August 2016 - CWG-Stewardship

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 7, 2016

Aug. 7, 2016

Thanks for the share Greg, it just amazes me the level of back and forth between CCG and the Trust that has been formalised by this agreement. This IPR thing is not a bone of contention at moment yet everything functioned well. Over 18 pages just feels too unnecessarily "robust" for a task that has been far from being noticed so far and IMO continues to diminish the concept of "trust" that has made the Internet flourish thus far. Anyway it's okay if the Trust and the two other OCs are fine. That said, quick few points that I like to raise: 1. There is no doubt that the signatory for names would be ICANN. I don't see any reason to consider any other entity for this purpose. 2. While I understand that the agreement is implementing the notion of separation of the functions already implied in respective community proposal, I think the OCs should try as much as possible to be in sync hence I suggest communications from a OC chair should be known to other members of CCG before transmission to the Trust(re: 2.3d). Ofcourse that could be included in operating principles of CCG. 3. I am not a lawyer but reading section 3.1, it seem that section technically seeds authority to CCG(which represents the respective communities). Particularly the section below: ".....Accordingly, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, the IETF Trust hereby delegates to the Operational Communities the IETF Trust’s authority, as the record-owner of the IANA Trademarks,......" It will be good to know that is not the case. 4. I hope the authority implied in 2c,d does not mean that the Trust cannot ask questions; While I recognise that it's rare and unlikely for a co-chair to use the power accrued to them without consulting their community. I feel not giving the Trust option to authenticate/validate communication, opens room for hack. ;-) Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 6 Aug 2016 11:24 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: CWG, I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments you may have, I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email below: (1) identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) providing a brief description of the IANA Services used by the names community (*see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other communities). This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR collaborative group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public comment period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on Thursday. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Dear Client Committee, Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement for your review and comment. This is an iterative version prepared jointly by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust to reflect the 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in progress, but we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. Two important issues to highlight: 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the signatory party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the Community Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the organizations put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols Communities; and 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be provided on behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level description was included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If this is acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we ask the Client Committee to provide a sufficient description): The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone Management*”); (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; (c) Maintenance of a repository of internationalized domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and (d) Provision of other services related to the management of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s expense. Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, as we are trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various stakeholders and release for public comment by Thursday. Thank you in advance. Cheers, Josh *Joshua Hofheimer* *Sidley Austin LLP* *jhofheimer(a)sidley.com <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com>* *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* *From:* iana-ipr-bounces(a)nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM *To:* iana-ipr(a)nro.net *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh and I have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that it reflects the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for your review and discussion. A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft of 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. Please note a few items that still need to be completed, including the description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the CCG representatives, etc. Best regards, Jorge Jorge L. Contreras Contreras Legal Strategy LLC 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 Washington, DC 20036 contreraslegal(a)att.net The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately. ************************************************************ **************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ************************************************************ **************************************** _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 7, 2016

Aug. 7, 2016

Hi, A word (.docx) version was attached initially. I am reattaching as well Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Aug 2016 3:54 p.m., "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs(a)crankycanuck.ca> wrote: Hi, Can you not send comments against the PDF? It would be helpful to have comments soon. A -- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums. On Aug 7, 2016, at 05:35, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Grec, Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with some of them In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, pls provide a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient Regards Kavouss 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>: > CWG, > > I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement > relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments you may have, > I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email below: (1) > identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) providing a > brief description of the IANA Services used by the names community (*see* > Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other communities). > > This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR collaborative > group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public comment > period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on Thursday. > > Greg > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com> > Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM > Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 > To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org> > > > Dear Client Committee, > > > > Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement > for your review and comment. This is an iterative version prepared jointly > by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust to reflect the > 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in progress, but > we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. > > > > Two important issues to highlight: > > 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the signatory party, > acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the Community Agreement. For > your information, the attached draft has the organizations put forward to > represent the Numbers and Protocols Communities; and > > 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be provided on > behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level description was > included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If this is > acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we ask the Client > Committee to provide a sufficient description): > > > > The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: > > (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone Management* > ”); > > (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; > > (c) Maintenance of a repository of internationalized domain > name tables and label generation rule sets; and > > (d) Provision of other services related to the management of > .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s > expense. > > Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, as we are > trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various stakeholders and > release for public comment by Thursday. > > > > Thank you in advance. > > > > Cheers, > > Josh > > > > *Joshua Hofheimer* > > *Sidley Austin LLP* > > *jhofheimer(a)sidley.com <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com>* > > *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* > > *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* > > *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* > > > > *From:* iana-ipr-bounces(a)nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On > Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras > *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM > *To:* iana-ipr(a)nro.net > *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 > > > > All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh and I have > collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that it reflects the > current requirements of the parties, and submit it for your review and > discussion. > > > > A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft of 07-30-16 > (in PDF format) are attached. > > > > Please note a few items that still need to be completed, including the > description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the CCG > representatives, etc. > > > > Best regards, > > Jorge > > > > Jorge L. Contreras > > Contreras Legal Strategy LLC > > 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 > > Washington, DC 20036 > > contreraslegal(a)att.net > > > > The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and > confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this > message immediately. > > > > > > ************************************************************ > **************************************** > This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is > privileged or confidential. > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any > attachments and notify us > immediately. > > ************************************************************ > **************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Cwg-client mailing list > Cwg-client(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

