July 2014 - Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Appointment of Chair
by Mary Uduma July 25, 2014

July 25, 2014

All, I support Alissa as Chair. Direct mails from members have not been dropping in my box. I must have checked a wrong box when updating my info on the mailing list. I do get the daily bounce and read your mails indirectly from the manger. I will correct it. Mary Uduma

1 0

London meeting - Expenses
by Alice Jansen July 25, 2014

July 25, 2014

Dear ICG members, ICG members who requested travel support to attend the London meeting (17-18 July 2014) should have received information on how to request incidentals reimbursement. Forms were also included. We invite you to submit your expenses, if any, as soon as possible. Please contact me (off-list) should you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, Best regards Alice

1 0

Proposal: UTC and only UTC, please
by Paul Wilson July 25, 2014

July 25, 2014

Can I propose strongly that we please use UTC, and only UTC, consistently for all timing purposes in the IGC. If UTC is used, then all members can be clear on what this means for them, and there is no need for timezone translations to be provided. (In my experiences, translations do not help, but only risk introducing errors and confusion.) The one exception is for physical meetings where local time should be used of course, along with UTC equivalent for info of remote participants. Thanks. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg(a)apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38

7 6

Re: [Internal-cg] Co-chairs revised draft 2.0
by Joseph Alhadeff July 25, 2014

July 25, 2014

The need for diversity was listed as a desirable characteristic in the description, the way people choose will determine the importance they place on that fact. Jean-Jacques raised the question about the number of co-chairs and whether we have consensus for that change. We need to come to closure on that before we can proceed. With only a minority of members having expressed any opinion I have asked for the definition of a process related to how to determine when online consensus is achieved, but that conversation has not been engaged. The next steps belong to the list. Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson [pwilson(a)apnic.net] Received: Thursday, 24 Jul 2014, 10:36PM To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com] CC: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [jjs(a)dyalog.net] internal-cg(a)icann.org [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Co-chairs revised draft 2.0 Hi all, I share the concern of Jean-Jacques about the constitution of the group of chairs, and the need for diversity (which I spoke to during the meeting). Sorry if I also missed the opportunity to respond while the discussion was underway (due to travel) but I think this is important and we should take the time necessary to gain a fuller consensus on these questions. Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg(a)apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38 On 25 Jul 2014, at 12:15 am, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> wrote: > Jean-Jacques, Colleagues: > > We will need to come to operating agreements related to online process. Specific dates were set for comment. Proposals were made for the change and seconded by the only people who bothered to comment. Requests of reaction to the proposal were made which generated no reply beyond similar reaffirmation. What is our online consensus process if not taking into account comments made? If those who do not agree don't comment I'm not sure how that is to be intuited or factored. There is no humming or "thumbs up" online and I cautioned that silence would be interpreted s assent and still no comments. This needs to be an active and participative group. How would you propose achieving consensus on new proposals/amendments? > > Joe > On 7/24/2014 9:54 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> Hello Joe, >> >> the reason I have not "reconfirmed" is that, as a representative of the ALAC, I cannot agree to the fact that the decision taken in London (3 Co-Chairs) has been modified in several iterations (one Chair, one Chair + Alternate(s), Chair and sub-Chairs...) without full consensus. There is no point in replying to a subsidiary question, such as my candidacy, before questions of principle have been properly dealt with (as things stand today, heavy representation of one citizenship and of business -in various guises- in the Coordination Group, content of our current draft Charter, the "technical" nature of the exercise to be dealt with only or chiefly by the "technical" and business entities, image that an unbalanced Group would give to the global Internet community, the risk that this may contribute to a misrepresentation of the true motivation of the USG, etc). >> >> Because of their non-anecdotal nature, I have referred these points to the ALAC, and am awaiting instructions. >> >> Best regards, >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> >> À: internal-cg(a)icann.org >> Envoyé: Jeudi 24 Juillet 2014 13:51:22 >> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Co-chairs revised draft 2.0 >> >> >> Colleagues - as we March to Noon UTC, I wanted to provide and update on volunteers and one more look at the proposed final paper (attached for your reference). >> >> To date the following information exists on our volunteers and their positions of interest: >> >> >> >> Alissa Cooper – Chair >> >> Keith Drazek – Alternate >> >> Patrik Faltstrom – Alternate >> >> Russ Housley – reconfirmed interest, but position not specified >> >> Jean-Jacques Subrenat – has not reconfirmed. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Joe >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

