April 2016 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

FILED: BC comment on ICANN FY17 Op Plan & Budget and 5-Year Op Plan
by Steve DelBianco April 30, 2016

April 30, 2016

Today we filed the attached comment on the ICANN FY17 Operating Plan & Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan. Thanks to drafters Jimson Olufuye, Marilyn Cade, and Denise Michel

1 0

FILED: BC comment on recommendations of Geographic Regions Review WG
by Steve DelBianco April 24, 2016

April 24, 2016

Today the BC filed comment on the final report recommendations of the Geographic Regions Review WG. (see link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Comment-on-Geo-Regions-R…> and below) Thanks to Andrew Mack for leading the draft, and to several BC members for contributing edits and suggestions. -- BC Comments on the Final Report Recommendations of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group 24-Apr-2016 The BC endorses the recommendations of the Geographical Regions report submitted on October 15, 2015. We strongly agree with the report’s reiteration that diversity — including geographical diversity — is essential to ICANN’s mission and to the success of the multistakeholder model, as is continued emphasis on making ICANN more open to a multilingual audience through translation. At the same time, we agree with the report that while ICANN’s geographical regions are distinct from those of many major international organizations, changing these regions or adding to the number of regions would be unlikely to enhance ICANN’s mission and could lead to additional cost and confusion. Lastly, while not directly a part of this report, the BC wants to call attention to the fact that, along with geographic diversity, there are many other kinds of diversity that must factor into the growth and functioning of a vibrant global internet community. Among them, gender diversity — as referenced in UN Sustainable Development Goal #5 — is an essential building block in the multistakeholder process and a key to reaching women around the world who make up half of the world’s population. As a practical suggestion, the BC urges that staff to investigate simple ways that all ICANN committees, meetings and work groups can collect data on participation by geographic region and gender, and and make this data available for the broader community. By knowing the amount of participation from women and different geographic regions in all ICANN activities, we can better pursue our goals of broader stakeholder engagement and diversity. This comment was drafted by Andrew Mack, with edits from several BC members. It was approved in accord with the BC charter.

1 0

TMCH Independent Review Questionnaire Now Available
by Chantelle Doerksen April 5, 2016

April 5, 2016

Dear all, Kindly see the note regarding the TMCH Independent Review Team below, and the request to complete the corresponding questionnaire at http://www.analysisgroup.com/icann-trademark-clearinghouse/ . Many thanks. Kind regards, Chantelle _______ Dear SO/AC leaders, To follow up on our previous message sent prior to ICANN 55, we wanted to thank all those who reached out and met with the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Independent Review Team to provide input on this study. We are continuing with outreach and stakeholder discussions, and as part of this work, Analysis Group has developed a questionnaire to assess the opinions of various groups that interact with either all or some of the TMCH services. Given that feedback from interested stakeholders is extremely valuable to this review, we would greatly appreciate your assistance in helping us promote the TMCH questionnaire. Therefore, it would be fantastic if you could share the following link (http://www.analysisgroup.com/icann-trademark-clearinghouse/) via one or more of your communication channels (website, blog, e-mail, bulletin board, newsletter etc.) and encourage your members to complete the questionnaire. As noted previously, ICANN is conducting an independent review of the TMCH, which was recommended by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in 2011 (see https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may1…) The purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness of the TMCH in combination with the areas that the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) specified for review, which include: (1) handling of non-exact matches to trademarks, (2) extension of the Trademark Claims notifications, and (3) impacts of the Claims services on the commercial watch services market. This is intended as an informational study to support discussions on related Right Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) activities, such as the work of the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) review of all RPMs in all gTLDs Policy Development Process (PDP). Thank you again for taking the time to consider our request, and please let us know if you have any questions that we can help address. Best regards, Antonietta Mangiacotti Research Assistant Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers antonietta.mangiacotti(a)icann.org Office: 310.578.8903 Mobile: 310.795.8543