1 0

Fwd: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
by Greg Shatan Aug. 7, 2016

Aug. 7, 2016

CWG, I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments you may have, I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email below: (1) identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) providing a brief description of the IANA Services used by the names community (*see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other communities). This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR collaborative group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public comment period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on Thursday. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Dear Client Committee, Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement for your review and comment. This is an iterative version prepared jointly by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust to reflect the 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in progress, but we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. Two important issues to highlight: 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the signatory party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the Community Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the organizations put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols Communities; and 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be provided on behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level description was included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If this is acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we ask the Client Committee to provide a sufficient description): The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone Management*”); (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; (c) Maintenance of a repository of internationalized domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and (d) Provision of other services related to the management of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s expense. Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, as we are trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various stakeholders and release for public comment by Thursday. Thank you in advance. Cheers, Josh *Joshua Hofheimer* *Sidley Austin LLP* *jhofheimer(a)sidley.com <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com>* *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* *From:* iana-ipr-bounces(a)nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM *To:* iana-ipr(a)nro.net *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh and I have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that it reflects the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for your review and discussion. A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft of 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. Please note a few items that still need to be completed, including the description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the CCG representatives, etc. Best regards, Jorge Jorge L. Contreras Contreras Legal Strategy LLC 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 Washington, DC 20036 contreraslegal(a)att.net The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately. ************************************************************ **************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ************************************************************ **************************************** _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client

3 2

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update
by Xavier J. Calvez Aug. 5, 2016

