March 2017 - Discussion-igo-rc

PLEASE READ for Red Cross topic session: logistics meeting, breakfast and UPDATED Problem Statement
by Mary Wong March 10, 2017

March 10, 2017

Dear all, on behalf of Bruce Tonkin, please take note of the following three points: · Brief meeting to discuss logistics for Saturday morning: Bruce suggests that those GAC, GNSO and Red Cross representatives who are available meet for a quick chat today (Friday 10 March) at 4 p.m., to walk through the Saturday session logistics, e.g. speaking duration, speaking sequence etc. Please meet today (Friday) outside Hall C1.4 at 4 p.m. so that you can also familiarize yourself with the room where the session will be held (note – this room is at the very end of the very large ground floor convention center complex so it will take you a few minutes to get there if you are coming from the AC Bella Sky Hotel). It is fine if you are not available as this is only going to be a quick meeting to go over logistics. · Breakfast on Saturday morning: The GAC and GNSO delegations who will be representing each of the two communities in the facilitated discussions this weekend (for both Red Cross and IGOs) are invited to take their breakfast prior to the Saturday morning meeting in The Treehouse (first floor of the convention center; this is the meals area for the Board and ICANN staff). Breakfast will be available beginning at 06.30 a.m. For those staying off-site, note that the first shuttle from the various other official hotels leave at 07.00: https://meetings.icann.org/sites/default/files/icann58_hotel_shuttles_webve… (the Copenhagen metro system runs 24/7). · Updated documentation (Red Cross): Bruce has reviewed the latest suggestions and updates that were circulated to this list and posted to the Discussion Group wiki. Please find attached some additional updates suggested by Bruce for the Saturday discussion. Staff will post these to the wiki as well as to the agenda on the ICANN meeting schedule for Saturday. Thanks and cheers Mary & Olof

4 3

FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated documentation
by Mary Wong March 9, 2017

March 9, 2017

Dear all, On behalf of Bruce Tonkin, the designated facilitator for the ongoing discussions, please find attached: (1) an updated Problem Statement on IGO acronyms, based on the email discussions to date and including the suggestions made by Jon Passaro and Phil Corwin; (2) an updated Process Framework document, based on participants’ feedback and the call on Red Cross protections that took place this past Monday; and (3) an initial draft of the Briefing Paper on Red Cross protections – all for your review and this group’s continuing discussions. You can also find copies of all three documents on the Discussion Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/hIPRAw. An updated Problem Statement on the topic of Red Cross protections (based on the Monday call), and an initial draft of a Briefing Paper on IGO acronyms, is being prepared and should be available for circulation very shortly. Thanks and cheers Mary and Olof (on behalf of Bruce)

7 8

Updated Red Cross Problem Statement (as of 8 March 2017)
by Mary Wong March 8, 2017

