be read twice, in any case.

el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6

On Mar 30, 2015, at 23:30, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

It's become fairly clear to me that this will be a relatively informal discussion and that our chairs will be speaking in their individual capacities. The GAO has been speaking to many people involved and engaged in the IANA transition in one way or the other. This is just another discussion along those lines.

Greg

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:22 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

...

Oh no I agree that the request should definitely be honored, but we needs to be very clear on how we present the work and that any conversations that the chairs have are either in their personal capacities or within a clearly defined scope if speaking on behalf of the group.

*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 7:26 PM *To:* James Gannon *Cc:* Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org

*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

I agree that we should approach the GAO's request with care and thoughtfulness. On the other hand, I don't think we can view this is a request that we can simply accept or reject as we see fit, or where we can freely negotiate the content and direction of the questions.

Greg

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:54 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

Based on the questions outlined in the GAO brief I think that the meeting may not align with a broad overview of the methodology and structure, if they are willing to talk about that and not delve into specific questions on experience of the co-chairs, risk identification, stakeholder representation and the extent that the NTIAs criteria are sufficient, then this may be a different discussion. B

But as outlined their questions are very specific, and I would say tailored to looking at the transition in a certain manner. We need to quell our willingness to share here and be very careful in how we approach this.

*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 6:46 PM *To:* Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

Dear Mathieu

As far as I understand the GAO has been put in charge to review the IANA transition process and inform Congress.

At this point I think it would be very useful to fully brief them on the methodology, working groups structure and expected timelines for the broader community inputs.

It is in any case the best opportunity to explain the whole system to the people who are going to evaluate its results and make recommendations to the lawmakers. If you convinced them, they will convince the lawmakers in a way that is not possible during open hearings.

I would refrain in the brief from *any* content issue at this time.

Best of luck

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________

email: crg@isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8335 2487 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000

San Jose, COSTA RICA

On Mar 30, 2015, at 4:11 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April).

Your inputs are welcome.

Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill

-------- Message transféré --------

*Sujet : *

April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs

*Date : *

Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000

*De : *

Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV>

*Pour : *

'rickert@anwaelte.de' <rickert@anwaelte.de> <rickert@anwaelte.de>, ' mathieu.weill@afnic.fr' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>

Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:

You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February.

At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work.

We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses.

Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks?

· Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST

· Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST

· Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST

We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too.

Thank you,

John

John Healey, Senior Analyst

Physical Infrastructure Team

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548

(202) 512-5006 | HealeyJ@gao.gov

<GAOHQ-#7198516-v2-EXTERNAL_STAKEHOLDER_QUESTIONS_-_FOR_DISTRIBUTION.DOCX>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

+ 1. And thanks to Mathieu and the Co-chairs for your work so far. Giovanni Seppia On 31 Mar 2015, at 18:05, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> wrote: Thank you, Mathieu. I support this approach. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:59 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request Dear Colleagues, Many thanks for the thoughtful contributions on this thread. We have taken good note of the concerns as well as the recommendations. Since we did not have enough time to address this particular topic on our call today, this email summarizes our current thoughts and steps forward. First of all, we can confirm that the request from the GAO is directed to the co-chairs of the CCWG. We would certainly make clear that we are speaking in our personal capacities and not in the name of the CCWG. Secondly, as was mentioned on the list, the GAO is currently engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, including members of this group. The list of questions provided is a generic one, and it is our understanding that, as far as we are concerned, the main expectation is to discuss about our process. Our key intent in this engagement will be focused on explaining our process, from the basic principles of the multistakeholder, open and transparent approach of the CCWG to the various steps we are taking to come up with WS1 proposals. Should the discussion come to contents, we will obviously stay within the grounds of tentative conclusions, as currently available to the public through, for instance, our co-chair statement. Taking note of some of the comments received, we will ask the GAO whether they would rather hear our update shortly or delay by a few weeks until our public comment is out. Finally, I want to make clear that, while taking note of the objection from Eberhard, the co-chairs decision to engage with the GAO does not fall within the remit of the "CCWG decision making rules" (including consensus, 2nd reading etc). Our commitment as co-chairs is to be as transparent about our engagements as possible, and we are perfectly ok to be held accountable (and transparent) for what we may say. I think Matthew referred to care and thoughtfulness as guiding principles. Of course, should there be any request for written input after this teleconference, it would obviously be subject to review by the whole CCWG. We hope these clarifications are useful and remain open to your inputs and advice. Best regards, Mathieu, Leon and Thomas Le 30/03/2015 12:11, Mathieu Weill a écrit : Dear Colleagues, For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April). Your inputs are welcome. Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV><mailto:HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : 'rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>' <rickert@anwaelte.de><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill: You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February. At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work. We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses. Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks? • Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST • Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST • Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too. Thank you, John John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 | HealeyJ@gao.gov<mailto:HealeyJ@gao.gov> -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community Giovanni Seppia External Relations Manager EURid Woluwelaan 150 1831 Diegem - Belgium TEL: +32 (0) 2 401 2750 MOB:+39 335 8141733 giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu<mailto:giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu> http://www.eurid.eu<http://www.eurid.eu/> Please consider the environment before printing this email.<http://christmas2014.eurid.eu> Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer

I think this makes good sense, Mathieu. David McAuley From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:59 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request Dear Colleagues, Many thanks for the thoughtful contributions on this thread. We have taken good note of the concerns as well as the recommendations. Since we did not have enough time to address this particular topic on our call today, this email summarizes our current thoughts and steps forward. First of all, we can confirm that the request from the GAO is directed to the co-chairs of the CCWG. We would certainly make clear that we are speaking in our personal capacities and not in the name of the CCWG. Secondly, as was mentioned on the list, the GAO is currently engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, including members of this group. The list of questions provided is a generic one, and it is our understanding that, as far as we are concerned, the main expectation is to discuss about our process. Our key intent in this engagement will be focused on explaining our process, from the basic principles of the multistakeholder, open and transparent approach of the CCWG to the various steps we are taking to come up with WS1 proposals. Should the discussion come to contents, we will obviously stay within the grounds of tentative conclusions, as currently available to the public through, for instance, our co-chair statement. Taking note of some of the comments received, we will ask the GAO whether they would rather hear our update shortly or delay by a few weeks until our public comment is out. Finally, I want to make clear that, while taking note of the objection from Eberhard, the co-chairs decision to engage with the GAO does not fall within the remit of the "CCWG decision making rules" (including consensus, 2nd reading etc). Our commitment as co-chairs is to be as transparent about our engagements as possible, and we are perfectly ok to be held accountable (and transparent) for what we may say. I think Matthew referred to care and thoughtfulness as guiding principles. Of course, should there be any request for written input after this teleconference, it would obviously be subject to review by the whole CCWG. We hope these clarifications are useful and remain open to your inputs and advice. Best regards, Mathieu, Leon and Thomas Le 30/03/2015 12:11, Mathieu Weill a écrit : Dear Colleagues, For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April). Your inputs are welcome. Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV><mailto:HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : 'rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>' <rickert@anwaelte.de><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill: You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February. At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work. We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I'll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please "reply all" so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses. Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks? · Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 - 11:00 EST · Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 - 12:00 EST · Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 - 11:00 EST We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you'd like to be part of that meeting, too. Thank you, John John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 | HealeyJ@gao.gov<mailto:HealeyJ@gao.gov> -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

Thank you, Mathieu, this works for me. Best, Robin On Mar 31, 2015, at 8:58 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

Many thanks for the thoughtful contributions on this thread. We have taken good note of the concerns as well as the recommendations. Since we did not have enough time to address this particular topic on our call today, this email summarizes our current thoughts and steps forward.

First of all, we can confirm that the request from the GAO is directed to the co-chairs of the CCWG. We would certainly make clear that we are speaking in our personal capacities and not in the name of the CCWG.

Secondly, as was mentioned on the list, the GAO is currently engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, including members of this group. The list of questions provided is a generic one, and it is our understanding that, as far as we are concerned, the main expectation is to discuss about our process. Our key intent in this engagement will be focused on explaining our process, from the basic principles of the multistakeholder, open and transparent approach of the CCWG to the various steps we are taking to come up with WS1 proposals. Should the discussion come to contents, we will obviously stay within the grounds of tentative conclusions, as currently available to the public through, for instance, our co-chair statement.

Taking note of some of the comments received, we will ask the GAO whether they would rather hear our update shortly or delay by a few weeks until our public comment is out.

Finally, I want to make clear that, while taking note of the objection from Eberhard, the co-chairs decision to engage with the GAO does not fall within the remit of the "CCWG decision making rules" (including consensus, 2nd reading etc). Our commitment as co-chairs is to be as transparent about our engagements as possible, and we are perfectly ok to be held accountable (and transparent) for what we may say. I think Matthew referred to care and thoughtfulness as guiding principles.

