New subject: lac-discuss-en Digest, Vol 91, Issue 12

March 4, 2016


      I also welcome the decision of the procedure, the organization and the
designated person. A good result of your action to diversify the presence
of the poorest organizations in the Caribbean. This will foster the
emergence of technology across Haiti. Moreover, Derisma Queslin will live
up to respond to requirements that will be uttered by the community all
times an upgrade is considered by the group leader, it is not new, it has a
capacity to interact , adapt, he holds a Master's certificate in computer
science at universty ESIH, It has been a member of AUF


JEAN BERNARD MARCELLUS, HAITI

2016-03-03 20:47 GMT-08:00 <lac-discuss-en-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org>:
...
Send lac-discuss-en mailing list submissions to
        lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        lac-discuss-en-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
        lac-discuss-en-owner@atlarge-lists.icann.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of lac-discuss-en digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Senate Letter to ICANN Chairman re China (Ron Baione)
---------- Message transféré ----------
From: Ron Baione <ron.baione@yahoo.com>
To: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org
Cc: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org,
lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 20:44:26 -0800
Subject: [lac-discuss-en] Senate Letter to ICANN Chairman re China
The Senate Letter to the ICANN Chairman re China:
"UNITED STATES SENATE
Sen. Ted Cruz Press Office
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Cruz Press Office: 202-228-7561
Rachael Slobodien: rachael_slobodien@cruz.senate.gov
Phil Novack: phil_novack@cruz.senate.gov
March 3, 2016
Cruz, Lankford, and Lee Raise New Concerns About ICANN’s Relationship with
Authoritarian China
Senators send letter to ICANN Chairman Dr. Stephen Crocker
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), James Lankford
(R-Okla.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) today sent a letter to Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Chairman Dr. Stephen
Crocker, outlining new concerns that ICANN may have a direct operational
relationship with the Chinese government and its potential implications for
an Internet transition that ICANN is expected to approve in Morocco next
week.
Today’s letter to Dr. Crocker follows a letter Cruz, Lankford, and Lee
sent to ICANN’S CEO Fadi Chehadé last month. The letter to Mr. Chehadé
stated serious concerns and requested information regarding his involvement
with the World Internet Conference, organized by the Chinese government, a
regime notorious for its censorship of the Internet and criminalization of
forms of online speech.
“Last month, we sent you a letter stating our concerns regarding ICANN CEO
Fadi Chehadé’s participation in the Chinese-government-sponsored World
Internet Conference,” the senators wrote today. “Mr. Chehadé’s
participation resulted in an agreement to co-chair a high-level advisory
committee for the conference, which could make ICANN complicit in the
Chinese censorship regime. Since sending our letter, additional evidence
has come to light suggesting that ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese
government may be a systemic problem within the organization itself and not
limited to a single individual.”
Read the latest letter from Sens. Cruz, Lankford, and Lee to ICANN
officials in its entirety here and below:
March 3, 2016
Dr. Stephen D. Crocker
Chairman of the Board of Directors
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 30
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Dear Dr. Crocker,
Last month, we sent you a letter stating our concerns regarding ICANN CEO
Fadi Chehadé’s participation in the Chinese-government-sponsored World
Internet Conference. Mr. Chehadé’s participation resulted in an agreement
to co-chair a high-level advisory committee for the conference, which could
make ICANN complicit in the Chinese censorship regime. Since sending our
letter, additional evidence has come to light suggesting that ICANN’s
relationship with the Chinese government may be a systemic problem within
the organization itself and not limited to a single individual.
A review of the past few years reveals that ICANN may have a direct
operational relationship with the Chinese government. As you know, in April
2013, ICANN hosted its 46th public meeting in Beijing. According to your
remarks, one of the hosts of ICANN’s meeting was Mr. Shang Bing, Vice
Minister of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. As you
must be aware, the Chinese government’s Ministry of Industry and
Information Technology (MIIT) is not only a central component of China’s
censorship regime, but it has pressured American companies such as IBM,
Microsoft, and Apple to reveal their products’ proprietary source code to
ministry officials. Just recently, MIIT issued new regulations that will
restrict foreign companies, including those based in the United States,
from sharing digital content ranging from text to games to video.
Nevertheless, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé stated in his opening remarks, “China
is going to be a central part of where the Internet community, as we know