March 8, 2017

Dear all, Thank you for the suggestions and comments. Staff has uploaded a consolidated, updated document that incorporates the edits and comments from the Red Cross, Jorge and Donna to the Discussion Group wiki space, in both “redlined” and clean format: https://community.icann.org/x/hIPRAw. Please note that for this updated version, staff has added a footnote containing relevant excerpts from ICANN’s Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation, and responded to one comment respectively from Stephane and Jorge (shown in the text). We have not made any other substantive changes pending further direction from Bruce and discussion among this group. If we may, we respectfully suggest that any additional comments or suggestions be sent to this list rather than inserted into the document so that everyone is preparing for the weekend discussions from the same version of the document (i.e. the version dated 8 March). Staff will, of course, be sure to note any and every additional comment made between now and the weekend sessions. For your convenient reference, the footnote containing excerpts from ICANN’s Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation reads as follows: Under the ICANN Bylaws, one of ICANN’s Core Values that is to “guide the decisions and actions of ICANN” is stated to be “[s]eeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent” (Section 1.2(b)(ii)). Other Core Values include the following: “[w]hile remaining rooted in the private sector (including business stakeholders, civil society, the technical community, academia, and end users), recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account the public policy advice of governments and public authorities” and “striving to achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of different stakeholders, while also avoiding capture (Section 1.2(b)(vi) and (vii). Section 1.2(c) notes that “The specific way in which Core Values are applied, individually and collectively, to any given situation may depend on many factors that cannot be fully anticipated or enumerated. Situations may arise in which perfect fidelity to all Core Values simultaneously is not possible. Accordingly, in any situation where one Core Value must be balanced with another, potentially competing Core Value, the result of the balancing must serve a policy developed through the bottom-up multistakeholder process or otherwise best serve ICANN's Mission.” In addition, ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation require ICANN to “operate in a manner consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and international conventions and applicable local law and through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets” and to “pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“Bylaws”). Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process.” For all who are traveling to Copenhagen, please allow us to wish you a safe journey, and we look forward to seeing you there. Cheers Mary & Olof From: "Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 12:28 To: "Donna.Austin(a)neustar.biz" <Donna.Austin(a)neustar.biz>, "shankins(a)icrc.org" <shankins(a)icrc.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Cc: "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] AW: [Discussion-igo-rc] Comments on the updated problem statement / List of national legislation on the use and protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems and designations Dear Donna Quick reaction: I would be ok with referring in a footnote the relevant instances where the „global public interest“ is mentioned both in the Articles and the Bylaws. Kind regards Jorge Von: Austin, Donna [mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz] Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. März 2017 17:49 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch>; shankins(a)icrc.org; mary.wong(a)icann.org Cc: discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org Betreff: RE: [Discussion-igo-rc] Comments on the updated problem statement / List of national legislation on the use and protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems and designations Hi Jorge and Stephane Some comments on the problem statement for consideration. Thanks Donna From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 12:42 AM To: shankins(a)icrc.org<mailto:shankins@icrc.org>; mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] Comments on the updated problem statement / List of national legislation on the use and protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems and designations Dear all, building on the comments made by Stéphane, I’m attaching both the briefing paper as well as the problem statement with some additional minor changes and additions. Best regards Jorge Von: discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stephane Hankins Gesendet: Montag, 6. März 2017 21:16 An: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org> Betreff: [Discussion-igo-rc] Comments on the updated problem statement / List of national legislation on the use and protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems and designations Dear Mary, dear Olof, Many thanks for your recent messages and for all the documents prepared and circulated. (1) We are not sure whether the updated problem statement dated 4 March is still open for comments. We are attaching herewith a revised version of the problem statement including our comments and suggestions in track-changes. (2) We are also attaching herewith an updated list of national legislation on the use and protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems and names, as adopted in implementation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols in over 130 States worldwide. With kind regards and looking forward to meeting all members of the discussion group in Copenhagen at the end of this week, Stéphane Stéphane J. Hankins Legal adviser Cooperation and coordination within the Movement International Committee of the Red Cross Tel (direct line): ++0041 22 730 24 19 -----discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:-----discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org> a écrit : ----- A : "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>> De : Mary Wong Envoyé par : discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org> Date : 04/03/2017 22:10 Objet : [Discussion-igo-rc] FOR REVIEW: List of updated documents Dear all, On behalf of Bruce Tonkin, please find attached an updated Problem Statement on the topic of Red Cross identifier protections. With this update, this means that the following documents have now been circulated to this group as of today: • Red Cross – updated Problem Statement (dated today, 4 March 2017) and draft Briefing Paper (circulated on 2 March 2017) • IGOs – Problem Statement (updated and circulated on 2 March 2017) All the above-noted documents, as well as an updated Process Framework Outline (most recently updated by Bruce) can be found on this page on the Discussion Group’s wiki space, marked either “Updated” or “New”: https://community.icann.org/x/hIPRAw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. Staff is continuing to work with Bruce to try to complete a draft Briefing Paper on IGO Acronyms for circulation as soon as we can. Thanks and cheers Mary and Olof _______________________________________________ Discussion-igo-rc mailing list Discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:Discussion-igo-rc@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion-igo-rc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> =============================================================================== The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icrc.org&d=DwMGaQ&c…> This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient (s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender. ===============================================================================

1 0

Comments on the updated problem statement / List of national legislation on the use and protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems and designations
by Stephane Hankins March 7, 2017