2 1

A follow-up letter from US Senators, regarding China and the transition
by Steve DelBianco April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) today sent a follow-up letter to Dr. Crocker, demanding a response to a series of unanswered questions that remain from previous congressional oversight letters concerning ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government and the planned transition away from U.S. government oversight of the Internet. [cid:5DBD77ED-0FD3-465C-9DA7-927C9AF455EC] UNITED STATES SENATE Sen. Ted Cruz Press Office FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 4, 2016 ICANN Is Stonewalling the U.S. Congress Senators send follow-up letter after failing to get answers about ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) today sent a follow-up letter to Dr. Stephen Crocker, chairman of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), demanding a response to a series of unanswered questions that remain from previous congressional oversight letters concerning ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government and the planned transition away from U.S. government oversight of the Internet. “On March 3, 2016, we sent you a letter<http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2603> requesting information to gain a better understanding of the potential implications of ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government and its impact on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition. Since then, ICANN has submitted to the U.S. government an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal that seeks to end U.S. government oversight of the IANA functions. Given this recent development and congressional concerns over ICANN’s transparency, accountability, and relationship with the Chinese government, it is imperative that we receive a response to our letter,” the senators wrote. “After sending our initial request 32 days ago, your staff indicated that you would be unable to respond before March 18. Two weeks has passed since your own self-extended deadline, and ICANN has not only failed to provide a response, but has been unable or unwilling to provide an exact date for when we can expect a complete response to our March 3 letter<http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2603>. “This series of events comes on the heels of ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé’s failure to respond to all of the questions in our February 4, 2016 letter<http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2588> addressed to him. We would note that not only did Mr. Chehadé fail to respond to our questions in full, but he disparaged the oversight request during a February 5 question-and-answer session in Los Angeles, California with members of ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization Non-Contracted Party House.” The senators continued: “To our dismay, ICANN has failed to respond in full to questions posed in two oversight letters. We are therefore resending our questions and ask that you and Mr. Chehadé provide a response to all unanswered questions (provided below) from our February 4 and March 3 letters as soon as possible, but no later than 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 7, 2016.” Read the latest Cruz-Lankford-Lee letter here<http://cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/20160404_ICANNCruzLankfordLe…> and below: April 4, 2016 Dr. Stephen D. Crocker Chairman of the Board of Directors Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 30 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Dear Dr. Crocker, On March 3, 2016, we sent you a letter requesting information to gain a better understanding of the potential implications of ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government and its impact on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition. Since then, ICANN has submitted to the U.S. government an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal that seeks to end U.S. government oversight of the IANA functions. Given this recent development and congressional concerns over ICANN’s transparency, accountability, and relationship with the Chinese government, it is imperative that we receive a response to our letter. After sending our initial request 32 days ago, your staff indicated that you would be unable to respond before March 18. Two weeks has passed since your own self-extended deadline, and ICANN has not only failed to provide a response, but has been unable or unwilling to provide an exact date for when we can expect a complete response to our March 3 letter. This series of events comes on the heels of ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé’s failure to respond to all of the questions in our February 4, 2016 letter addressed to him. We would note that not only did Mr. Chehadé fail to respond to our questions in full, but he disparaged the oversight request during a February 5 question-and-answer session in Los Angeles, California with members of ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization Non-Contracted Party House. During the session, Mr. Chehadé stated: And you know that this letter is not driven by anyone really worried about the transition. This is someone really worried about politics. So let's not bring politics into the transition…. Let's resist bringing the politics of our lovely capital into this process…. I think everyone knows this is political, even those in his own party….We will answer all these questions… And we will respond to the questions fully, to the Senators' full satisfaction. To our dismay, ICANN has failed to respond in full to questions posed in two oversight letters. We are therefore resending our questions and ask that you and Mr. Chehadé provide a response to all unanswered questions (provided below) from our February 4 and March 3 letters as soon as possible, but no later than 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 7, 2016. Four weeks ago, on March 3, 2016, we asked you to provide the following information: 1. Please state when you first learned that ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé had agreed to co-chair a high-level advisory committee for the Chinese government’s state-sponsored World Internet Conference. a. Please provide a yes-or-no answer to the following question: Did you agree with Fadi Chehadé’s decision to co-chair a high level advisory committee for the World Internet Conference? b. Did ICANN’s Board of Directors approve of Fadi Chehadé’s decision to co-chair a high level advisory committee for the World Internet Conference? c. Did any member of ICANN’s Board of Directors ask Fadi Chehadé to step down from his position as CEO and President of ICANN? d. Please provide the meeting minutes, attendance records, and all other documents associated with ICANN’s Board of Directors’ meeting(s) with Fadi Chehadé in which his commitment to co-chair a high level advisory committee for the World Internet Conference was discussed. 2. Please provide a yes-or-no answer to the following question: It has been reported that ICANN’s Board of Directors took no action against Fadi Chehadé because “[t]he view eventually prevailed that no reactive action should be taken lest China lose face.” Did ICANN refrain from taking action against Fadi Chehadé due to concern that China may lose face? 3. Fadi Chehadé has been called on to recuse himself from all discussions and negotiations pertaining to the IANA transition given a confirmed personal conflict of interest with the Chinese government. Has ICANN taken any action to ensure that Fadi Chehadé will recuse himself from the IANA transition? If no, please describe the reason for ICANN’s inaction. 