it, is heading. And, therefore, in my clear discussions with the local
responsible ministers, that from ICANN’s standpoint, engagement with China
is not an option. It is not an option. If we do not engage with China at
every level of our community, we, frankly, lose a part of our global
legitimacy. We must and we will. And that’s why we’re here today.”
In addition, ICANN announced during the meeting that it would open its
first global engagement office in Beijing, which would be undertaken by the
China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC)—an organization that has
not only helped implement Chinese censorship but is led by the Director of
the Bureau of Telecommunications Regulation which is a part of MIIT.At the
time of the announcement, Madame HU Qiheng, Honorary Chairman of CNNIC’s
Steering Committee stated that the “ICANN Engagement Center-Beijing would
be not only a new link for ICANN to better develop and promote China's
Internet community, but also a new platform for China's Internet community
to better contribute to the development of the global Internet.”
The establishment of an official ICANN office in Beijing is extremely
concerning and should have raised red flags within the United States
Government. Especially considering CNNIC’s statement that it would “invest
necessary human and material resources in the construction of the center
and actively carry out its functions including the coordination,
communication, as well as operation in order to provide effective,
long-term and stable services for ICANN to serve China’s Internet industry.”
To further put this decision into context, at the time of the
announcement, Freedom House, an independent watchdog organization dedicated
to the expansion of freedom and democracy around the world, ranked China in
their report “Freedom on the Net 2013” just above Iran and Cuba on Internet
freedom.  And since ICANN opened its Engagement Center in Beijing, China’s
record on Internet freedom has declined and was ranked last in the world in
2015.
The following year, in June 2014, just three months after the Obama
Administration announced its intent to transition key Internet domain name
functions away from United States oversight, ICANN held its 50th public
meeting in London, England. During the meeting, ICANN invited Lu Wei,
Minister of the Cyberspace Administration of China, to provide an address
during the opening ceremony. According to his official resume, Lu Wei also
serves as the vice chair of the Central Propaganda Department.”  The
Chinese government also announced in December 2014 that Lu Wei would become
the new chairperson of CNNIC—the very organization that had claimed to be
operating ICANN’s global engagement office in Beijing. Given Wei’s central
role within the Chinese government, it is not surprising that he supports
the Obama Administration’s plan to end United States Government oversight
and further globalize ICANN.
Repeating a similar pattern to the 2013 meeting in Beijing, ICANN once
again chose to further align itself with the Chinese government.  During
the London meeting, ICANN announced that it had signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with the China Academy of Telecommunication Research (CATR),
which is a unit of MIIT and is the official think tank of the Chinese
government.  In the announcement, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé stated, “This
marks another milestone in ICANN's globalization efforts after we
established our first engagement center in Beijing last April….This
partnership is a testament to how China—a country with over one fifth of
the global Internet population and a vibrant Internet industry—can engage
and contribute in the ICANN global community.”  A few of the stated
objectives of the Memorandum of Understanding are to promote the Chinese
community’s participation in ICANN, align academic and public research, and
improve ICANN’s communication with Chinese communities and deepen the
understanding of ICANN by the Chinese government, media and, industry.
This history leads us to a more recent issue that is currently under
consideration by ICANN. XYZ.COMLLC (“XYZ”), a U.S. based registry operator,
has submitted a Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) request to ICANN
seeking approval to become the first foreign registry to operate within
China. If ICANN’s Board of Directors approves this request, it will allow
XYZ to become a complicit actor with China’s censorship regime.
For example, XYZ will have to comply with Article 27 of Chinese Internet
domain name regulations, China’s Constitution, and all other applicable
laws, rules, and administrative regulations pertaining to Internet domain
names. According to Article 27, any domain name registered or used by any
organization or individual shall not include content that “are against the
basic principles prescribed in the Constitution; jeopardize national
security, leak state secrets, intend to overturn the government or disrupt
of state integrity; harm national honor and national interests; instigate
hostility or discrimination between different nationalities, or disrupt the
national solidarity; violate the state religion policies or propagate cult
and feudal superstition; spread rumors, disturb public order or disrupt