March 7, 2017

Dear Mary, dear Olof, Many thanks for your recent messages and for all the documents prepared and circulated. (1) We are not sure whether the updated problem statement dated 4 March is still open for comments. We are attaching herewith a revised version of the problem statement including our comments and suggestions in track-changes. (2) We are also attaching herewith an updated list of national legislation on the use and protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems and names, as adopted in implementation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols in over 130 States worldwide. With kind regards and looking forward to meeting all members of the discussion group in Copenhagen at the end of this week, Stéphane Stéphane J. Hankins Legal adviser Cooperation and coordination within the Movement International Committee of the Red Cross Tel (direct line): ++0041 22 730 24 19 -----discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org a écrit : ----- A : "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org> De : Mary Wong Envoyé par : discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org Date : 04/03/2017 22:10 Objet : [Discussion-igo-rc] FOR REVIEW: List of updated documents Dear all, On behalf of Bruce Tonkin, please find attached an updated Problem Statement on the topic of Red Cross identifier protections. With this update, this means that the following documents have now been circulated to this group as of today: · Red Cross – updated Problem Statement (dated today, 4 March 2017) and draft Briefing Paper (circulated on 2 March 2017) · IGOs – Problem Statement (updated and circulated on 2 March 2017) All the above-noted documents, as well as an updated Process Framework Outline (most recently updated by Bruce) can be found on this page on the Discussion Group’s wiki space, marked either “Updated” or “New”: https://community.icann.org/x/hIPRAw. Staff is continuing to work with Bruce to try to complete a draft Briefing Paper on IGO Acronyms for circulation as soon as we can. Thanks and cheers Mary and Olof _______________________________________________ Discussion-igo-rc mailing list Discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion-igo-rc =============================================================================== The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient (s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender. ===============================================================================

3 3

FOR REVIEW: List of updated documents
by Mary Wong March 4, 2017

March 4, 2017

Dear all, On behalf of Bruce Tonkin, please find attached an updated Problem Statement on the topic of Red Cross identifier protections. With this update, this means that the following documents have now been circulated to this group as of today: · Red Cross – updated Problem Statement (dated today, 4 March 2017) and draft Briefing Paper (circulated on 2 March 2017) · IGOs – Problem Statement (updated and circulated on 2 March 2017) All the above-noted documents, as well as an updated Process Framework Outline (most recently updated by Bruce) can be found on this page on the Discussion Group’s wiki space, marked either “Updated” or “New”: https://community.icann.org/x/hIPRAw. Staff is continuing to work with Bruce to try to complete a draft Briefing Paper on IGO Acronyms for circulation as soon as we can. Thanks and cheers Mary and Olof