Handling Comments submitted to CG - Re: Fwd: Comments on Draft charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
by Mohamed El Bashir July 25, 2014

July 25, 2014

Dear All, As our CG Charter is currently up for comments, then there should be a proper comments process with designated channel/s for people to contribute. Richard Hill submitted comments on the charter and because his is not a member of the internal-CG mailing list, his contribution forwarded by ICANN staff and therefore accepted as valid contribution and further discussions evolved . i am concerned that we don't a clear process for receiving/handling comments neither from the wider stakeholders community or our 13 represented communities within CG. The Comment period deadlines need to be clear, e.g the draft charter document nor CG web page dose provide any information about how and when to submit comments. suggesting the following : - internal-CG mailing list to used for internal CG members discussion only, lets avoid copying internal CG mailing list in the communities internal IANA transition mailing lists discussion. we are presenting our communities in CG and cross mailing lists emails will create confusion. - secretariat to create a specific email/mailing list for comments submission to CG ( e.g cg-comments@xxxx ), the submitted contributions can be available online as well. - Comments from represented communities should be sent only via their representatives in CG. - the submitted comments can be reviewed at the end of the comment period or as its been received ( our internal decision), its always better to produce the updated draft document incorporating the accepted comments after reviewing all the submitted comments, the final document to be reviewed and approved by CG . BTW, our last meeting documents (e.g charter, statement,.. ) is published in ICANN web site under "announcements", it need to be added to our CG web pages under "IANA Stewardship" for easy access for everyone. Regards, Mohamed On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Ergys Ramaj <ergys.ramaj(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear all, > > Richard Hill has submitted comments on the draft charter (attached). > > Given that he does not have posting rights to this mailing list, we are > forwarding his original note to ensure delivery. > > Best, > Ergys > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Richard Hill <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> > *Date:* July 23, 2014 at 12:30:01 PM GMT+2 > *To:* "Ianaxfer@Elists. Isoc. Org" <ianaxfer(a)elists.isoc.org>, > "Ianatransition@Icann. Org" <ianatransition(a)icann.org>, ICANN Internal < > internal-cg(a)icann.org> > *Cc:* "Rhill@Alum. Mit. Edu" <rhill(a)alum.mit.edu> > *Subject:* *[Internal-cg] Comments on Draft charter for the IANA > Stewardship Transition Coordination Group* > *Reply-To:* <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> > > Please find attached my comments on the Draft charter for the IANA > Stewardship Transition Coordination Group and some proposed revisions. > > Best, > Richard Hill > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > >

4 3

Chair-Alternate Volunteers
by joseph alhadeff July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

Colleagues: Can I please remind any volunteers to reaffirm that they remain interested in a role and to specifiy which role(s) they are interested in. Thanks Joe

3 3

Primitive notes on scheduling meetings
by Milton L Mueller July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

Colleagues: Refer to this message as the framework for our discussion of meetings. Also refer to Russ's "Timeline Discussion" document, as meetings need to be coordinated with our deadlines and expectations of milestones. 3 types of meetings: - Face to face (F2F) - Conference calls - Email List traffic Proposal: 1. Rely on list traffic remainder of July & August - charter and call for proposals should be finalized via email and list 2. Decision: Next f2f: Istanbul IGF or ICANN LA? or Both? F2F - Istanbul IGF Sept X - to publicize and promote work of the CG CG could make a presentation to a plenary session Or, F2F in ICANN meeting in LA Or, F2F in September (IGF) and October (ICANN) 3. Conf calls November, December, January, February 4. Receipt of proposals by beginning of March 2015? F2F in Dallas, TX near or during IETF 92, Mar 22-27 Or, F2F in APNIC 39 in Japan 24 Feb - 6 March 2015 5. Conf call in April 6. F2F in May 2015 at a location TBA 7. Conf calls in June, July