Of course, should there be any request for written input after this teleconference, it would obviously be subject to review by the whole CCWG.

We hope these clarifications are useful and remain open to your inputs and advice.

Best regards, Mathieu, Leon and Thomas

Le 30/03/2015 12:11, Mathieu Weill a écrit :

...

Dear Colleagues,

For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April).

Your inputs are welcome.

Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill

-------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : 'rickert@anwaelte.de' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>

Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:

You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February.

At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work.

We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses.

Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks? Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST

We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too.

Thank you,

John

John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 | HealeyJ@gao.gov

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Co-chairs, Why is it that we always seem to be unable to find time to discuss things of importance during our numerous and endless calls and meetings? I do not see any request for a meeting with the co-chairs (specifically) nor even that the co-chairs have a mandate. Neither of whom, by the way, has much if any experience in dealing with the US Congress and/or its agencies. This is a very serious engagement and we need to be extremely thoughtful about the approach and its implications. And by we I mean the CCWG-Accountability, not three Co-chairs informing us what they think is ok for us. And the more I think about it the more I think it is wrong for a Co-chair to meet with the GAO in their personal capacity. They even said that want to have something ready in July so there is nothing that forces us to be less than deliberate. If you go ahead over my objections, in the intended haphazard manner, please take note that you do not have consensus and you might even invite individual engagements with the GAO. And I renew my demand to have the meeting recorded and transcribed, in any case. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Mar 31, 2015, at 17:58, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

Many thanks for the thoughtful contributions on this thread. We have taken good note of the concerns as well as the recommendations. Since we did not have enough time to address this particular topic on our call today, this email summarizes our current thoughts and steps forward.

First of all, we can confirm that the request from the GAO is directed to the co-chairs of the CCWG. We would certainly make clear that we are speaking in our personal capacities and not in the name of the CCWG.

Secondly, as was mentioned on the list, the GAO is currently engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, including members of this group. The list of questions provided is a generic one, and it is our understanding that, as far as we are concerned, the main expectation is to discuss about our process. Our key intent in this engagement will be focused on explaining our process, from the basic principles of the multistakeholder, open and transparent approach of the CCWG to the various steps we are taking to come up with WS1 proposals. Should the discussion come to contents, we will obviously stay within the grounds of tentative conclusions, as currently available to the public through, for instance, our co-chair statement.

Taking note of some of the comments received, we will ask the GAO whether they would rather hear our update shortly or delay by a few weeks until our public comment is out.

Finally, I want to make clear that, while taking note of the objection from Eberhard, the co-chairs decision to engage with the GAO does not fall within the remit of the "CCWG decision making rules" (including consensus, 2nd reading etc). Our commitment as co-chairs is to be as transparent about our engagements as possible, and we are perfectly ok to be held accountable (and transparent) for what we may say. I think Matthew referred to care and thoughtfulness as guiding principles.

Of course, should there be any request for written input after this teleconference, it would obviously be subject to review by the whole CCWG.

We hope these clarifications are useful and remain open to your inputs and advice.

Best regards, Mathieu, Leon and Thomas

Le 30/03/2015 12:11, Mathieu Weill a écrit :

...

Dear Colleagues,

For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April).

Your inputs are welcome.

Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill

-------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : 'rickert@anwaelte.de' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>

Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:

You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February.

At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work.

We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses.

Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks? Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST

We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too.

Thank you,

John

John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 | HealeyJ@gao.gov

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

A reasoned, carefully considered approach. Full support. Good luck guys. Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 31, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

Many thanks for the thoughtful contributions on this thread. We have taken good note of the concerns as well as the recommendations. Since we did not have enough time to address this particular topic on our call today, this email summarizes our current thoughts and steps forward.

First of all, we can confirm that the request from the GAO is directed to the co-chairs of the CCWG. We would certainly make clear that we are speaking in our personal capacities and not in the name of the CCWG.

Secondly, as was mentioned on the list, the GAO is currently engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, including members of this group. The list of questions provided is a generic one, and it is our understanding that, as far as we are concerned, the main expectation is to discuss about our process. Our key intent in this engagement will be focused on explaining our process, from the basic principles of the multistakeholder, open and transparent approach of the CCWG to the various steps we are taking to come up with WS1 proposals. Should the discussion come to contents, we will obviously stay within the grounds of tentative conclusions, as currently available to the public through, for instance, our co-chair statement.