1 0

Update on Saturday session in Copenhagen
by Mary Wong March 3, 2017

March 3, 2017

Dear all, Thank you again for highlighting the importance of clearly communicating to the community that the facilitated discussions at ICANN58 are open sessions. Following additional internal coordination and discussion with Bruce and Board members who are interested in attending the Saturday morning session, the best solution seems to be to hold it as a 90-minute session, from 08.30 – 10.00. Starting at 08.30 means we can also minimize the inconvenience for those staying further away from the venue, since the ICANN-provided shuttles do not start running until 07.00. Please therefore note the new time on your personal meeting schedules – we have put in a request to make sure that the new time, and the fact that it is an open session for all to attend and observe, appears on the published meeting schedule so the change should be processed soon. The location (Hall C1.4) remains unchanged. As Bruce noted (below), this Saturday morning session will focus on the topic of Red Cross identifier protections, while the Sunday evening session will focus on the topic of IGO acronyms protection. Staff will work with Bruce to prepare proposed meeting agendas for both sessions. Thanks and cheers Mary (on behalf of ICANN staff supporting this process) From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 04:06 To: "Jonathan.PASSARO(a)oecd.org" <Jonathan.PASSARO(a)oecd.org> Cc: "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "psc(a)vlaw-dc.com" <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org>, "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org>, "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Saturday morning on Red Cross and Sunday evening on IGOs. Sent from my iPhone On 2 Mar 2017, at 7:05 pm, "Jonathan.PASSARO(a)oecd.org<mailto:Jonathan.PASSARO@oecd.org>" <Jonathan.PASSARO(a)oecd.org<mailto:Jonathan.PASSARO@oecd.org>> wrote: Dear Mary, First of all, many thanks again for organising these discussions. Second of all, unless I am mistaken, we still have not heard any news about which discussions (IGO / Red Cross) will happen on which day, or if both meeting times are intended to touch on both sets of issues. I would be grateful for any clarification on this, or at least an indication on when we will have an idea about how the discussions will be scheduled. All best, Jon From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: jeudi 2 mars 2017 02:24 To: Mary Wong; Phil Corwin; Melissa King; bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>; Tanzanica S. King Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Thanks, Mary. Understandable. Please ensure there are ample supplies of caffeine (before) and perhaps wine (after). Regards— J. From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 19:16 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org<mailto:melissa.king@icann.org>>, "bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>" <bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>, "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>>, "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org<mailto:tanzanica.king@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Hello, James, Phil and everyone, I’m afraid that, because the two session slots were proposed only after substantial consultation amongst support staff for the Board, GAC and GNSO as well as reviewing the meeting schedules for all three groups, there really does not appear to be any other time available for us to be able to reschedule the Sunday evening session. We understand that this will make for a very long day for everyone, and will add to the pressure and demands of a packed meeting schedule. Hopefully the fact that we will likely be able to provide refreshments for the Sunday evening participants will go some small way toward alleviating the stress of a very long day. Thank you all for understanding, and thank you all for your dedication in engaging in this process. Cheers Mary (on behalf of the ICANN staff supporting this discussion) From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 19:25 To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org<mailto:melissa.king@icann.org>>, "bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>" <bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>, "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>>, "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org<mailto:tanzanica.king@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen I share Phil’s concern about the time, mainly for the first reason. Sunday is going to be a very long day…. From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 18:06 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org<mailto:melissa.king@icann.org>>, "bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>" <bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>, "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>>, "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org<mailto:tanzanica.king@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Mary: On the timing of the Sunday session, I emailed you separately yesterday inquiring whether it was in any way feasible to move up its start time. My inquiry was based on two things. First, for many of us (like me) that day begins with an 8 am meeting and lots of substantive work all day, so starting a complex two hour discussion 10.5 hours after the day began is pushing things a bit in terms of sustained energy and focus. Second, that is the night of the Verisign reception and the last bus departs at 7:30. I realize that advancing the start may not be feasible but it doesn’t hurt to ask. Best, Philip 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: discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 6:39 PM To: James M. Bladel; Melissa King; bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>; Tanzanica S. King Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Hi James – Session 2 (Sunday 18.30 – 20.30) has been put on the schedule as an open session. For the Saturday session, we’re still sorting out a few things internally because of the logistics around getting to the venue early, a very early breakfast for the participants, and the overall rule about not starting before 08.30 a.m. We’re consulting with Bruce and others and hope to have everything confirmed by tomorrow. There will be a session for sure, though. Cheers Mary From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 18:35 To: Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org<mailto:melissa.king@icann.org>>, "bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>" <bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>, "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org<mailto:tanzanica.king@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Hi Melissa & Tanzi – Any updates on this? I still don’t see these sessions on the main schedule. Thank you, J. From: Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org<mailto:melissa.king@icann.org>> Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 23:37 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, "bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>" <bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>, "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Ok, will do! I’ve sent another message copying both Mary (again) and Tanzanica – between the three of us, we will get this sorted. Best, Melissa From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 9:29 PM To: Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org<mailto:melissa.king@icann.org>>, "bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>" <bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>, "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Thanks, Melissa. Appreciate any assistance you can provide. Please let me or Mary know if you need anything from us. Thanks— J. From: <discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org<mailto:melissa.king@icann.org>> Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 23:27 To: "bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>" <bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>, "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Hi Bruce, I have the same information you do. There has certainly been no request from the Board to make these private. In fact, these are not considered “Board sessions,” but rather sessions that some Board members have been specifically asked to attend, with others welcome as well. The Board Ops team and I I did not “book the room” for these sessions, if you will, so I had no control over how they are listed. Here’s what I did do related to these sessions: I worked with you and Mary to plan them for times that work for all parties, and I also offered to make breakfast available to the formal participants from the GNSO and the GAC for the early meeting – that group can get breakfast with the Board that morning to make it easier for all of you, since the meeting starts so early. I did make clear that we cannot invite everyone who shows up for the meeting to get breakfast – only the formal participants, which we are sure we can accommodate. This was discussed when Mary let us know the sessions would be “open,” which again, I had no opinion on, nor did I have any direction on this from the Board. The Board members who will attend are responding to a request to do so, and did not comment on how the sessions would be run. That is the sum total of my involvement in planning these sessions. I am copying Mary Wong here. From what I understand, Mary believes these sessions to be open as well – I recall her saying as much at one point in our planning. I am not sure why they are not appearing that way on the calendar, but again, I am not in any way “in charge” of booking these sessions so will defer to Mary. Thanks and best, Melissa From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 9:15 PM To: "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>> Cc: Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org<mailto:melissa.king@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Hello James, My understanding is that the sessions are intended to be open and public, and should appear on the public agenda. I am not aware of any request to make them private from either the GAC or the Board. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2017 4:12 PM To: discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org> Subject: [Discussion-igo-rc] Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Thomas et al – GNSO Staff has recently informed me that our planned sessions in Copenhagen are currently marked “private”, and as a result do not appear on the published main calendar. I’m not sure if this is an oversight, or was something requested by the GAC or the Board, but please be aware that this isn’t an acceptable arrangement for the GNSO community. In fact, our ability to participate in these sessions and to speak on behalf of all stakeholders in our community, is predicated on these sessions being open and public. I hope that you understand and agree. For disclosure, I will be sending a note to Melissa King (Board Operations) to formally request that these sessions be open, and added to the main calendar. If you share this view, I encourage you to respond as well. Have a good weekend – J. James Bladel GNSO Chair ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsig…> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14035 - Release Date: 02/27/17