11 22

Re: [Internal-cg] [ianatransition] Comments on Draft charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
by Milton L Mueller July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

Seun, No, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a process and the coordination group, which has just been formed, is responsible for delibering the final proposal to NTIA. From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 10:00 AM To: Richard Hill Cc: Milton L Mueller; Ianatransition@Icann. Org; ICANN Internal Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Comments on Draft charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Hello Richard, Perhaps the initial question we need to ask is who delivers the final proposal to NTIA. So i am basically asking, has NTIA tasked ICANN or ICG? From my understanding, NTIA has tasked ICANN and in return ICANN is engaging the internet community through the ICG. So ICANN will finally deliver to NTIA, the "read-only" proposal submitted to her by ICG. If you agree with that understanding then, i hope you will agree that your suggested edit does not fall in line Cheers! On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Richard Hill <rhill(a)hill-a.ch<mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch>> wrote: Dear Milton, Unless I am missing something, this group is responding to a request from NTIA. NTIA refers to the "global multi-stakeholder community", so I don't see how the coordination group's charter can use a different term. And what is the "global Internet community"? Is there a definition of that? Who is included? You state: "The IANA functions are being transferred to some set of actors in the Internet community". Doesn't that prejudge the outcome (in particular by ruling out the creation of a new body)? Or is that one of the preconditions set by NTIA? And a meta-question: how will disagreements regarding the group's charter be resolved? By the group itself? Or by the "global multi-stakeholder community", which is presumably what NTIA had in mind? Best, Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>] > Sent: mercredi, 23. juillet 2014 15:12 > To: rhill(a)hill-a.ch<mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch>; Ianatransition@Icann. Org; ICANN Internal > Subject: RE: [ianatransition] Comments on Draft charter for the IANA > Stewardship Transition Coordination Group > > > I would oppose most of the proposed changes in the preamble, > where we define the deliverable of the group. > The changes in the first sentence are mere word-smithing and a > matter of style and I prefer to directness of the original version. > All but one of the other proposed changes in the first paragraph > seem ill-advised to me. The IANA functions are being transferred > to some set of actors in the Internet community; our job is to > ensure that the proposal makes those actors accountable to the > global MS community (whatever that is) but not to transfer them > to the global MS comm as such. Thus, I prefer "Internet > community" to "global MS community." Further, "global MS > community" is a mouthful and a bit of jargon to an ordinary > person; let's just say what we mean. > > I do agree that the final proposal we submit should include > dissenting views. But given that our job is to assist in and > compile an executable proposal it makes no sense to include any > and all proposals that were either not workable nor not supported. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ianatransition-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ianatransition-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ianatransition-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ianatransition-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Richard Hill Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 6:30 AM To: Ianaxfer@Elists. Isoc. Org; Ianatransition@Icann. Org; ICANN Internal Cc: Rhill@Alum. Mit. Edu Subject: [ianatransition] Comments on Draft charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Please find attached my comments on the Draft charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group and some proposed revisions. Best, Richard Hill _______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing list ianatransition(a)icann.org<mailto:ianatransition@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !

2 1

Dropbox invitations are sent out
by Patrik Fältström July 23, 2014

July 23, 2014

All of you that are members of the CG _except_ Kuo Wei-Wu, Elise Gerich and ICANN related support staff should have got your invitations. I have put a few documents in the folder so that you can see that the system works. Reason for not adding everyone immediately is that I have got conflicting lists with participants and will when I get better data send a new mail to the this list that will ask for clarification on: 1. Who is to be on this mailing list, who should have posting rights, and who will only have read access via web (the email archive) 2. Who is to get read/write access to the documents, and who will only have read access via web We already know that everyone should have read access to everything, so that is easy, but the question is where to draw the line so that the work will be manageable. Patrik