Taking note of some of the comments received, we will ask the GAO whether they would rather hear our update shortly or delay by a few weeks until our public comment is out.

Finally, I want to make clear that, while taking note of the objection from Eberhard, the co-chairs decision to engage with the GAO does not fall within the remit of the "CCWG decision making rules" (including consensus, 2nd reading etc). Our commitment as co-chairs is to be as transparent about our engagements as possible, and we are perfectly ok to be held accountable (and transparent) for what we may say. I think Matthew referred to care and thoughtfulness as guiding principles.

Of course, should there be any request for written input after this teleconference, it would obviously be subject to review by the whole CCWG.

We hope these clarifications are useful and remain open to your inputs and advice.

Best regards, Mathieu, Leon and Thomas

Le 30/03/2015 12:11, Mathieu Weill a écrit :

...

Dear Colleagues,

For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April).

Your inputs are welcome.

Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill

-------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : 'rickert@anwaelte.de' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>

Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:

You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February.

At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work.

We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses.

Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks? Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST

We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too.

Thank you,

John

John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 | HealeyJ@gao.gov

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Thanks for this Mathieu, as others I am happy with this approach. And also as with others, thank you to you and the other co chairs for the work you are doing. bests Jordan On 1 April 2015 at 04:58, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

Many thanks for the thoughtful contributions on this thread. We have taken good note of the concerns as well as the recommendations. Since we did not have enough time to address this particular topic on our call today, this email summarizes our current thoughts and steps forward.

First of all, we can confirm that the request from the GAO is directed to the co-chairs of the CCWG. We would certainly make clear that we are speaking in our personal capacities and not in the name of the CCWG.

Secondly, as was mentioned on the list, the GAO is currently engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, including members of this group. The list of questions provided is a generic one, and it is our understanding that, as far as we are concerned, the main expectation is to discuss about our process. Our key intent in this engagement will be focused on explaining our process, from the basic principles of the multistakeholder, open and transparent approach of the CCWG to the various steps we are taking to come up with WS1 proposals. Should the discussion come to contents, we will obviously stay within the grounds of tentative conclusions, as currently available to the public through, for instance, our co-chair statement.

Taking note of some of the comments received, we will ask the GAO whether they would rather hear our update shortly or delay by a few weeks until our public comment is out.

Finally, I want to make clear that, while taking note of the objection from Eberhard, the co-chairs decision to engage with the GAO does not fall within the remit of the "CCWG decision making rules" (including consensus, 2nd reading etc). Our commitment as co-chairs is to be as transparent about our engagements as possible, and we are perfectly ok to be held accountable (and transparent) for what we may say. I think Matthew referred to care and thoughtfulness as guiding principles.

Of course, should there be any request for written input after this teleconference, it would obviously be subject to review by the whole CCWG.

We hope these clarifications are useful and remain open to your inputs and advice.

Best regards, Mathieu, Leon and Thomas

Le 30/03/2015 12:11, Mathieu Weill a écrit :

Dear Colleagues,

For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April).

Your inputs are welcome.

Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill

-------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : ' rickert@anwaelte.de' <rickert@anwaelte.de> <rickert@anwaelte.de>, ' mathieu.weill@afnic.fr' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>

Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:

You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February.

At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work.

We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I'll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please "reply all" so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses.

Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks?

- Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 - 11:00 EST - Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 - 12:00 EST - Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 - 11:00 EST

We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you'd like to be part of that meeting, too.

Thank you,

John

John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 | HealeyJ@gao.gov

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

Dear All, While pondering on the submission of Dr. Lisse and Meijer, i advice that: 1. You inform that recording and transcribing can give a feel of any grey areas that the co-chairs may not be able to fill considering that they are responding in their personal opinion and assessment of the feel of the CCWG, feedback to the community for a continuous process would benefit and educate them; 2. That the feedback of the supposed meeting could be sent to them with a general response to ensure clarity of opinions and discussions. =I hope this does not expose any loose end for them to cry foul considering the politics that may be involved (if any). Regards, Akinbo. On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:

Dear Mathieu, all,

Excellent approach, I would like to make two suggestions:

1. I (personally) would not like you to speak with GAO in your personal capacities, but formally, as co-chairs of the CCWG. You just have to put across that you are not (re-)presenting all the diverse opinions within the CCWG not giving the CCWG’s consensus opinion, but that does not have to mean you speak in a personal capacity 2. To make sure that of those things you discussed, the really important ones cannot get lost or be misunderstood, put them in an email that you send to GAO afterwards (and cc it to this list)

Best,

Roelof

From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Reply-To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date: dinsdag 31 maart 2015 17:58 To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

Dear Colleagues,

Many thanks for the thoughtful contributions on this thread. We have taken good note of the concerns as well as the recommendations. Since we did not have enough time to address this particular topic on our call today, this email summarizes our current thoughts and steps forward.

First of all, we can confirm that the request from the GAO is directed to the co-chairs of the CCWG. We would certainly make clear that we are speaking in our personal capacities and not in the name of the CCWG.

Secondly, as was mentioned on the list, the GAO is currently engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, including members of this group. The list of questions provided is a generic one, and it is our understanding that, as far as we are concerned, the main expectation is to discuss about our process. Our key intent in this engagement will be focused on explaining our process, from the basic principles of the multistakeholder, open and transparent approach of the CCWG to the various steps we are taking to come up with WS1 proposals. Should the discussion come to contents, we will obviously stay within the grounds of tentative conclusions, as currently available to the public through, for instance, our co-chair statement.

Taking note of some of the comments received, we will ask the GAO whether they would rather hear our update shortly or delay by a few weeks until our public comment is out.

Finally, I want to make clear that, while taking note of the objection from Eberhard, the co-chairs decision to engage with the GAO does not fall within the remit of the "CCWG decision making rules" (including consensus, 2nd reading etc). Our commitment as co-chairs is to be as transparent about our engagements as possible, and we are perfectly ok to be held accountable (and transparent) for what we may say. I think Matthew referred to care and thoughtfulness as guiding principles.

Of course, should there be any request for written input after this teleconference, it would obviously be subject to review by the whole CCWG.

We hope these clarifications are useful and remain open to your inputs and advice.

Best regards, Mathieu, Leon and Thomas

Le 30/03/2015 12:11, Mathieu Weill a écrit :

Dear Colleagues,

For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April).

Your inputs are welcome.

Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill

-------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : ' rickert@anwaelte.de' <rickert@anwaelte.de> <rickert@anwaelte.de>, ' mathieu.weill@afnic.fr' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>

Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:

You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February.

At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work.

We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses.

Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks?

- Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST - Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST - Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST

We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too.

Thank you,

John

John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 | HealeyJ@gao.gov

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Co-Chairs, interesting, that. There is nothing wrong with recording, transcribing and then agreeing on what was said, prior to publishing. Gives even an opportunity to correct mistakes... I consider this NOT having dealt with my objection, and renew that you do NOT have consensus. el On 2015-04-02 09:46, Mathieu Weill wrote:

Dear Roelof, all,

Thanks for your valuable suggestions. Good points we'll take onboard.

The teleconference with the GAO is now set for April 7th. The GAO was informed that our proposals were not finalized yet but preferred to maintain an earlier date because "This meeting is primarily intended to give us a chance to introduce ourselves and our work and to improve our understanding of the multistakeholder process."

The GAO do not generally record calls or invite observers, so we will report to the group afterwards as planned. Thertee should be an opportunity to provide written remarks after the call, as Roelof suggested.

Best regards, Mathieu

Le 01/04/2015 17:58, Roelof Meijer a écrit :

...

Dear Mathieu, all,

Excellent approach, I would like to make two suggestions:

1. I (personally) would not like you to speak with GAO in your personal capacities, but formally, as co-chairs of the CCWG. You just have to put across that you are not (re-)presenting all the diverse opinions within the CCWG not giving the CCWG’s consensus opinion, but that does not have to mean you speak in a personal capacity 2. To make sure that of those things you discussed, the really important ones cannot get lost or be misunderstood, put them in an email that you send to GAO afterwards (and cc it to this list)

Best,

Roelof [...]

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

We don't need no observers. It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of diligence. In other words, I am not so much concerned that I (or we, the CCWG-Accountability Plenum) know what was said but, that the GAO knows what was said. el On 2015-04-02 11:48, Adebunmi AKINBO wrote:

Co-Chairs, Can we inform GAO of modification to record and transcribe discussion for us to generate more feedbacks and allow a selected or appointed observers ? Just a thought. -Akinbo.