2 1

Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen
by James M. Bladel March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Thanks, Melissa. Appreciate any assistance you can provide. Please let me or Mary know if you need anything from us. Thanks— J. From: <discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 23:27 To: "bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au" <bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Hi Bruce, I have the same information you do. There has certainly been no request from the Board to make these private. In fact, these are not considered “Board sessions,” but rather sessions that some Board members have been specifically asked to attend, with others welcome as well. The Board Ops team and I I did not “book the room” for these sessions, if you will, so I had no control over how they are listed. Here’s what I did do related to these sessions: I worked with you and Mary to plan them for times that work for all parties, and I also offered to make breakfast available to the formal participants from the GNSO and the GAC for the early meeting – that group can get breakfast with the Board that morning to make it easier for all of you, since the meeting starts so early. I did make clear that we cannot invite everyone who shows up for the meeting to get breakfast – only the formal participants, which we are sure we can accommodate. This was discussed when Mary let us know the sessions would be “open,” which again, I had no opinion on, nor did I have any direction on this from the Board. The Board members who will attend are responding to a request to do so, and did not comment on how the sessions would be run. That is the sum total of my involvement in planning these sessions. I am copying Mary Wong here. From what I understand, Mary believes these sessions to be open as well – I recall her saying as much at one point in our planning. I am not sure why they are not appearing that way on the calendar, but again, I am not in any way “in charge” of booking these sessions so will defer to Mary. Thanks and best, Melissa From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 9:15 PM To: "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org> Cc: Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Hello James, My understanding is that the sessions are intended to be open and public, and should appear on the public agenda. I am not aware of any request to make them private from either the GAC or the Board. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2017 4:12 PM To: discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org Subject: [Discussion-igo-rc] Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Thomas et al – GNSO Staff has recently informed me that our planned sessions in Copenhagen are currently marked “private”, and as a result do not appear on the published main calendar. I’m not sure if this is an oversight, or was something requested by the GAC or the Board, but please be aware that this isn’t an acceptable arrangement for the GNSO community. In fact, our ability to participate in these sessions and to speak on behalf of all stakeholders in our community, is predicated on these sessions being open and public. I hope that you understand and agree. For disclosure, I will be sending a note to Melissa King (Board Operations) to formally request that these sessions be open, and added to the main calendar. If you share this view, I encourage you to respond as well. Have a good weekend – J. James Bladel GNSO Chair

6 12

Problem Statement, and additional thoughts/notes
by James M. Bladel March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Thomas, and All - First, thank you for your contributions to prepare for our facilitated discussion in Copenhagen. On behalf of the GNSO, I apologize for the silence on our side to date, but I can assure you that we have been extensively discussing this matter, both at the Council level and among our smaller group. We have concerns regarding the Problem Statement, in that we’re not convinced it is currently fit-for-purpose and we hope that we can flesh this out some on our call next week. We’re also very keen to see the briefing material that is being prepared by Bruce to assist our discussions. It may be that this duplicates much of the language in the Problem Statement as it is currently drafted. Attached for your information and consideration is an amended version of the Problem Statement document, along with our comments and edits. Additionally, we’ve attached a short list of questions and suggestions that we think should be clarified on our first call. We also welcome the opportunity to discuss your comments below regarding the ‘global public interest’. While we don’t necessarily disagree with the sentiment, we do believe it is important that the term ‘global public interest’ as it is described in the ICANN bylaws is not misconstrued. To that end we refer to the relevant bylaws here: The Bylaws refer to the “global public interest” as a Core Value, requiring ICANN to: Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent Additionally, ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation state: the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article IV hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“Bylaws”). Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process. The Bylaws do require ICANN to duly consider the “public policy” input of governments, but determinations regarding the global public interest are firmly rooted in the multistakeholder process, of which both the GNSO and the GAC are part. Thank you, and we are looking forward to our call next week. J.

5 11