<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><div>Hi Bruce -</div><div><div><br></div><div>To your note, some information that I hope addresses the issue raised about ICP-1. I reviewed with our legal team the question regarding the reference to ICP–1 in ICANN's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Supplement Appendix on appeal in the matter relating to the .IR, .SY and .KP ccTLDs. In short, ICANN has no intention of referencing ICP–1 in our appellate brief or elsewhere in this matter. </div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p class=""></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">As to some history on this matter - prior to the adoption of the ccNSO's Framework of Interpretation, and the related ICANN Board resolution in June 2015 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-06-25-en#1.d" class=""><span class="">https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-06-25-en#1.d</span></a>), all of the papers in this matter at the District Court level had already been completed, and ICANN had already prevailed. In ICANN’s successful Motions to Quash the seven writs of attachment at the District Court level, ICANN did reference ICP-1 (see <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ben-haim-motion-to-quash-writs-1-29jul14-en.pdf" class=""><span class="">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ben-haim-motion-to-quash-writs-1-29jul14-en.pdf</span></a>). Following that filing, however, members of the ccNSO raised some concerns over ICANN’s reference to ICP-1. </p><p class="MsoNormal">Upon hearing those concerns, in October 2014 during the ICANN Public meeting in Los Angeles, members of ICANN’s legal department met with Becky Burr and Keith Davidson to discuss the issue and understand the specific concerns. During that meeting, all agreed that ICANN will not rely on ICP-1 in the future, but agreed that it would not be useful to remove the existing reference to ICP-1 in the documents that had already been filed with the Court. By including it as part of Appendix on appeal, ICANN was merely providing the Court of Appeals with a complete record of the District Court proceedings (which appellants had failed to do) and included the documents and exhibits that were before the District Court, regardless of whether ICANN intended to cite to or rely on the documents in the Court of Appeals proceedings. Just to reiterate, we will not be referencing ICP-1 in our appellate papers. </p><p class="MsoNormal">I'd also like to update on the actions taken with regards to the references to ICP-1 on the ICANN and IANA websites. First, we've removed the link to ICP-1 under the “Policy, Procedures and Guides” section on <a href="http://www.iana.org/domains/root" class=""><span class="">www.iana.org/domains/root</span></a>. Second, we've archived the version of ICP-1 that the now deleted, above-referenced link took users to on ICANN’s website. See <a href="http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=X-2BoDL0DLC0vU1pzGK3Ew3MnoKvcm5UDRM2ixYWg0jqzeUW-2BhuOm2BeKDG8ngCZzjG4euJawonuToQ4LEhgsG7A-3D-3D_H07ALFOi-2B9Dd37-2FBDYnYURtXI0-2FxInFU8-2BRg8QGbkusrzxry73dUO-2FR8G1B3sIsOMEsKztf9oOb5TrKAzpvuyUUQsxFhna0CKEgECVN82iriql4USDDs3TJx4OIPFm9qifqJKse5wZolQNHGEV2SU4S51eWe3tc-2FJYjRMh9YfoOOWuXZAD8ejYk8IPs2kZfSHvdSzHpRRr-2BeSZ-2BjnqUfuTAYiR62pqOwBtDXEsWdBSUGA3GD1kB8qWc8yQtmjdsyj6ZTBJuBOPwwE-2Bv7-2FwnuNS0wKisPG2nSp5uOoHKGSgg2lttyMXDBbm3WOwy-2FZwkJZwlAIoo-2FxLp7-2F7WCETcbVMsbrlvxfG7yvo5C3-2FH1m0ueA9XIsl9RRJO-2ByPpx-2Ftg0dgvzvqj8FpXs0pXwGJSRewGGHc76tVRf5-2BES18cTeaa7BFxHh-2BzQ-2FJ8pZ8RCuQmu8xeE0p6Lc6ZzwtoKbtxZs6bOHGT1ifLI2F8bAyc5REUIu7kBv9V-2BH7sXbVSlfpkw" class=""><span class="">http://archive.icann.org/en/policies/icp-1-archived.htm</span></a>. Third, we are in the process of archiving any other versions of ICP-1 that reside on either website, as well as the <span class="" style="text-align: -webkit-center; widows: 1; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">CCTLD </span><span class="" style="text-align: -webkit-center; widows: 1; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">News Memo #1 (23 October 1997), and expect that archiving work to be completed by Friday, 25 September 2015</span>. Fourth, we are also in the process of ensuring that the links to ICP-1 mentioned in past redelegation reports are redirected to the archived version of ICP-1, and we are endeavoring to have that also completed by Friday, 25 September 2015.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Finally, I also wanted to share what I understand has transpired since the 25 June 2015 Board resolution regarding the recommendations to the Board about the Framework of Interpretation. Following the Board Resolution, in July 2015 the ccNSO designated Becky Burr and Keith Davidson as an advisory team to assist ICANN with the implementation process of the FOI recommendations. Keith contacted ICANN on that same day and suggested a face-to-face meeting in Los Angeles in September 2015 to discuss the planning for the implementation. In anticipation of the meeting, in early August 2015, ICANN sent to the ccNSO advisory team a request for clarification of eight points related to the recommendations, which was acknowledged by Keith in early September. The meeting between the ccNSO advisory team and members of ICANN’s IANA Department took place 16 September as planned. At that meeting the teams reviewed the questions and the advisory team helped ICANN better understand how to interpret certain sections of the recommendations. At this time, ICANN is working on drafting a proposed implementation plan.