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 e-mail: aparnasridhar@google.com<mailto:aparnasridhar@google.com> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> CC: tim@domaintools.com<mailto:tim@domaintools.com>; chris@andalucia.com<mailto: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<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/focus-areas-29oct13-en.pdf>) 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.

Thanks Aparna, happy to discuss. It would be helpful to get guidance as to the existing BC position on this issue. My recollection is that we recognize that public interest issues within the context of ICANN’s mandate are within its purview. From: Aparna Sridhar [mailto:aparnasridhar@google.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:13 PM To: Fares, David Cc: Marilyn Cade; 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 Hi David, Google doesn't object to including a mention of the public interest. I was merely channeling the original text, which took that position, and reframing it in a way that I thought was more clear. I had assumed that it was an established BC position to look skeptically at that language. If that's not the case, I am happy to have a broader discussion with the group. Cheers, Aparna Sridhar Counsel Google Inc. 1101 New York Avenue N.W. Second Floor Washington, DC 20005 tel: 202.346.1261 e-mail: aparnasridhar@google.com<mailto:aparnasridhar@google.com> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Fares, David <DFares@21cf.com<mailto:DFares@21cf.com>> wrote: 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> [mailto: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<tel:202.346.1261> e-mail: aparnasridhar@google.com<mailto:aparnasridhar@google.com> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> CC: tim@domaintools.com<mailto:tim@domaintools.com>; chris@andalucia.com<mailto: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<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/focus-areas-29oct13-en.pdf>) 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. 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.

Members, Thanks for all the work that has gone into drafting and reviewing this response. One key responsibility of ICANN is not mentioned in the document, and that is administration of the UDRP. The UDRP is now in its 15th year. ICANN has largely abdicated its responsibility to oversee the implementation of the UDRP, leaving an ever increasing number of UDR providers to develop their own separate approaches. As the UDRP determines the limits of a registrant's rights to its its domains, and how those rights can be cancelled, a uniform, predictable UDRP is fundamental to maintaining a secure and stable 'identifier ecosystem'. The first Focus Area Goal would be an appropriate location to reference the UDRP: *Foster and coordinate a secure, stable and resilient identifier ecosystem, including the stable, secure, trusted operation of the DNS. * The Outcome of this focus would be "to Improve the uniformity and consistency of implementation of the UDRP across UDR providers and to eliminate bias". For the measurement criteria, I would propose conducting an outside, expert audit/white paper reviewing the implementation of the UDRP and then making specific policy changes based on the findings of the audit/white paper review. Regards, Nat Cohen President Riptide LLC Telepathy, Inc. On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Chris Chaplow <chris@andalucia.com> wrote:

Members,

Thanks Aparna for making updates to the document.

I am fine to accept the changes and in particular for the sections that I authored. I would ask that Tim Cheng, Andrew Mack and Martin Sutton also advise of their respective sections.

David, I am not aware of any existing BC position on the issue or scope of Public interest. Your suggestion that we recognize that public interest issues within the context of ICANN's mandate are within its purview, seems a reasonable approach.

If Aparna can restore the public interest points within this, and post back to the list, it would be a step forward.

We need to submit the final version on the 31st January.

Many thanks for contributing.

best

*Chris Chaplow* *Managing Director* *Andalucia.com S.L.* Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain *Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 <%2B%20%2834%29%20952%20897%20865>* *Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 <%2B%20%2834%29%20952%20897%20874>* E-mail: *chris@andalucia.com* <chris@andalucia.com> Web: *www.andalucia.com* <http://www.andalucia.com/> *Information about Andalucia, Spain.*

*De:* owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] *En nombre de *Aparna Sridhar *Enviado el:* lunes, 27 de enero de 2014 19:13 *Para:* Marilyn Cade *CC:* Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list; Chen, Tim; Chris at Andalucia *Asunto:* 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

e-mail: aparnasridhar@google.com

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<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/focus-areas-29oct13-en.pdf> )

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