April 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

REMINDER: Meeting B [Policy Forum] Helsinki - topics for discussion
by Austin, Donna April 5, 2016

April 5, 2016

It would be really great to get everyone's input here. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna Sent: Tuesday, 29 March 2016 6:34 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Meeting B [Policy Forum] Helsinki Last Thursday Volker and I attended a call, hosted by Chris Disspain from the Board, to start planning for Meeting B (Policy Forum), in Helsinki in June. As a first step, we have been asked to, by 8 April 2016, identify a list of issues or topics that the GNSO would be interested in discussing at small or large cross-community sessions during the Helsinki meeting. It would seem that as a rough guide the afternoons will be assigned for cross-community engagement and the mornings will be made available for independent SO/AC work or bilateral meetings depending on requirements; however, the schedule will be developed once it is better understood what the respective requirements of all SOs and ACs. It is not expected that there will be a public forum, the Board will not meet with constituencies separately, ie no Constituency Tuesday, and no formal Board meeting. As discussed in Marrakech, there was support for the idea that the Policy Forum be used as an opportunity to progress policy development processes, namely: * PDP New gTLD Subsequent Procedures * PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in all gTLDs * PDP on Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service The Council could also use some of the time available in Helsinki to discuss workload prioritisation and working methods, but these are just suggestions. As we will need to inform Tanzanica King of our topics by 8 April, it would be useful if we could receive individual contributions by 5 April so that we can agree a consolidated list to provide to Tanzie on the 8th. We look forward to hearing from all of you on the issue of topics and issues you would like discussed in Helsinki. Thanks Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin(a)neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_neusta…> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_compan…> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_neustar…> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

5 5

TMCH Independent Review Questionnaire Now Available
by Glen de Saint Géry April 5, 2016

April 5, 2016

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

1 0

Motion - GAC Liaison
by James M. Bladel April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

Council Colleagues - Following the discussion on the list, I am now submitting this motion (attached and copied below) for our next meeting. This motion calls for making the GAC Liaison a permanent role, and begins the process for selecting Mason Cole's replacement. For your review, I have also attached the selection process that was used previously. Thank you, J. ________________________________ Motion to confirm the role and process for a GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee Whereas: 1. As part of the discussions within ICANN between the GNSO and GAC, on how to facilitate early engagement of the GAC in GNSO policy development activities, the option of appointing a GNSO liaison to the GAC was proposed as one of the mechanisms to explore and implemented as a one-year pilot program in FY15 on the recommendation of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group. 2. The GAC and GNSO Council agreed that additional time was needed to fully evaluate this pilot program and as such requested, and received, support for continuing the pilot program in FY16. 3. The GAC-GNSO Consultation Group reviewed the pilot project (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-liaison-gac-pilot-29feb16-en.pdf) and has recommended to the GAC and GNSO that 'the GNSO Liaison to the GAC, in conjunction with the other improvements recommended by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group, has positively contributed to the GAC engagement with the GNSO, and recommends that the GNSO Liaison to the GAC is transformed from a pilot project to a permanent role'. 4. The GAC and GNSO discussed the review of the pilot project during their joint session at the ICANN meeting in Marrakesh. 5. The GNSO Council reviewed the 'Request for Candidates - GNSO Liaison to the GAC' which includes the proposed call for volunteers, application and evaluation process (see [include link]. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms that the GNSO Liaison to the GAC is to become a permanent role at the start of FY17 (1 July 2016) and adopts the 'Request for Candidates - GNSO Liaison to the GAC' as the requirements, process and procedures for this role (see [include link]). 2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to distribute the request for candidates to the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies in accordance with the timeline outlined in the 'Request for Candidates - GNSO Liaison to the GAC'. 3. The Council thanks Mason Cole who has been fulfilling this role for the last two years and looks forward to working with him during the remainder of his term.

3 3

FW: A follow-up letter from US Senators, regarding China and the transition
by Phil Corwin April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

FYI. While ICANN is under no legal compulsion to answer the inquiry, failing to answer comprehensively may be a high-risk strategy given that later this year Sen. Cruz may either be the Republican Presidential nominee, or be back in the Senate with plenty of time to engage on issues he cares about. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 2:49 PM To: BC List Subject: [bc-gnso] A follow-up letter from US Senators, regarding China and the transition 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 ### ________________________________ ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11942 - Release Date: 04/02/16 ________________________________ [1]Contact. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, n.d. Web. <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/contact-2012-02-06-en>.