social stability; spread pornography, obscenity, gambling, violence,
homicide, terror or instigate crimes; insult, libel against others and
infringe other people’s legal rights and interests; or other contents
prohibited in laws, rules and administrative regulations.”
Furthermore, XYZ will also have to comply with Article 34 and Article 35
of the Chinese Internet domain name regulations. Article 34 states that,
“[i]n case the domain name is in violation of the provisions and the
relevant laws and regulations,” XYZ “shall delete it and notify the domain
name holder in written form.” Additionally, Article 35 states the
requirement that “Domain Name Registry and Domain Name Registrars have the
obligation of conducting website inspection in concert with the national
governing departments, and request to suspend or cease the resolution
service of the domain name concerned.”
There is additional concern within ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting
Organization (“Business Constituency”), the business constituency group
which represents commercial users of the Internet within ICANN. The
Business Constituency has raised concerns that aspects of XYZ’s RSEP are
too vague and need additional clarification. For example, the term “Chinese
registrant” is too broad and could be interpreted to allow the
extraterritorial application of Chinese censorship law to include residents
of Hong Kong, a special administrative region within the People’s Republic
of China.  The Business Constituency also emphasized that
“government-sponsored censorship of domain names for political purposes
undermines a stable Internet ecosystem that promotes end-user confidence as
a safe place to conduct business. It also limits the free flow of data and
information, on which business users of the Internet rely in delivering
services to end users.”
We know that XYZ will comply with Chinese law.  Indeed, it affirmed this
commitment in its initial RSEP, which was filed with ICANN on October 9,
2015. Even though this RSEP was pulled at a later date, it described how a
registry operator must comply with foreign laws. In the RSEP, XYZ stated,
“if we receive a specific notification that the registration of the name is
illegal in China, we will treat it the same as we treat any notification
from any other government that a registration is illegal. Specifically, we
will cancel the registration pursuant to our anti-abuse policies which
allow us to‘cancel, ...any registration or transaction ... to comply with
any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law
enforcement, or any dispute resolution process.’ This is identical to our
current treatment of complaints from governments about illegal domain name
registrations.”
It is deeply troubling that ICANN would put registry operators in a
position of becoming an actor within the Chinese censorship regime. There
is concern that this action could be an example of ICANN’s desire to build
a close relationship with the Chinese government which could continue to
move in a troubling direction once the United States Government ends its
oversight. These concerns were recently confirmed by a member of the
Non-Connected Party House’s (NCPH) Commercial Stakeholder Group who
participated in a meeting with ICANN in February 2016 and stated, “The
ICANN board wants to engage more with China and India following the IANA
transition, which somewhat explains the board’s decision not to take action
against Chehadé.”
In order to gain a better understanding of the potential implications of
ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government and its impact on the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition, we request that you
provide a response to the following questions as soon as possible, but no
later than 9:00 a.m. on Friday, March 11, 2016.
1.      Please state when you first learned that ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé
had agreed to co-chair a high-level advisory committee for the Chinese
government’s state-sponsored World Internet Conference.
a.      Please provide a yes-or-no answer to the following question: Did
you agree with Fadi Chehadé’s decision to co-chair a high level advisory
committee for the World Internet Conference?
b.      Did ICANN’s Board of Directors approve of Fadi Chehadé’s decision
to co-chair a high level advisory committee for the World Internet
Conference?
c.       Did any member of ICANN’s Board of Directors ask Fadi Chehadé to
step down from his position as CEO and President of ICANN?
d.      Please provide the meeting minutes, attendance records, and all
other documents associated with ICANN’s Board of Directors’ meeting(s) with
Fadi Chehadé in which his commitment to co-chair a high level advisory
committee for the World Internet Conference was discussed.
2.      Please provide a yes-or-no answer to the following question: It
has been reported that ICANN’s Board of Directors took no action against
Fadi Chehadé because “[t]he view eventually prevailed that no reactive
action should be taken lest China lose face.” Did ICANN refrain from taking
action against Fadi Chehadé due to concern that China may lose face?
3.      Fadi Chehadé has been called on to recuse himself from all
discussions and negotiations pertaining to the IANA transition given a
confirmed personal conflict of interest with the Chinese government. Has