Aug. 5, 2016

All, I have taken several days to review the various inputs and questions you have provided in this email chain, and have involved several ICANN staff members on this topic. Here is [finally!] a response. While ICANN is required under law to report in its form 990 on the identity and amounts paid to its five highest paid independent contractors, we exceed this requirement by reporting on amounts paid to all contractors to which ICANN pays over US$1,000,000 within a fiscal year. See, for example, ICANN’s Form 990 for FY15, at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2015-form-990-10may16-en.pdf, pages 67-73. None of the vendors in the “Education/engagement” category reach the US$1,000,000 limit, therefore the issue of disclosure of the specific amounts of their work has not been triggered under ICANN’s expansive reporting practices. The reporting on lobbying expenditures, as has been previously discussed, is completed through ICANN’s Form 990 filing, as well as through the forms available at http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx, which each identify both the specific issues covered in the lobbying activity as well as the House of the U.S. Congress or Federal Agency to which the activity was directed. ICANN’s general vendor contracts (which are separate from the publicly available registry and registrar contracts) are commercial contracts containing commitments between two contracting entities. Many of these contracts contain confidentiality clauses, including those requested by vendors. This is normal throughout commercial contracting practice. For example, some vendors have propriety forms for their contracts that they do not want to release; some are subject to “MFN” clauses, which could require them to offer terms or services to other customers that are equal to more favorable clauses offered to other customers; some have confidential pricing schedules; some have propriety information included within the description of how they will deliver services; etc. ICANN’s ability to enter into these normal commercial contracts allows ICANN to obtain the best services needed at the best prices it can negotiate. I hope this helps clarify the context under which confidentiality clauses may exist in ICANN’s contract, and that ICANN does not “require” confidentiality from the vendors, as some of you have inquired about. ICANN has introduced an innovation into its contracting work in recent years: ICANN has imposed a requirement on all its contractors to fill out conflict of interest statements, which require both the contractor and ICANN to carefully consider the impact of other relationships as it may the work performed by ICANN. ICANN takes the issue of conflicts seriously, and expects its vendors to do the same. Most new contracts that ICANN enters into now contain such conflict of interest statements. In light of the various questions or comments that arose from several of you, we have reviewed specifically the contracts with the vendors that are listed in the category of “Education/Engagement”, subject to Brett’s original request for information. For the 7 contracts supporting the “education/engagement” services that ICANN has received, please find below the information that can be shared without challenging the contractual terms: · Albright Stonebridge Group LLC – engagement and education support to raise awareness of, increase understanding of and increase participation in the IANA Stewardship Transition with stakeholders. · Edelman·- public relations and communications support to raise awareness of, increase understanding of and increase participation in the IANA Stewardship Transition · Interface Media – video content project in support of IANA Stewardship Transition · Rice Hadley Gates LLC - engagement and education support to raise awareness of, increase understanding of and increase participation in the IANA Stewardship Transition with stakeholders. · Summit Strategies International LLC - engagement and education support to raise awareness of, increase understanding of and increase participation in the IANA Stewardship Transition with US stakeholders. · WBC Global - engagement and education support to raise awareness of, increase understanding of and increase participation in the IANA Stewardship Transition with US stakeholders. · Wiley Rein LLP: strategic advice on global Internet Governance issues in the context of the IANA Stewardship Transition. ICANN enters into confidentiality obligations as a result of bilateral negotiations with vendors - either using ICANN templates or vendor supplied templates. The confidentiality provisions in these 7 contracts were in many instances vendor supplied forms and do not allow, either explicitly or implicitly, for ICANN to disclose publicly the value of the services rendered, or, in several cases, any information pertaining to the contract without mutual agreement. This is consistent with common business and procurement practices, notably for professional services where services and financial terms are highly customized to each customer and project and are viewed by the service providers as competitive information. Regarding lobbying expenses disclosure, lobbying is a well-defined activity in the US, and ICANN complies with all defined disclosure requirements, which those of you who are lobbyists themselves know well. None of the groups above were engaged in lobbying on behalf of ICANN. Again, refer to the blog posted in October 2015 on this topic (which I had included in my previous answers to the recurring questions on lobbying) referenced below. In addition, Brett has shared below the information that is disclosed by the lobbying firms that ICANN has engaged, retrieved from the link I shared in my previous email. ICANN does not have other lobbying activities, corresponding to the established definition of such activities. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lobbying-disclosures-contributions-20…. Though this is not fully reflecting the approaches that some of you had suggested, I hope this is helpful. While there is not much else that can be done at this stage in these specific items, we are thankful for your input and comments on this topic, as this has been a helpful exchange to set directions on future ICANN transparency enhancements, whether as part of WS2 or otherwise. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 11:43 AM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, Zakir Syed <zakirbinrehman(a)yahoo.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, Sam Lanfranco <sam(a)lanfranco.net>, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, Ken Stubbs <kstubbs(a)afilias.info>, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Thank you, I look forward to seeing the information. Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 2:40 PM To: Schaefer, Brett; Zakir Syed; Marilyn Cade; Sam Lanfranco; Phil Corwin; Ken Stubbs; Paul Rosenzweig Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; 'CCWG-Accountability'; icann-board(a)icann.org; Executive Team; COMMS Team; community-finance(a)icann.org; 'Finance Staff' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Brett, Thank you for following. I apologize for the delay in responding. I am close and hope to send an email response by the end of tomorrow, if not earlier. As you all know, we are working hard on the IANA stewardship transition implementation plan and have many critical deliverables with due dates every week, which consume a lot of our time. This is not to say that this topic is not fundamentally important, it is, but there are simply other urgent and important activities that we are attending to at the same time. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 10:40 AM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org>, Zakir Syed <zakirbinrehman(a)yahoo.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, Sam Lanfranco <sam(a)lanfranco.net>, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, Ken Stubbs <kstubbs(a)afilias.info>, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com>, Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, I hope you are back in the office and recovered. I believe you said you would be providing this information when you returned? Thanks, Brett Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 2:29 PM To: Zakir Syed; Marilyn Cade; Sam Lanfranco; Phil Corwin; Ken Stubbs; Paul Rosenzweig; 'Xavier J. Calvez' Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; 'CCWG-Accountability'; icann-board(a)icann.org; 'Executive Team'; 'COMMS Team'; community-finance(a)icann.org; 'Finance Staff' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, Are you planning to answer the questions raised in this thread? Thanks, Brett Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: Zakir Syed [mailto:zakirbinrehman@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 4:07 PM To: Marilyn Cade; Sam Lanfranco; Phil Corwin; Ken Stubbs; Paul Rosenzweig; Schaefer, Brett; 'Xavier J. Calvez' Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; 'CCWG-Accountability'; icann-board(a)icann.org; 'Executive Team'; 'COMMS Team'; community-finance(a)icann.org; 'Finance Staff' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update This is very useful discussion particularly on this very list. Any idea, how are the consultants/contractors hired by ICANN?. If this is through an RFP/competitive bid thn may be the RFP will have the detail/requirement what is required which in other words will mean what the consultants do. Not? Zakir From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> To: Sam Lanfranco <sam(a)lanfranco.net>; Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; Ken Stubbs <kstubbs(a)afilias.info>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com>; "'Schaefer, Brett'" <brett.schaefer(a)heritage.org>; 'Xavier J. Calvez' <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>; 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>; "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>; 'Executive Team' <executive-team(a)icann.org>; 'COMMS Team' <commsteam(a)icann.org>; "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>; 'Finance Staff' <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 2:27 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update I'd like to stick to the topic we are discussing which is disclosure about 'advisors', and lobbyists, and not venture until the gTLDs contracts. I fear that would become a bog that is too unbounded, with some questioning the marketing plans of different gTLDs, like give aways, etc. So, I ask that as this is the CCWG-ACCT, and the topic is about the amounts paid for consultants specifically working on the IANA transition -- and who they are -- and that they have only ICANN as a client, not also members of ICANN's community on directly related subjects -- we stick to that discussion. All law firms in the US 'clear' conflicts before accepting a new client, and all corporations 'clear' their consultants. While this may be confidential in both these cases, I do agree that a public interest NGO, which is what ICANN is, can best serve itself, and the interest of the broader ICANN community by as much transparency as possible. BUT let's keep it high level and civil in our request for facts and figures. As I like to say: Facts are our friends. Of course, some issues have to be kept confidential. Who the consultants are has been published, what they were paid would add to the transparency. What they do, at a high level, should be published as well. I will say again that I think that the work is probably much needed. I spend a lot of time -- without being paid -- explaining ICANN as I do my other IG work and it is is a worthwhile task and an important one if we are to demystify ICANN to RoW [Rest of World]. I am sure it is all above board, but it has now taken on a sort of taint of 'why not tell'. Let's keep this high level and not make it a hunt for the details, but just get the high level facts, and make that a standard. Will help us all. M Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update To: psc(a)vlaw-dc.com; kstubbs(a)afilias.info; paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com; marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; brett.schaefer(a)heritage.org; xavier.calvez(a)icann.org CC: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; icann-board(a)icann.org; executive-team(a)icann.org; commsteam(a)icann.org; community-finance(a)icann.org; finance-staff(a)icann.org From: sam(a)lanfranco.net Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 12:23:12 -0400 As the non-lawyer economist here I would like to observe that the discussion has honed in on a specific enough question, one that has an ICANN definitive answer, and that it should be put both to the Board and the new CEO for a an answer and clarification. I previously worried that the ICANN DNS contract with .sucks seemed to verge on ICANN exposing itself to the RICO act in the U.S., given the .sucks marketing plan. Maybe I am overly cautious but as a not-for-profit corporation operating in the public interest ICANN is more than obliged to provide clarity here. Silence won't do. Sam Lanfranco, NPOC/CSIH On 7/20/2016 12:06 PM, Phil Corwin wrote: If the contract non-disclosure clause indeed violates IRS disclosure requirements then how could ICANN legal agree to it? 