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:

Dear Co-Chairs,

interesting, that.

There is nothing wrong with recording, transcribing and then agreeing on what was said, prior to publishing. Gives even an opportunity to correct mistakes...

I consider this NOT having dealt with my objection, and renew that you do NOT have consensus.

el

On 2015-04-02 09:46, Mathieu Weill wrote: > Dear Roelof, all, > > Thanks for your valuable suggestions. Good points we'll take > onboard. > > The teleconference with the GAO is now set for April 7th. The GAO > was informed that our proposals were not finalized yet but > preferred to maintain an earlier date because "This meeting is > primarily intended to give us a chance to introduce ourselves and > our work and to improve our understanding of the multistakeholder > process." > > The GAO do not generally record calls or invite observers, so we > will report to the group afterwards as planned. Thertee should be > an opportunity to provide written remarks after the call, as > Roelof suggested. > > Best regards, > Mathieu > > Le 01/04/2015 17:58, Roelof Meijer a écrit : >> Dear Mathieu, all, >> >> Excellent approach, I would like to make two suggestions: >> >> 1. I (personally) would not like you to speak with GAO in your >> personal capacities, but formally, as co-chairs of the CCWG. >> You just have to put across that you are not (re-)presenting >> all the diverse opinions within the CCWG not giving the >> CCWG’s consensus opinion, but that does not have to mean >> you speak in a personal capacity >> 2. To make sure that of those things you discussed, the really >> important ones cannot get lost or be misunderstood, put them >> in an email that you send to GAO afterwards (and cc it to >> this list) >> >> >> Best, >> >> Roelof [...] [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

Although our CCWG Chairs surely will know, just to note that the CWG already have gone through an GAO interview and hence could have some advice ready… Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Seun Ojedeji Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. April 2015 14:05 An: Adebunmi AKINBO Cc: Lisse Eberhard; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request As one of the initial suggester of recordings, I don't think it would still be necessary. Based on the details that has been provided as to intent/purpose of the meeting. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 2 Apr 2015 10:49, "Adebunmi AKINBO" <akinbo@nira.org.ng<mailto:akinbo@nira.org.ng>> wrote: Co-Chairs, Can we inform GAO of modification to record and transcribe discussion for us to generate more feedbacks and allow a selected or appointed observers ? Just a thought. -Akinbo. On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs, interesting, that. There is nothing wrong with recording, transcribing and then agreeing on what was said, prior to publishing. Gives even an opportunity to correct mistakes... I consider this NOT having dealt with my objection, and renew that you do NOT have consensus. el On 2015-04-02 09:46, Mathieu Weill wrote:

Dear Roelof, all,

Thanks for your valuable suggestions. Good points we'll take onboard.

The teleconference with the GAO is now set for April 7th. The GAO was informed that our proposals were not finalized yet but preferred to maintain an earlier date because "This meeting is primarily intended to give us a chance to introduce ourselves and our work and to improve our understanding of the multistakeholder process."

The GAO do not generally record calls or invite observers, so we will report to the group afterwards as planned. Thertee should be an opportunity to provide written remarks after the call, as Roelof suggested.

Best regards, Mathieu

Le 01/04/2015 17:58, Roelof Meijer a écrit :

...

Dear Mathieu, all,

Excellent approach, I would like to make two suggestions:

1. I (personally) would not like you to speak with GAO in your personal capacities, but formally, as co-chairs of the CCWG. You just have to put across that you are not (re-)presenting all the diverse opinions within the CCWG not giving the CCWG’s consensus opinion, but that does not have to mean you speak in a personal capacity 2. To make sure that of those things you discussed, the really important ones cannot get lost or be misunderstood, put them in an email that you send to GAO afterwards (and cc it to this list)

Best,

Roelof [...]

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733<tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Maybe they google diligence. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Apr 2, 2015, at 18:41, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay that's news to me as I don't even think it was mentioned on the CWG. Maybe ccwg Co-Chairs are doing great deal of courtesy in the first place ;-)

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.

...

