Aparna,

 

Thank you for sharing your comments.  21st Century Fox agrees that ICANN should focus on its narrow mandate related to Internet names and numbers.  However, no matter how hard ICANN tries, its technical mandate will impact the public interest.  Indeed, this is one of the important reasons the GAC was formed, to ensure that ICANN’s technical work comports with public policies, including those that impact the public interest.  With this in mind, we do not support the deletion of references to the public interest but agree that ICANN should limit public interest matters to those that arise out of ICANN’s technical mandate for the name and numbering system.

 

We are happy to discuss.

 

Best regards,

David

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aparna Sridhar
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 6:13 PM
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list; Chen, Tim; Chris at Andalucia
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ICANN's focus for 5-year strategic plan

 

All--

 

Please see some suggested edits from Google on the attached document.  While there is some amount of reorganizing, I believe our suggested edits preserve the points made in the original document while making some improvements for flow and clarity.  I have also suggested deviation from ICANN's proposed submission form where adhering to it obscured the content of our comments. 

 

Cheers, 

Aparna


Aparna Sridhar

Counsel

Google Inc.

1101 New York Avenue N.W.

Second Floor

Washington, DC 20005

tel:  202.346.1261

 

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:

I will draft something for ICANN mission/lingage to I-GOV. I wanted to hear from CCWG and 1NET first, and that happened this week.

 

I also moved this to bc-private just temporarily.  

 

David, Aparna, Philip, and I were on CCWG and David, Aparna, and others from business COMMUNITY, were on relevant calls last week. I will send a short assessment over week end. 

 

If members want public access to our discussions, we can move back to public list, but I didn't want to do that, without full consideration from BC members.

 

M

From: sdelbianco@netchoice.org
To: bc-gnso@icann.org
CC: tim@domaintools.com; chris@andalucia.com
Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ICANN's focus for 5-year strategic plan
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:27:45 +0000

 

Attached is the current draft BC comment on ICANN’s Vision, Mission & Focus for 5-year Strategic Plan, which came out of last summer’s "brainstorming" by board, community and staff. (link)

 

Tim Chen and Chris Chaplow led drafting of the BC comment, with help from Martin Sutton, Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack.

 

Comments close 31-Jan, so today begins our 14-day review period.

 

We need draft comments for Focus Area V: Defining role clarity for ICANN in the Internet governance ecosystem. 

Yesterday I shared my views about ICANN limiting its mission and avoiding entanglements in the broader I-Gov debate.       If no BC members contribute text for Area V, then I can draft something next week.

 

Please REPLY ALL with edits (TRACK CHANGES)as soon as possible, since the comment deadline is 31-Jan-2014.

 

Thanks again to Tim and Chris for taking the lead on this.

 

—

Steve DelBianco

Vice chair for policy coordination

 

 

 


This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.