5 9

NTIA Speech on IANA Transition
by Drazek, Keith July 23, 2014

July 23, 2014

All, Yesterday, NTIA’s Larry Strickling gave a speech in Washington, DC on the IANA transition. The work of the ICG was referenced. I have excerpted the relevant text below (with the full text at the bottom). Of particular note should be the last paragraph where, for the first time that I’m aware, NTIA went on record saying, “…the accountability issue will and should be addressed before any transition takes place.” The entire speech is worth reading. “Since our announcement, ICANN – working with other Internet organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the Internet Society, and the Regional Internet Registries – has laid out a process for developing the plan based on consultations with stakeholders, which began in Singapore in March. Acting as a facilitator, ICANN earlier this month announced the formation of a coordination group of around 30 individuals representing 13 different Internet communities that will help develop a transition proposal. The group held its first meeting last week in London. The group appears to be off to a good start. It has developed a proposed charter for comment that affirms that it “will conduct itself transparently, consult with a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure that its proposals support the security and stability of the IANA functions.” I am confident that by working out these important issues, this process will strengthen the multistakeholder process and will result in ICANN becoming even more directly accountable to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community. Also this spring, in response to community discussions at its Singapore meeting, ICANN announced a separate process to address ways to improve its overall accountability. Specifically, this process will examine how ICANN can strengthen its accountability mechanisms to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship with NTIA. This important accountability issue will and should be addressed before any transition takes place.” Regards, Keith BEGIN FULL TEXT: July 22, 2014 Keynote Address by Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information “Who governs the Internet? A conversation on securing the multistakeholder process” American Enterprise Institute Washington, D.C. July 22, 2014 --As Prepared for Delivery-- I want to thank the American Enterprise Institute, and in particular, Jeff Eisenach and Shane Tews, for inviting me to address this group today on the important issue of Internet governance. In particular, I want to focus on what has been happening in response to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) announcement<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…> in March that we intend to transition our stewardship role with respect to the Internet domain name system (DNS). At the outset, I want to put your minds at ease. Contrary to some initial concerns that we were giving away the Internet, the response from the global Internet community has been overwhelmingly supportive. The community has organized a multistakeholder process to determine what will happen once the United States government steps out of its current limited role. The discussions to date demonstrate that the community is taking this transition very seriously and is determined to develop a transition plan that will ensure that the Internet DNS continues to support a growing and innovative Internet. However, before I get into the details, let me start by setting the stage. What is NTIA’s role today with respect to the domain name system? And what is changing? This transition is the last step in a process that started 16 years ago when the U.S. government committed to allowing the private sector to take leadership for domain name system management. In 1998, the Department of Commerce designated<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/6_5_98dns.pdf> the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to perform what are known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority or IANA functions. These include assigning Internet protocol, or “IP,” numbers to regional registries who then assign them to Internet service providers. Another function is the maintenance and updating of the root zone file for top-level domain names—the so-called address book for the Internet that is necessary for the routing of Internet communications. In March, we asked ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by my agency in the coordination of the domain name system. Our role is largely procedural in that NTIA verifies that ICANN followed its policies and procedures in processing domain name change requests. Then we pass that request on to Verisign, which implements those changes in the root zone file. We have no operational role and we do not initiate any changes to the root zone file, to the assignment of IP numbers, or the allocation of Internet numbering resources. In making our announcement, we communicated a number of conditions that must apply to the transition. First, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet. This announcement does not change anything about how the domain name system operates today. Before any transition takes place, the businesses, civil society and technical experts of the global Internet community must present a consensus plan that ensures the uninterrupted and stable functioning of the Internet and its present openness. We have not set a deadline for this action. While the current contract<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_an…> with ICANN expires in September 2015, we have repeatedly noted that we can extend the contract for up to four years if the Internet community needs more time to develop a proposal that meets the criteria we have outlined. In the meantime, our current role will not change. Since our announcement, ICANN – working with other Internet organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the Internet Society, and the Regional Internet Registries – has laid out a process for developing the plan