On 2 Apr 2015 13:14, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Although our CCWG Chairs surely will know, just to note that the CWG already have gone through an GAO interview and hence could have some advice ready…

Jorge

Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Seun Ojedeji Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. April 2015 14:05 An: Adebunmi AKINBO Cc: Lisse Eberhard; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

As one of the initial suggester of recordings, I don't think it would still be necessary. Based on the details that has been provided as to intent/purpose of the meeting.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 2 Apr 2015 10:49, "Adebunmi AKINBO" <akinbo@nira.org.ng> wrote:

Co-Chairs,

Can we inform GAO of modification to record and transcribe discussion for us to generate more feedbacks and allow a selected or appointed observers ? Just a thought.

-Akinbo.

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:

Dear Co-Chairs,

interesting, that.

There is nothing wrong with recording, transcribing and then agreeing on what was said, prior to publishing. Gives even an opportunity to correct mistakes...

I consider this NOT having dealt with my objection, and renew that you do NOT have consensus.

el

On 2015-04-02 09:46, Mathieu Weill wrote:

...

Dear Roelof, all,

Thanks for your valuable suggestions. Good points we'll take onboard.

The teleconference with the GAO is now set for April 7th. The GAO was informed that our proposals were not finalized yet but preferred to maintain an earlier date because "This meeting is primarily intended to give us a chance to introduce ourselves and our work and to improve our understanding of the multistakeholder process."

The GAO do not generally record calls or invite observers, so we will report to the group afterwards as planned. Thertee should be an opportunity to provide written remarks after the call, as Roelof suggested.

Best regards, Mathieu

Le 01/04/2015 17:58, Roelof Meijer a écrit :

...

Dear Mathieu, all,

Excellent approach, I would like to make two suggestions:

1. I (personally) would not like you to speak with GAO in your personal capacities, but formally, as co-chairs of the CCWG. You just have to put across that you are not (re-)presenting all the diverse opinions within the CCWG not giving the CCWG’s consensus opinion, but that does not have to mean you speak in a personal capacity 2. To make sure that of those things you discussed, the really important ones cannot get lost or be misunderstood, put them in an email that you send to GAO afterwards (and cc it to this list)

Best,

Roelof [...]

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Has Brenda been hacked in that I have received over a dozen of the cancelled email? On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

It was mentioned on today's CWG call.

Greg

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Okay that's news to me as I don't even think it was mentioned on the CWG. Maybe ccwg Co-Chairs are doing great deal of courtesy in the first place ;-)

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 2 Apr 2015 13:14, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

...

Although our CCWG Chairs surely will know, just to note that the CWG already have gone through an GAO interview and hence could have some advice ready…

Jorge

*Von:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Seun Ojedeji *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 2. April 2015 14:05 *An:* Adebunmi AKINBO *Cc:* Lisse Eberhard; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

As one of the initial suggester of recordings, I don't think it would still be necessary. Based on the details that has been provided as to intent/purpose of the meeting.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 2 Apr 2015 10:49, "Adebunmi AKINBO" <akinbo@nira.org.ng> wrote:

Co-Chairs,

Can we inform GAO of modification to record and transcribe discussion for us to generate more feedbacks and allow a selected or appointed observers ? Just a thought.

-Akinbo.

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:

Dear Co-Chairs,

interesting, that.

There is nothing wrong with recording, transcribing and then agreeing on what was said, prior to publishing. Gives even an opportunity to correct mistakes...

I consider this NOT having dealt with my objection, and renew that you do NOT have consensus.

el

On 2015-04-02 09:46, Mathieu Weill wrote:

...

Dear Roelof, all,

Thanks for your valuable suggestions. Good points we'll take onboard.

The teleconference with the GAO is now set for April 7th. The GAO was informed that our proposals were not finalized yet but preferred to maintain an earlier date because "This meeting is primarily intended to give us a chance to introduce ourselves and our work and to improve our understanding of the multistakeholder process."

The GAO do not generally record calls or invite observers, so we will report to the group afterwards as planned. Thertee should be an opportunity to provide written remarks after the call, as Roelof suggested.

Best regards, Mathieu

Le 01/04/2015 17:58, Roelof Meijer a écrit :

...

Dear Mathieu, all,

Excellent approach, I would like to make two suggestions:

1. I (personally) would not like you to speak with GAO in your personal capacities, but formally, as co-chairs of the CCWG. You just have to put across that you are not (re-)presenting all the diverse opinions within the CCWG not giving the CCWG’s consensus opinion, but that does not have to mean you speak in a personal capacity 2. To make sure that of those things you discussed, the really important ones cannot get lost or be misunderstood, put them in an email that you send to GAO afterwards (and cc it to this list)

Best,

Roelof [...]