ICANN taken any action to ensure that Fadi Chade will recuse himself from
the IANA transition? If no, please describe the reason for ICANN’s inaction.
4.      During ICANN’s 46th public meeting in Beijing, Fadi Chehadé
stated, “China is going to be a central part of where the Internet
community, as we know it, is heading. And, therefore, in my clear
discussions with the local responsible ministers, that from ICANN’s
standpoint, engagement with China is not an option. It is not an option. If
we do not engage with China at every level of our community, we, frankly,
lose a part of our global legitimacy. We must and we will. And that’s why
we’re here today.” Do you agree with the statement that ICANN will lose
part of its global legitimacy if it does not engage with China at every
level of the community?
5.      When ICANN announced it was opening its first global engagement
office in Beijing, the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC)
stated that it would “invest necessary human and material resources in the
construction of the center and actively carry out its functions including
the coordination, communication, as well as operation in order to provide
effective, long-term and stable services for ICANN to serve China’s
Internet industry.” Please provide yes-or-no answers to the following
questions:
a.      Did CNNIC invest human and material resources in the construction
of ICANN’s global engagement office in Beijing?
b.      Is CNNIC actively carrying out the functions, coordination,
communication, or operation of ICANN’s global engagement office in Beijing?
c.       Do any individuals associated with CNNIC or the Chinese
government have a formal or informal role in ICANN’s global engagement
office in Beijing?
6.      ICANN currently lists the address for each hub office and
engagement office on its website except for the engagement office in
Beijing. Please provide the address of ICANN’s engagement office in Beijing.
7.      When Lu Wei, Minister of the Cyberspace Administration of China
and Incumbent Vice Minister of the Central Propaganda Department, assumed
the role of the Chairperson of CNNIC in December 2014, did ICANN take any
action to ensure that its global engagement office in Beijing was not being
used to carry out censorship for the Chinese government?
8.      Do you agree with the Business Constituency’s concern that the
term “Chinese registrant” in XYZ’s RSEP is too broad and could be
interpreted to allow the extraterritorial application of Chinese censorship
law to include residents of Hong Kong?
9.      Do you agree that approval of XYZ’s RSEP will place XYZ in a
position of having to comply with government-sponsored censorship of domain
names for political purposes, which will undermine a stable Internet
ecosystem?
10.  A member of the Non-Connected Party House’s (NCPH) Commercial
Stakeholder Group recently stated, “The ICANN board wants to engage more
with China and India following the IANA transition, which somewhat explains
the board’s decision not to take action against Chehadé.”
a.      Please describe ICANN’s plans for engagement with China following
a potential IANA transition.
b.      Did ICANN’s post IANA transition plans with China play any role in
the decision not to take action against Fadi Chehadé?
We appreciate your cooperation in this very important matter and look
forward to your response at the stated date and time.  Please contact Sean
McLean (Senator Cruz), Sarah Seitz (Senator Lankford), and Christy Knese
(Senator Lee) of our staffs if there are any questions regarding this
request.
Sincerely,
[Signed by Senators Cruz, Lee and Lankford]
cc: Mr. Fadi Chehadé, Chief Executive Officer, Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers
The Honorable Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce"
Ron
------------------------------
* From: * crg@isoc-cr.org <crg@isoc-cr.org>;
* To: * <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>;
* Cc: * LACRALO list <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>;
lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org <
lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org>;
* Subject: * Re: [lac-discuss-en] SPACE LAC invitation & schedule
* Sent: * Fri, Feb 26, 2016 5:38:43 PM
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
Subject: Re: SPACE LAC invitation & schedule
from: crg@isoc-cr.org
On Monday I guess?
I can not read QR ...... with my eyes yet.
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current offset UTC: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On February 26, 2016, at 11:13 Scartezini Vanda wrote:
...
Remember that there will be remote participation as all other session
during ICANN meeting !!
[cid:325DC01B-5F5B-4936-9CF0-44D2E5172EE7]
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.
_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-es mailing list
lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
http://www.lacralo.org
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
http://www.lacralo.org
[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/7c6be9844f.html
--]]
_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

Re: [lac-discuss-en] lac-discuss-en Digest, Vol 91, Issue 12

marcellus Jean Bernard

Vanda Scartezini

tags

participants (2)