based on consultations with stakeholders, which began in Singapore in March. Acting as a facilitator, ICANN earlier this month announced the formation of a coordination group of around 30 individuals representing 13 different Internet communities that will help develop a transition proposal. The group held its first meeting last week in London. The group appears to be off to a good start. It has developed a proposed charter for comment that affirms that it “will conduct itself transparently, consult with a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure that its proposals support the security and stability of the IANA functions.” I am confident that by working out these important issues, this process will strengthen the multistakeholder process and will result in ICANN becoming even more directly accountable to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community. Also this spring, in response to community discussions at its Singapore meeting, ICANN announced a separate process to address ways to improve its overall accountability. Specifically, this process will examine how ICANN can strengthen its accountability mechanisms to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship with NTIA. This important accountability issue will and should be addressed before any transition takes place. We will monitor the progress of both of these work efforts closely and carefully. We remain steadfast in our commitment to preserve and protect the vibrant, free-flowing Internet. We will ensure that the plan submitted to us from the community satisfies our conditions and has been stress-tested to ensure that it can deal with whatever contingencies arise in the future. As anyone paying attention to Internet governance issues knows, our announcement created a lot of discussion and a little bit of controversy. But overall, the international community has applauded the move as it demonstrates in a concrete way the commitment of the United States to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. But here in the United States, some have argued, if it is not broke, do not fix it. However, let me explain why this is the right move at the right time. First, as ICANN has performed the IANA functions over the years, it has matured as an organization and has taken important steps to improve its accountability and transparency as well as its technical competence. Second, as witnessed so strongly in the past several months, international support has continued to grow for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. And as a result, many of the Internet’s key stakeholders, including Internet firms like Google; communications providers like AT&T and Cisco; and civil society groups such as Human Rights Watch and Public Knowledge support this transition as the right course, at the right time. Now I understand that these issues are complex and that any change, even one as planned and as evolutionary as this one, raises questions that need to be answered. We welcome a full and open debate on the transition but at the same time, we should base that discussion on facts, not on myths or ideologies. For example, there is a persistent notion that the United States currently controls the Internet. That is simply not true. The Internet has been, and will continue to be, a decentralized network of networks that relies on cooperation and coordination of many stakeholders for its efficient function. It works today, and it will work after the transition, because the stakeholders are committed to making it work, not because of the IANA functions contract between the United States and ICANN. Some critics have argued that NTIA is proposing to give away United States “property” as if we were proposing that the United States give Alaska back to Russia. We do not own the domain name system and we cannot give away what we do not own. Instead, our contract with ICANN simply designates it to perform the IANA functions. Neither ICANN nor the United States pays anything to each other under this contract. Now that ICANN has demonstrated its ability to perform these functions with the support of the community, there is no longer a need for the United States to designate ICANN to perform these functions and we are not obligated to maintain a contract when it is no longer needed. Another misconception about this transition is that our announcement has emboldened authoritarian governments like Russia to attempt to exert greater influence over Internet policy. To the contrary, our announcement arguably has had the effect of reducing Russia’s influence in the rest of the world for greater government control over the Internet. It is a historical fact that Russia has long argued for more governmental control of the Internet. This is nothing new. It is simply not the case that Russia started to argue for greater governmental control only after our announcement. It has consistently done so for years. What is new is that other countries are rejecting Russia’s arguments and demonstrating support for the multistakeholder model. This was on full display in April when businesses, public interest groups, technical experts and governments met in Brazil for the NetMundial conference on Internet governance. The conference gave all stakeholders the opportunity to participate in a discussion about the future of Internet governance. Those parties came together in two days and agreed that Internet governance should be built on democratic multistakeholder processes that ensure “meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users.” Now as reported in the press, Russia spoke out against the NetMundial consensus. What was not as fully reported was the fact that only one other government, Cuba, joined it in open opposition to the outcomes statement endorsed by the NetMundial participants. We firmly believe that our announcement will help prevent any government or group of governments to take over the domain name system. Our continued stewardship of the IANA functions has been a source of friction and used as an excuse by Russia and others to push for organizations