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: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@afilias.info] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 11:37 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig; 'Marilyn Cade'; Phil Corwin; 'Schaefer, Brett'; 'Xavier J. Calvez' Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; 'CCWG-Accountability'; icann-board(a)icann.org; 'Executive Team'; 'COMMS Team'; community-finance(a)icann.org; 'Finance Staff' Subject: Re: [community-finance] [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update I believe Lori is correct here. IRS requirements on disclosures are usually quite specific here Ken Stubbs On 7/20/16 10:32, Lori Schulman wrote: I don’t believe that 501©3 orgs can consider any consulting fees confidential as the top fees are required to be reported on the 990. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 10:16 AM To: 'Marilyn Cade' <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; 'Phil Corwin' <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; 'Schaefer, Brett' <brett.schaefer(a)heritage.org>; 'Xavier J. Calvez' <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>; icann-board(a)icann.org; 'Executive Team' <executive-team(a)icann.org>; 'COMMS Team' <commsteam(a)icann.org>; community-finance(a)icann.org; 'Finance Staff' <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update I agree completely with Marilyn and Phil. I have been on both sides of non-disclosure agreements – both ones requested by me and ones requested by my clients. Typically, a client (in the position of ICANN) may request that a consultant sign an NDA so as to protect the confidentiality of its efforts or its intellectual property. Sometimes a consultant might have a proprietary methodology or process that they are using on behalf of the client that they wish to protect. Neither circumstance applies here that I can see. And in no case that I am aware of has a client ever asked me to keep confidential my fee … I don’t broadcast them, but I’m in the private sector. For ICANN, which is an NGO acting in the global public interest, I cannot see any reason at all why ICANN would want or agree to a confidentiality arrangement as to the size of the fee paid. Xavier – can you tell us what the rationale is? I may be missing something ….. Thanks Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 9:05 AM To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; Schaefer, Brett <brett.schaefer(a)heritage.org>; Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>; icann-board(a)icann.org; Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>; COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>; community-finance(a)icann.org; Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update I support Phil's clarifying explanation. I also think that anyone who is in this category, should have to declare if they re also representing companies in a SO/AC. Or advising governments. In the BC, we do not allow an ICANN consultant to be a BC member, regardless of the amount, but if someone is a backdoor advisor to ICANN and also a group of entities, in a SO/AC, that would not be so obvious, but I think that for integrity sake, of course, any such entity would recuse themselves from advising companies, while also advising ICANN. And I would expect ICANN to disqualify such entities as their consultants. Thanks, Phil, for this useful clarification. M From: psc(a)vlaw-dc.com To: Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org; xavier.calvez(a)icann.org Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:48:08 +0000 CC: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; icann-board(a)icann.org; executive-team(a)icann.org; commsteam(a)icann.org; community-finance(a)icann.org; finance-staff(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update In the U.S. much of what used to be done by registered lobbyists is now performed by “strategic advisors” who walk right up to the line of what constitutes lobbying (and maybe a few inches over), and nonetheless facilitate door opening to key members of Congress and the Executive branch, and who “educate” rather than “lobby” members of both branches of government. So while the seven firms may not be engaged in what is considered lobbying under current U.S. law, they are still likely engaged in helping to assure officials outcomes desired by ICANN corporate. It is for that reason – as well as for the exercise of effective oversight over ICANN budgeting and expenditures – that the community should have more data on this. If ICANN is prohibited by its contracts with these firms from disclosing its expenditures that is unfortunate – and in the future I would hope that ICANN would tell any firms being considered for such duties that its own transparency obligations to the community preclude it from agreeing to such restrictions (I’d wager that the majority of the firms would waive confidentiality rather than lose the contract). At a minimum, ICANN should disclose the aggregate amounts spent with these seven firms since they were engaged – surely their contracts don’t bar such aggregate reporting. 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: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:04 PM To: Xavier J. Calvez Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability; icann-board(a)icann.org; Executive Team; COMMS Team; community-finance(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, Are you saying that ICANN’s contracts for Education/Engagement/Advice with (1) Albright Stonebridge Group LLC, (2) Edelman, (3) Interface Media, (4) Rice Hadley Gates LLC, (5) Summit Strategies International LLC, (6) WBC Global, and (7) Wiley Rein LLP each contain confidentiality provisions that prohibit ICANN from disclosing the specific amount paid to each of these individual vendors? Does this only apply to the CCWG and the public or does it also apply to other parts of the ICANN community, specifically the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees? Thank you for the link on lobbying disclosures. For those who are interested, here are ICANN’s lobbying expenditures based on the disclosure website of the U.S. Congress. I do have a couple of additional questions. Would this source capture lobbying exclusively directed toward the US Executive Branch? Has ICANN spent any funds during this period lobbying governments other than the US? Thank you, Brett Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 6:30 PM To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability; Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Brett, Yes, the information I provided in my latest email had been included in some previous communication. I just wanted to make sure you had a clear visibility on this information, which provides for (i) categories of expenses, (ii) the individual names of the vendors grouped for each category, and (iii) the total value of the expenses for each category. With respect to the contractual obligations of confidentiality in commercial contracts, ICANN is subject to them, like all business organizations. That said, we disclose what we can consistent with standard business confidentiality provisions in vendor contracts. We cannot disclose the specific amount of spend with each vendor but we were able to disclose the names of the service providers engaged. Regarding the lobbying expenses, as you are aware, both organizations that hire lobbyists and firms that lobby on behalf of organizations are required under U.S. federal law to file lobbying disclosure reports. In addition to ICANN’s quarterly lobbying disclosures posted on our website, you can find the amounts ICANN has paid to individual outside lobbying firms at http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx. I hope this helps and clarifies. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:07 AM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, This is pretty much the same information that was provided before. I am asking for a breakdown of how much was paid to each vender in the lobbying category (Akin Gump, etc.) and the education/engagement/advice category (Albright Stoneridge, etc.). Thank you, Brett On Jul 13, 2016, at 8:13 PM, Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear Brett, In response to your question listed below on 22 June: the detailed information provided on Other professional fees (other than legal fees, detailed in a separate section of the “Transition project cost” expense webpage, on the IANA Stewardship Transition webpage) can be found in the section called “Professional Services – Expenses Breakdown”. Within this section, you will find a link to a document that provides the list of Professional Services (other than legal fees) incurred, by category, with the names of the vendors, and the total amount of expenditures for the category. This link is copied below and was provided in my first answer to your question. I have also attached the file to which this link refers in case the link would not work for you. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-profe… If this not addressing your question, please let me know. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:45 AM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Brett, Thank you for following up. I will make sure to respond no later than the end of this week. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:38 AM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, Thanks for promising to get this information to me in Helsinki. Do you have an estimate for when it will be provided? Thanks, Brett Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: Schaefer, Brett Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:39 PM To: 'Xavier J. Calvez'; community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability Cc: Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, I appreciate the detailed breakdown on the legal fees That is indeed what I was looking for though I would think it useful to have the totals provided in the summary document. However, I did not see similar information for lobbying or education/ engagement/advice in the links provided. In fact, the only specific information that I saw listed is for Jamie Hedlund at $200,000. No information on other individual firms or vendors is listed at all – only the top line budget expenditure in the summary document link originally sent around. Could you provide that information? Thanks, Brett From: Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 10:43 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability Cc: Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Dear all, It appears that the first link in my email further below (detail of legal fees by firm) does not resolve correctly. Please use the below instead. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-legal… Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 1:01 PM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Dear Brett, Thank you for your interest and question. We currently publish the list of all vendors from whom ICANN obtain services in relation to the IANA Stewardship transition. The $$ value of the services received is aggregated by category of expenses, which you mention below (US Government affairs, Education/engagement/advice,…). This presentation is driven by 2 factors: providing clarity as to the type of services received, and abiding by the contractual obligation of confidentiality in force with each of the vendors (resulting from standard business sensitive information). We do publish however the detail of the legal advice, by firm and by working group, on this same page (see for example the link to the report of fees by firm: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-legal…) You will also find more information relative to ICANN’s lobbying in the following blog published a few months ago. In this blog, you will also find links to the disclosure reports that ICANN makes on lobbying activities. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lobbying-disclosures-contributions-20…. Lastly, further information on lobbying appears in ICANN’s form 990 (Schedule C, Part II-B. On page 33/73 of the FY15 form 990 published at the following link): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2015-form-990-10may16-en.pdf I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have further questions. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:54 PM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Finance Staff <finance-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Xavier, Thank you. Could you please provide a more detailed breakdown of legal advice, US government affairs, and educations/engagement/advice? In each category, there are multiple firms/vendors listed (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-expenses-profe…) I would appreciate the amount provided to each individual vendor. If it is provided somewhere, I would appreciate you letting me know where to find it. Much appreciated, Brett Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Xavier J. Calvez Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 12:10 AM To: community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; CCWG-Accountability Cc: Executive Team; COMMS Team; icann-board(a)icann.org; Finance Staff Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update Dear all, You find at the link below the updated project’s expenses as of FY16 Q3 (from July 2014 to March 2016). As indicated a few months ago, we have added new detailed information on the staff support with the individual positions, names and percentages of effort over the period. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 <iana-stewardship-expenses-professional-vendor-01jun16-en.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ community-finance mailing list community-finance(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/community-finance _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran(a)Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter_PTI Bylaws
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 5, 2016