1 0

WSIS session on new gTLDs
by Marika Konings April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

Dear All, There was a request during the GNSO Council wrap up session to obtain further information about the new gTLD Session that had been submitted by ICANN to take place during the WSIS Forum which takes place from 2-6 May in Geneva, Switzerland. This session is currently scheduled for 2 May from 14.30 16.15 (see Draft Agenda (as of 24/03/2016) <https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/Content/documents/agenda/WSISForum _2016_DraftAgenda_2016-03-24.pdf> ) and is titled 'the gTLD Programme: Looking Forward to a Future Application Round'. The request for this session noted that 'The Workshop will explore and discuss the lessons learned from the 1st Round of gTLD applications which took place in 2012 and will look forward to the process ICANN has embarked on in preparation for a 2nd Round of applications¹. The responsible staff will now start to scope out this session following the approval of the ITU of the request. Best regards, Marika

2 4

GNSO Review WP Feasibility&Prioritization Motion
by WUKnoben April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

Dear council colleagues, I hope you’ve returned safely and could take some rest from the Marrakech meeting. I’d like to call to your mind that on the occasion of the public council meeting I’ve withdrawn the motion on the GNSO Review WP Feasibility&Prioritization since from the discussion it became obvious that more SG/C-internal information exchange was needed before submitting the material to the OEC of the Board. The next council call where the motion could be discussed is scheduled on 14 April with the motion submission deadline on 04 April. This counts a bit more than 2 weeks from now – with the Easter holidays in between. Therefore I would highly appreciate you initiating talks in your related SG/C. Please enter any question/comment to the list you may have regarding the (see attached) a.. feasibility assessment and prioritization of the GNSO review WP b.. draft motion Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 3

Meeting Invitation: GNSO Review to brief the GNSO Council/ Tuesday, 12 April 2016 at 17:30 UTC
by Terri Agnew April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

Dear all, At the request of the GNSO leadership, the GNSO Review Working Party will brief the Council and other interested members of the SG/Cs on final recommendations issued by the independent examiner as the result of the independent review of the GNSO. Additionally, the GNSO Review WP will walk through their assessment of the feasibility of issued recommendations and prioritization of recommendations. The desired outcome for this meeting is to provide the Council with sufficient information to prepare the Council for its upcoming discussion and action on the GNSO Review recommendations. The GNSO Review Webinar is scheduled for Tuesday, 12 April 2016 at 17:30 UTC for 90 minutes. 10:30 PDT, 13:30 EDT, 18:30 London, 19:30 CEST, +1 03:30 Sydney, 20:30 Istanbul; +1 03:30 Hobart For other places: http://tinyurl.com/h2gp6rx Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gnso-review/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ The dial-in details are below - please let me know if you require a dial-out. Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> _________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: GNSO REVIEW For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Thank you, Terri Agnew

1 0

FW: Transmittal of CCWG-Accountability Report to the ICANN Board
by Marika Konings April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