like the International Telecommunication Union to take over the IANA functions. Our announcement takes that argument off the table, and affirms the role of the global Internet community, which is committed to a truly inclusive multistakeholder process for Internet governance. Leading human rights groups agree. In a letter to Congress earlier this year, the Center for Democracy and Technology, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch and others said that the transition “could help thwart government overreach in Internet governance, which would have devastating implications for human rights worldwide.” Another misconception about our announcement is that some countries have used it as an excuse to clamp down on Internet access in their own countries. Nothing about our role with the IANA functions can prevent countries from censoring and restricting access to the Internet within their own borders. Efforts by Russia and others to limit access within their own country to information online and offline began long before our announcement. As the Freedom House noted in its 2013 Internet Freedom report, “Blocking access to information on entire websites, IP addresses, and particular webpages has become the most common means in Russia to restrict user activity on the Internet.” While countries like Russia might want to export this approach worldwide, the Internet’s decentralized and cooperative nature would never allow it to happen. Harvard Law Professor Jonathan Zittrain, an expert in the intersection of policy and technology, summed it up best in the New Republic earlier this year. He wrote, “Any attempt to impose broad-based censorship through domain name assignments would be met with stiff resistance by the operators of domain name registries, and ultimately by the Internet Service Providers who choose to consult those registries for information about what destination each name represents.” Such a move would be strongly resisted by the United States government as well. Because while we seek to transition out of our limited, largely clerical, role with the IANA functions, we are not walking away from ICANN or exiting from the debate over Internet governance. We will continue to be vocal and active players in all Internet governance forums including ICANN. Like other governments, the United States is active in ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). We have been and will continue to be vigorous advocates within the GAC for policies that promote the openness and freedom of the Internet. As one group of stakeholders in the ICANN process, governments have unique power to speak to the public interest when they speak as one based on consensus positions. I want to emphasize this point. The Internet does not respect national boundaries. No one country, no two countries, no ten countries can claim to speak on behalf of the public interest. This fact is reflected in the ICANN bylaws in which governments can provide advice on public policy matters to the board. However, such advice only has true power when it is presented as the consensus advice of governments; in other words, when it reflects a global view and not just the parochial view of a handful of governments. In that context, the idea that governments could enhance their influence within ICANN by changing its rules to allow for a majority vote on policy issues reflects a misunderstanding of the policymaking process at ICANN as well as a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word consensus. The United States would strongly oppose any such move and indeed, any effort by governments to eliminate the requirement of consensus will simply weaken the role of governments within ICANN. Ultimately, ICANN’s multistakeholder process makes it impossible for any one group to dominate the discussions or impose its will. That is the beauty of the multistakeholder process and why it has enabled the Internet to grow and flourish. Domestically, there has been strong support for the multistakeholder approach. Both chambers of Congress voted unanimously in 2012 to “preserve and advance the multistakeholder governance model under which the Internet has thrived.” Now I understand that some lawmakers have concerns about the IANA transition and its potential impact on Internet freedom and openness. I respect those opinions but strongly believe Congressional efforts aimed at delaying this transition would send the wrong message to the rest of the world about our commitment to the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance. The unified message has traditionally been a bulwark against regulatory efforts by foreign authoritarian regimes. It is important that we continue echoing that message and do everything we can to support the multistakeholder approach as the best model for promoting a free and open Internet across the globe. The multistakeholder model allows anyone the opportunity to participate and be heard. That includes all of you in this room today. So I urge all of you to show your support for the transition process by participating in it. We have made it crystal clear that the plan should be developed in an open and transparent manner. Now, there will be coordination out of necessity, and I referred earlier to the coordination group that will do just that. But anyone can provide input into the process. I encourage you to do so. Second, I urge you to continue to demonstrate your support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. As with any consensus-based organization, one will not always be able to get everything one wants. But that is a hallmark of the process. It is not a sign of failure of the process. And finally, continue to work with all of the stakeholders at ICANN to improve the accountability and transparency of the organization. I have made that commitment by personally participating in the two prior Accountability and Transparency Review teams, and I encourage all of you to contribute to the accountability review as it gets organized this summer. Thank you for listening. “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

1 1