4. During ICANN’s 46th public meeting in Beijing, Fadi Chehadé stated, “China is going to be a central part of where the Internet community, as we know it, is heading. And, therefore, in my clear discussions with the local responsible ministers, that from ICANN’s standpoint, engagement with China is not an option. It is not an option. If we do not engage with China at every level of our community, we, frankly, lose a part of our global legitimacy. We must and we will. And that’s why we’re here today.” Do you agree with the statement that ICANN will lose part of its global legitimacy if it does not engage with China at every level of the community? 5. When ICANN announced it was opening its first global engagement office in Beijing, the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) stated that it would “invest necessary human and material resources in the construction of the center and actively carry out its functions including the coordination, communication, as well as operation in order to provide effective, long-term and stable services for ICANN to serve China’s Internet industry.” Please provide yes-or-no answers to the following questions: a. Did CNNIC invest human and material resources in the construction of ICANN’s global engagement office in Beijing? b. Is CNNIC actively carrying out the functions, coordination, communication, or operation of ICANN’s global engagement office in Beijing? c. Do any individuals associated with CNNIC or the Chinese government have a formal or informal role in ICANN’s global engagement office in Beijing? 6. ICANN currently lists the address for each hub office and engagement office on its website except for the engagement office in Beijing.[1] Please provide the address of ICANN’s engagement office in Beijing. 7. When Lu Wei, Minister of the Cyberspace Administration of China and Incumbent Vice Minister of the Central Propaganda Department, assumed the role of the Chairperson of CNNIC in December 2014, did ICANN take any action to ensure that its global engagement office in Beijing was not being used to carry out censorship for the Chinese government? 8. Do you agree with the Business Constituency’s concern that the term “Chinese registrant” in XYZ’s RSEP is too broad and could be interpreted to allow the extraterritorial application of Chinese censorship law to include residents of Hong Kong? 9. Do you agree that approval of XYZ’s RSEP will place XYZ in a position of having to comply with government-sponsored censorship of domain names for political purposes, which will undermine a stable Internet ecosystem? 10. A member of the Non-Connected Party House’s (NCPH) Commercial Stakeholder Group recently stated, “The ICANN board wants to engage more with China and India following the IANA transition, which somewhat explains the board’s decision not to take action against Chehadé.” a. Please describe ICANN’s plans for engagement with China following a potential IANA transition. b. Did ICANN’s post IANA transition plans with China play any role in the decision not to take action against Fadi Chehadé? Sixty days ago, on February 4, 2016, we asked Fadi Chehadé to provide the following information: 1. On December 23, 2015, in an ICANN blog post, you announced that you would be serving as the co-chair of a newly formed advisory committee to the World Internet Conference in Wuzhen. In that blog post, you noted that “the first meeting of the committee will take place in Summer 2016.” However, a World Internet Conference press release on December 21, 2015, announcing the advisory committee stated that “[t]he advisory committee held its first meeting on the sidelines of the second WIC in Wuzhen of east China's Zhejiang Province.” a. Please provide a yes-or-no answer to the following question: Did the advisory committee meet in Wuzhen during the second World Internet Conference? If yes, did you participate? b. What was discussed during the meeting? Specifically, did the advisory committee discuss the IANA transition or the role of the United States Government? c. Do you believe that advisory committee participants share the United States’ view of a free and open Internet? 2. Did ICANN’s Board of Directors approve your attendance and participation at the World Internet Conference? 3. When did you first notify ICANN’s Board of Directors that you had agreed to serve as a co-chair of the advisory committee for the World Internet Conference? 4. Have you notified the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) or any official within the United States Government regarding your commitment to serve as a co-chair of the advisory committee? If yes, please list who you notified and the date of the notification. a. Have you notified NTIA of any personal conflicts of interest? If yes, please describe the conflicts discussed and if such conflicts will be addressed. 5. Given the Chinese government’s history of censorship and suppression of free speech, is it appropriate to participate in the World Internet Conference while serving as the Chief Executive Officer of ICANN? 6. Do you believe that your attendance and participation in the World Internet Conference makes ICANN complicit in the Chinese censorship regime? Thank you for your cooperation and attention in this matter. Please contact Sean McLean (Senator Cruz), Sarah Seitz (Senator Lankford), and Christy Knese (Senator Lee) of our staffs if there are any questions regarding this request. Sincerely, Ted Cruz United States Senator James Lankford United States Senator Michael S. Lee United States Senator cc: Mr. Fadi Chehadé, Former Chief Executive Officer, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers The Honorable Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce ### ________________________________ [1]Contact. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, n.d. Web. <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/contact-2012-02-06-en>.

3 2

CORRECTION: BC comments on gTLD Marketplace Health Index
by Steve DelBianco April 1, 2016

April 1, 2016

(With correction and sincere apologies to Waudo Siganga, since I failed to recall that he is on the CCT review team) Dear Jonathan and members of the CCT Review Team, This is a follow-up to BC member Denise Michel’s discussion with your group while in Marrakech. The BC prepared detailed comments on ICANN<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-marketplace-health-2015-11-17-en>’<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-marketplace-health-2015-11-17-en>s proposed <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-marketplace-health-2015-11-17-en> gTLD Marketplace Health Index Proposal<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-marketplace-health-2015-11-17-en> and we believe our comments could be helpful to your review. (BC comments here<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BC-comment-on-gTLD-Marke…> and attached) In our comments we propose factors that provide objective conclusions as to trust, robustness, and stability, and encourage you to view the proposed KPIs with scrutiny against this standard. The BC is represented on the CCT team by Waudo Siganga. And the entire BC is available for comment and analysis on your work. Sincerely, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0