For your information, please see below a message for the Council’s attention from Thomas Rickert. Best regards, Marika From: Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net> Date: Monday 4 April 2016 at 09:47 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Subject: Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Transmittal of CCWG-Accountability Report to the ICANN Board Hello Marika, my previous message to the Council list did not go through. May I therefore ask you to send this to the list? Larry Strickling has confirmed receipt of this note. Thank you, Thomas -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Fwd: Fwd: Transmittal of CCWG-Accountability Report to the ICANN Board Datum: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:24:50 +0100 Von: Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> An: Strickling, Larry <LStrickling(a)ntia.doc.gov> <mailto:LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov> , Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Dear Larry, I hope this e-mail finds you well. A GNSO Councillor pointed out to me that the statements made by some groups in the GNSO have not been referenced to in the letter from the Board to NTIA. I have therefore included our letter to the ICANN Board in this e-mail below. This letter includes links to the responses we got from the Chartering Organizations and those include links to the statements. I would add that there is an expectation from those that made the statements that these will be passed on to Congress with the proposal. May I kindly ask you to confirm receipt of this message? Thank you and kind regards, Thomas -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Fwd: Transmittal of CCWG-Accountability Report to the ICANN Board Datum: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:23:41 +0000 Von: Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> An: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)icann.org> <mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org> , bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org> <mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org> Kopie (CC): Accountability Cross Community <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> 10 March 2016 Dr. Stephen Crocker, Chair ICANN Board of Directors Dear ICANN Board of Directors, Following the submission on the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Work Stream 1 Report to its Chartering Organizations on 23 February 2016, we are pleased to announce that transmittal of the report has been approved by all six organizations. Each of the Chartering Organizationsâ approval and statement is recorded as follows, in order received: * Security and Stability Advisory Committee <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/011 606.html> (SSAC) * Address Supporting Organization <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/011 639.html> (ASO) * At-Large Advisory Committee <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/011 658.html> (ALAC) * Governmental Advisory Committee <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/011 676.html> (GAC) * Generic Names Supporting Organization <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/011 694.html> (GNSO) * Country Codes Names Supporting Organisation <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/011 697.html> (ccNSO)[1] <x-msg://160/#_ftn1> In addition, the CWG-Stewardship certified <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/ 011509.html> that the CCWG-Accountability has met the dependencies on which their proposal was expressly conditioned, thus allowing the IANA Stewardship Transition (as a whole) to proceed. The report is the result of extensive work by the CCWG-Accountabilityâs 28 members, 175 participants and a team of highly qualified legal advisors since December 2014, which included over 221 calls or meetings, 3 public consultations and more than 13,900 email messages. It represents a carefully crafted balance between key requirements, specific legal advice, and significant compromises by all who participated and includes diligent attention to the input received through the Public Comment proceedings. Prior to submitting to the Chartering Organizations for their approval, the Work Stream 1 Report received the consensus support within the CCWG-Accountability itself, with five minority statements recorded in Appendix A of our Report, and available here <https://community.icann.org/x/0ReAAw> . With the sign off by the Chartering Organizations of this report, the CCWG-Accountability is pleased to transmit this report to the Board as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition process. We are available to you in order to answer any questions you may have and to explain any details of the proposal. For your information, comprehensive further background documents and reference materials are available here <https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg> . Thomas, Mathieu, and Leon CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs [1] <x-msg://160/#_ftnref1> In accordance to the rules of the ccNSO ( <http://ccnso.icann.org/about/ccnso-rules-dec04-en.pdf> <http://ccnso.icann.org/about/ccnso-rules-dec04-en.pdf> http://ccnso.icann.org/about/ccnso-rules-dec04-en.pdf) the decisions in this resolution will become effective seven days after publication of these decisions by the Council. For the interim, the chair of the ccNSO is requested to inform the ICANN Board of the decision of the ccNSO Council under the assumption the decision is effective and subsequently, after seven (7) days, whether these decision has become effective.

1 0

REMINDER: Document and Motion deadline Monday, 4 April 2016 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC.
by Glen de Saint Géry April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY, 4 April 2016 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April+20… Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 1

FW: The Icann 55 Internet Proposal Is a Good One - The Wall Street Journal.
by Phil Corwin April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

FYI—the WSJ just published an abridged version of my Letter to the Editor--- I thought you would be interested in the following story from The Wall Street Journal. The Icann 55 Internet Proposal Is a Good One http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-icann-55-internet-proposal-is-a-good-one-14… The Icann 55 Internet Proposal Is a Good One The package just adopted at Icann 55 will provide a substantial improvement in the accountability of Icann’s board to its multistakeholder community. April 3, 2016 3:13 p.m. ET In “Stop Obama’s Internet Giveaway<http://www.wsj.com/articles/stop-obamas-internet-giveaway-1458505088>” (Information Age, March 21), Gordon Crovitz quotes a passage from my March 2 CircleID.com article in which I was critical of former Icann CEO Fadi Chehade’s less than complete response to a letter of inquiry from three senators. I had previously questioned the propriety of the December 2015 announcement that Mr. Chehade, while still an Icann employee and absent advance notice to the Icann board, had agreed to be co-chair of the advisory committee to China’s World Internet Conference (WIC). WIC appears to have the aim of supplanting Icann’s multistakeholder model (MSM) with multilateral government dominance, and to oppose the version of Internet Governance (IG) that abhors the type of state information censorship exemplified by China’s so-called “Great Firewall.” While the quotation is correct, and while I respect Mr. Crovitz’s viewpoint, I wish to make clear that I am not opposed to the final IANA transition and accompanying Icann accountability proposals. The package just adopted at Icann 55 in Marrakesh is a sound blueprint that, while composed of interdependent compromises, will nonetheless provide a substantial improvement in the accountability of Icann’s board to its multistakeholder community if faithfully implemented over the coming months. Philip S. Corwin Washington Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11942 - Release Date: 04/02/16 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11942 - Release Date: 04/02/16 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11942 - Release Date: 04/02/16 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ICA Mail" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-mail+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:ica-mail+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to ica-mail(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:ica-mail@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ica-mail. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-mail/8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-mail/8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E…>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

1 0