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Sincerely CARRIE Devorah 562 688 2883 DISCLAIMER : With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so. If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow

Well after the deed has been done, i think thats the difference ;-) Cheers! On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

It was mentioned on today's CWG call.

Greg

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Okay that's news to me as I don't even think it was mentioned on the CWG. Maybe ccwg Co-Chairs are doing great deal of courtesy in the first place ;-)

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 2 Apr 2015 13:14, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

...

Although our CCWG Chairs surely will know, just to note that the CWG already have gone through an GAO interview and hence could have some advice ready…

Jorge

*Von:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Seun Ojedeji *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 2. April 2015 14:05 *An:* Adebunmi AKINBO *Cc:* Lisse Eberhard; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

As one of the initial suggester of recordings, I don't think it would still be necessary. Based on the details that has been provided as to intent/purpose of the meeting.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 2 Apr 2015 10:49, "Adebunmi AKINBO" <akinbo@nira.org.ng> wrote:

Co-Chairs,

Can we inform GAO of modification to record and transcribe discussion for us to generate more feedbacks and allow a selected or appointed observers ? Just a thought.

-Akinbo.

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:

Dear Co-Chairs,

interesting, that.

There is nothing wrong with recording, transcribing and then agreeing on what was said, prior to publishing. Gives even an opportunity to correct mistakes...

I consider this NOT having dealt with my objection, and renew that you do NOT have consensus.

el

On 2015-04-02 09:46, Mathieu Weill wrote:

...

Dear Roelof, all,

Thanks for your valuable suggestions. Good points we'll take onboard.

The teleconference with the GAO is now set for April 7th. The GAO was informed that our proposals were not finalized yet but preferred to maintain an earlier date because "This meeting is primarily intended to give us a chance to introduce ourselves and our work and to improve our understanding of the multistakeholder process."

The GAO do not generally record calls or invite observers, so we will report to the group afterwards as planned. Thertee should be an opportunity to provide written remarks after the call, as Roelof suggested.

Best regards, Mathieu

Le 01/04/2015 17:58, Roelof Meijer a écrit :

...

Dear Mathieu, all,

Excellent approach, I would like to make two suggestions:

1. I (personally) would not like you to speak with GAO in your personal capacities, but formally, as co-chairs of the CCWG. You just have to put across that you are not (re-)presenting all the diverse opinions within the CCWG not giving the CCWG’s consensus opinion, but that does not have to mean you speak in a personal capacity 2. To make sure that of those things you discussed, the really important ones cannot get lost or be misunderstood, put them in an email that you send to GAO afterwards (and cc it to this list)

Best,

Roelof [...]

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !

Dear Eberhard, yes, the call has taken place and we have reported to the CCWG during one of our previous calls. Maybe staff can help and point you to the relevant part of the transcript. Should any mentioning of the Mathieu and my input be made, we will get that report for approval and will share it with the CCWG. Thomas --- rickert.net

Am 18.04.2015 um 12:38 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:

Dear Co-Chairs,

has the below teleconference taken place?

And if so, can you please let me have the transcript?

greetings, el

-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

...

On Mar 30, 2015, at 12:11, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April).

Your inputs are welcome.

Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill

-------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : 'rickert@anwaelte.de' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>

Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:

You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February.

At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work.

We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses.

Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks? Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST

We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too.

Thank you,

John

John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 | HealeyJ@gao.gov

---

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Thomas Thanks to Dr. Reminded us of this important issue . May you pls advise that the transcript be posted on nailing list Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 20 Apr 2015, at 15:38, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:

Dear Eberhard, yes, the call has taken place and we have reported to the CCWG during one of our previous calls. Maybe staff can help and point you to the relevant part of the transcript. Should any mentioning of the Mathieu and my input be made, we will get that report for approval and will share it with the CCWG.

Thomas

--- rickert.net

...

Am 18.04.2015 um 12:38 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:

Dear Co-Chairs,

has the below teleconference taken place?

And if so, can you please let me have the transcript?

greetings, el

-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

...

On Mar 30, 2015, at 12:11, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April).

Your inputs are welcome.

Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill

-------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ@GAO.GOV> Pour : 'rickert@anwaelte.de' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill@afnic.fr' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>

Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:

You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February.

At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work.

We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses.

Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks? Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST

We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too.

Thank you,

John

John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 | HealeyJ@gao.gov

---

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

---

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community