Aug. 5, 2016

All, Please see below and attached in preparation for today’s meeting. Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 04 August 2016 18:54 To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter_PTI Bylaws Dear All, Attached is a revised draft of the CWG comment letter on the PTI bylaws which is due on August 11. We believe the only open points are #8 and 9 re budget and strategic plan. Best regards, Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

4 3

FW: CWG Comment Letter - PTI Governance Documents
by Lise Fuhr Aug. 5, 2016

Aug. 5, 2016

Dear All, Please note that the attached documents were duly submitted by the co-chairs in advance of the closing deadline for public comments on the PTI Governance Documents. Enjoy your weekend. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise From: cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grapsas, Rebecca Sent: 05 August 2016 14:11 To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter - PTI Governance Documents Dear Client Committee, At Sharon’s request, attached please find the final version of the CWG comment letter on the three PTI governance documents (in Word) and exhibits indicating proposed amendments to those documents (in tracked changes in Word and PDF). Best regards, Rebecca REBECCA GRAPSAS Counsel SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 8541 rebecca.grapsas(a)sidley.com<mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [Image removed by sender. SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

1 0

FW: [client com] ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement Headers
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 5, 2016

Aug. 5, 2016

From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: 29 July 2016 17:57 To: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>; Maarten Simon <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl> Cc: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv>; Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net>; Greeley, Amy E. <AGreeley(a)sidley.com>; Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca>; Keith Davidson <keith(a)internetnz.net.nz>; Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org>; demi(a)registro.br Subject: Re: [client com] ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement Headers Importance: High Folks, I have taken a quick stab at addressing the problems that have been discussed. I will review a bit more carefully now, but please take a look and send me your thoughts on the approach J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / <http://www.neustar.biz> neustar.biz From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > Date: Friday, July 29, 2016 at 4:18 AM To: Maarten Simon <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl <mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl> > Cc: Chris Disspain <chris(a)disspain.id.au <mailto:chris@disspain.id.au> >, Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> >, Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv> >, Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> >, "demi(a)registro.br <mailto:demi@registro.br> " <demi(a)registro.br <mailto:demi@registro.br> >, "Greeley, Amy E." <AGreeley(a)sidley.com <mailto:AGreeley@sidley.com> >, Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca <mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca> >, Keith Davidson <keith(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:keith@internetnz.net.nz> > Subject: Re: [client com] ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement Headers I share the concerns of other ccTLD reps. Happy to help from .NZ any way that may be useful - am copying Keith Davidson who was also an FOI person. Jordan On Friday, 29 July 2016, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl <mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl> > wrote: Hi Chris, I understood yesterday that the idea is to have the naming contract out for public comment on August 7. Ideally that version should contain the correct text. If not, we should use the public comment period to bring it up but that is of course less preferable. Best, Maarten From: Chris Disspain [mailto:chris@disspain.id.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','chris(a)disspain.id.au');> ] Sent: vrijdag 29 juli 2016 9:10 To: Maarten Simon; Becky Burr Cc: Client Committee; Katrina Sataki; Byron Holland; Greeley, Amy E.; demi(a)registro.br <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','demi(a)registro.br');> Subject: Re: [client com] ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement Headers Importance: High Hi Maarten, Becky and I were both closely involved, as was Bernie Turcotte, Bart Boswinkel and a number of ccTLD folks. Can you give me some idea of the timing constraints we have on this? Maybe Becky and I can start the ball rolling and get something out to the ccNSO. Becky, are you available over the next couple of days? Cheers, Chris On 29 Jul 2016, at 17:02 , Maarten Simon <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl');> > wrote: Thanks Chris, I was just about to sort this one out as I also noticed and discussed with Paul Kane that the references to the GAC Principles where if necessary at least not specific enough. Would be nice if we could have someone who was closely involved in the drafting of the final text of the FOI go through the (last version) of the document and come up with suggestions to bring both documents in line. I could give it a try too but I wasn't involved in the drafting of the FOI at all. Best, Maarten From: <cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org');> > on behalf of Chris Disspain <chris(a)disspain.id.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','chris(a)disspain.id.au');> > Date: Friday 29 July 2016 at 08:45 To: "cwg-client(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client(a)icann.org');> " <cwg-client(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client(a)icann.org');> > Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','becky.burr(a)neustar.biz');> >, Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','katrina(a)nic.lv');> >, Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','byron.holland(a)cira.ca');> >, "Greeley, Amy E." <AGreeley(a)sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','AGreeley(a)sidley.com');> >, "demi(a)registro.br <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','demi(a)registro.br');> " <demi(a)registro.br <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','demi(a)registro.br');> > Subject: Re: [client com] ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement Headers All, A number of the clauses in this current draft are likely to be of significant concern to ccTLDs. I have highlighted some paragraphs in the attached which will need to be re-drafted IMO. The references to RFC 1591 and GAC Principles seem to have been inserted by Sidley so may appear simply because of a lack of background information on the history of these matters. If there is to be any reference at all to the GAC Principles (and I am unclear that there needs to be one) it needs to be specifically to the 2005 Principles and not merely an undated reference. It is IMPORTANT to note that the GAC Principles 2005, by their own terms, apply ONLY if the relevant government and ccTLD manager AGREE that they apply. "1.3. These principles are intended as a guide to the relationships between Governments, their ccTLD and ICANN. They are not intended to be binding and need both Governments and Registries voluntarily to agree to apply them within their legal framework. If either the Government or the Registry decide not to adopt the principles, this cannot be held against the Registry, and the Registry still has a valid existence." This is a critical nuance, so any reference to the GAC Principles (2005) must say that only where the relevant government and ccTLD manager agree they apply. Further, the documents definition of 'Interested and Affected Parties' won't work in respect to ccTLD matters. The Framework of Interpretation uses very specific words about who needs to be consulted regarding ccTLD matters. I have refrained from offering any redrafted wording as I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do so. However I strongly recommend that the leadership of the ccTLD community is immediately consulted so that acceptable words can be found (I have copied the ccNSO Chair and Vice Chairs into this email). Further, I believe that Sam Eisner will also be able to provide some guidance as to the pitfalls that the wording needs to avoid. I am happy to assist in any way. Cheers, Chris On 28 Jul 2016, at 14:10 , Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jhofheimer(a)sidley.com');> > wrote: Client Committee - Attached is a further revised draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. For convenience, we have included a clean version and two redlines - an incremental draft marked against the Sidley draft circulated per the email below, and a cumulative redline against the original ICANN-legal draft proposal. Regarding Annex C, on our review many of the concepts do appear to have been incorporated either into the Naming Functions Agreement or into the governance documents. We have added only a few suggested, additional clauses related to Annex C in the attached draft, along with mapping to the particular provision in the Annex. Thank you and speak to you tomorrow. Best regards, Josh Joshua Hofheimer Sidley Austin LLP <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jhofheimer(a)sidley.com');> jhofheimer(a)sidley.com (213) 896-6061 (LA direct) (650) 565-7561 (Palo Alto direct) (323) 708-2405 (cell) -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