</p><p class="MsoNormal">I hope this addresses any concerns. Please let me know if you need anything further on this.</p></div></div></span><div>Kind regards, </div><div><br></div><div>Theresa</div></div><div><br></div><div>On 9/22/15 1:39 AM, "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of Bruce Tonkin" <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of <a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>> wrote:</div><div><br></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><div>Hello Nigel,</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for the background.</div><div><br></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><div> The Framework of Interpretation (a guid to the construction of applicable ccTLD policy) was eventually formally adopted by the ICANN Board earlier this year.</div></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes - I did vote for this resolution. Here is the text:</div><div><br></div><div>" Whereas, the ccNSO Council established the Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) in March 2011 with the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to develop guidance to ICANN on how to implement existing policies and guidelines applicable to the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs.</div><div><br></div><div>Whereas, in accordance with the charter, and after a long and intense consultation process of the FOIWG, community and others, the Framework of Interpretation recommendations were finalized in June 2014 at the London ICANN Public Meeting and submitted to the ccNSO and GAC to seek their acceptance of the recommendations.</div><div><br></div><div>Whereas, the ccNSO Council approved the Framework of Interpretation at its meeting on 11 February 2015.</div><div><br></div><div>Whereas, while the GAC has not formally approved the document, it considered the FOIWG's efforts as demonstrated in its 11 February 2015 Communiqué, and has not identified any recommendations that it does not support.</div><div><br></div><div>Whereas, implementation of the recommendations will benefit from community input, including the ccNSO as well as consultation on an implementation plan.</div><div><br></div><div>Resolved (2015.06.25.07), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to develop an implementation plan for the recommendations for community consideration through a public comment, and to implement the plan when finalized.</div><div><br></div><div>Resolved (2015.06.25.08), the Board requests the ccNSO to appoint as soon as possible a small advisory team of subject matter experts to remain available to assist ICANN staff on implementation questions that arise during the development of the implementation plan, and inform ICANN of the appointments."</div><div><br></div><div>I also note in the rationale:</div><div><br></div><div>" In addition the ccNSO Council recommended the ICANN Board that certain documents including the GAC Principles 2000 (which the GAC superseded in 2005), ICANN's ICP1 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/delegation-2012-02-25-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/delegation-2012-02-25-en</a>) and News Memo 1 (<a href="http://www.iana.org/reports/1997/cctld-news-oct1997.html">http://www.iana.org/reports/1997/cctld-news-oct1997.html</a>) should be archived and considered no longer used by ICANN staff"</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><div> Yet, only in the last couple of weeks, ICANN, the Corporation chooses to continue to put ICP-1 before the Appeal Court as having some status.</div></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You raise a good point here. I will try to get an answer back on by the end of the week. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><div> And THAT is the major question of accountability right there.</div></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Got it. If the Board passes a resolution and agrees with the work put forward by the ccNSO - we do indeed need to make sure that we follow through on that commitment.</div><div><br></div><div>I will follow this up now that I understand the issue that was initially raised by Eberhard.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Bruce Tonkin</div><div><br></div><div> </div><div><br></div><div>_______________________________________________</div><div>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</div><div><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></div><div><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></div><div><br></div></blockquote></body></html>