1 0

FW: [client com] ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement Headers
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 5, 2016

Aug. 5, 2016

All, As promised. Email thread copied to Client Committee mailing list and referred to on yesterday's CWG call. Jonathan From: Chris Disspain [mailto:chris@disspain.id.au] Sent: 30 July 2016 00:42 To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz> Cc: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv>; Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net>; Greeley, Amy E. <AGreeley(a)sidley.com>; Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca>; Keith Davidson <keith(a)internetnz.net.nz>; Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org>; demi(a)registro.br Subject: Re: [client com] ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement Headers Importance: High Becky, I think this covers the important points and works as a way of approaching the situation. I will also now look more closely at the document as a whole to make sure we have dealt with any anomalies etc.. Cheers, Chris On 30 Jul 2016, at 02:56 , Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> > wrote: Folks, I have taken a quick stab at addressing the problems that have been discussed. I will review a bit more carefully now, but please take a look and send me your thoughts on the approach J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / <http://www.neustar.biz/> neustar.biz From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > Date: Friday, July 29, 2016 at 4:18 AM To: Maarten Simon <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl <mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl> > Cc: Chris Disspain <chris(a)disspain.id.au <mailto:chris@disspain.id.au> >, Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> >, Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv> >, Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> >, "demi(a)registro.br <mailto:demi@registro.br> " <demi(a)registro.br <mailto:demi@registro.br> >, "Greeley, Amy E." <AGreeley(a)sidley.com <mailto:AGreeley@sidley.com> >, Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca <mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca> >, Keith Davidson <keith(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:keith@internetnz.net.nz> > Subject: Re: [client com] ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement Headers I share the concerns of other ccTLD reps. Happy to help from .NZ any way that may be useful - am copying Keith Davidson who was also an FOI person. Jordan On Friday, 29 July 2016, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl <mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl> > wrote: Hi Chris, I understood yesterday that the idea is to have the naming contract out for public comment on August 7. Ideally that version should contain the correct text. If not, we should use the public comment period to bring it up but that is of course less preferable. Best, Maarten From: Chris Disspain [mailto:chris@disspain.id.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','chris(a)disspain.id.au');> ] Sent: vrijdag 29 juli 2016 9:10 To: Maarten Simon; Becky Burr Cc: Client Committee; Katrina Sataki; Byron Holland; Greeley, Amy E.; demi(a)registro.br <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','demi(a)registro.br');> Subject: Re: [client com] ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement Headers Importance: High Hi Maarten, Becky and I were both closely involved, as was Bernie Turcotte, Bart Boswinkel and a number of ccTLD folks. Can you give me some idea of the timing constraints we have on this? Maybe Becky and I can start the ball rolling and get something out to the ccNSO. Becky, are you available over the next couple of days? Cheers, Chris On 29 Jul 2016, at 17:02 , Maarten Simon <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl');> > wrote: Thanks Chris, I was just about to sort this one out as I also noticed and discussed with Paul Kane that the references to the GAC Principles where if necessary at least not specific enough. Would be nice if we could have someone who was closely involved in the drafting of the final text of the FOI go through the (last version) of the document and come up with suggestions to bring both documents in line. I could give it a try too but I wasn't involved in the drafting of the FOI at all. Best, Maarten From: <cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org');> > on behalf of Chris Disspain <chris(a)disspain.id.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','chris(a)disspain.id.au');> > Date: Friday 29 July 2016 at 08:45 To: "cwg-client(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client(a)icann.org');> " <cwg-client(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client(a)icann.org');> > Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','becky.burr(a)neustar.biz');> >, Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','katrina(a)nic.lv');> >, Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','byron.holland(a)cira.ca');> >, "Greeley, Amy E." <AGreeley(a)sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','AGreeley(a)sidley.com');> >, "demi(a)registro.br <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','demi(a)registro.br');> " <demi(a)registro.br <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','demi(a)registro.br');> > Subject: Re: [client com] ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement Headers All, A number of the clauses in this current draft are likely to be of significant concern to ccTLDs. I have highlighted some paragraphs in the attached which will need to be re-drafted IMO. The references to RFC 1591 and GAC Principles seem to have been inserted by Sidley so may appear simply because of a lack of background information on the history of these matters. If there is to be any reference at all to the GAC Principles (and I am unclear that there needs to be one) it needs to be specifically to the 2005 Principles and not merely an undated reference. It is IMPORTANT to note that the GAC Principles 2005, by their own terms, apply ONLY if the relevant government and ccTLD manager AGREE that they apply. "1.3. These principles are intended as a guide to the relationships between Governments, their ccTLD and ICANN. They are not intended to be binding and need both Governments and Registries voluntarily to agree to apply them within their legal framework. If either the Government or the Registry decide not to adopt the principles, this cannot be held against the Registry, and the Registry still has a valid existence." This is a critical nuance, so any reference to the GAC Principles (2005) must say that only where the relevant government and ccTLD manager agree they apply. Further, the documents definition of 'Interested and Affected Parties' won't work in respect to ccTLD matters. The Framework of Interpretation uses very specific words about who needs to be consulted regarding ccTLD matters. I have refrained from offering any redrafted wording as I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do so. However I strongly recommend that the leadership of the ccTLD community is immediately consulted so that acceptable words can be found (I have copied the ccNSO Chair and Vice Chairs into this email). Further, I believe that Sam Eisner will also be able to provide some guidance as to the pitfalls that the wording needs to avoid. I am happy to assist in any way. Cheers, Chris On 28 Jul 2016, at 14:10 , Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jhofheimer(a)sidley.com');> > wrote: Client Committee - Attached is a further revised draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. For convenience, we have included a clean version and two redlines - an incremental draft marked against the Sidley draft circulated per the email below, and a cumulative redline against the original ICANN-legal draft proposal. Regarding Annex C, on our review many of the concepts do appear to have been incorporated either into the Naming Functions Agreement or into the governance documents. We have added only a few suggested, additional clauses related to Annex C in the attached draft, along with mapping to the particular provision in the Annex. Thank you and speak to you tomorrow. Best regards, Josh Joshua Hofheimer Sidley Austin LLP <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jhofheimer(a)sidley.com');> jhofheimer(a)sidley.com (213) 896-6061 (LA direct) (650) 565-7561 (Palo Alto direct) (323) 708-2405 (cell) -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity <Naming Function Agreement - BB comments on Sidley draft to reflect FOI.docx>

1 0

Chart
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 4, 2016

Aug. 4, 2016

Chart currently being discussed in CWG

1 0

FW: [Iana-ipr] IANA IPR - Proposed resolution of selected legal issues
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 4, 2016

Aug. 4, 2016

All, We have held two length meetings this week to deal with the various issues around the IANA IPR. Late today (at least in Europe), the three operational community IPR group has reviewed a set of proposed key compromises (attached) proposed in order to deal with IANA IPR being housed in the IETF Trust. We will review these key points in the appropriate section of the agenda tomorrow and hopefully make it clear why and how these have been arrived at. Thank-you, Jonathan (together with Greg & Lise who are the other two CWG representatives in the IANA IPR group) From: Jorge Contreras [mailto:contreraslegal@att.net] Sent: 03 August 2016 01:37 To: iana-ipr(a)nro.net Subject: [Iana-ipr] IANA IPR - Proposed resolution of selected legal issues Colleagues, As promised during yesterday's conference call, Josh and I have discussed some of the the legal "sticking points" in the IANA IPR Community Agreement and License Agreement. The attached document reflects our joint proposal to resolve these issues in a manner that, we hope, will be satisfactory to all of the parties. We look forward to discussing these points during tomorrow's call, along with any other issues that the parties wish to raise. Best regards, Jorge Jorge L. Contreras Contreras Legal Strategy LLC 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 Washington, DC 20036 contreraslegal(a)att.net <mailto:contreraslegal@att.net> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately.

4 8