<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Bruce, This is the formal evidence and logic based ICANN's
contribution to clarity here. That helps but the risk is that the
IANA Transition will become a political football in the final days
of the U.S. election. At that point evidence and logic will hold
little sway against media "sound bites" that may well be
completely false. The hope is that the parties to the election
have bigger issues to deal with. If this becomes an issue there
will be nothing ICANN can do in the immediate time frame, but
there would be important lessons for ICANN to learn with regard to
an ongoing strategy of global internet governance education. <br>
</p>
<p>Actually, going forward ICANN, working with its stakeholders,
should address this challenge even if the issue does not become
media sound bites in the next couple of weeks. Accountability,
like open data, should include knowledge translation to inform and
educate all. [<i>Sorry, as an academic I succumbed to a Saturday
lecture here, but I do know what it means to talk over people's
heads, we (and ICANN) do it all the time, with poor results </i><i><span
class="moz-smiley-s2"><span>:-(</span></span></i> ]</p>
<p>Sam L. <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/9/2016 11:43 PM, Bruce Tonkin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E8BC8B42C8@bne3-0002mitmbx.corp.mit"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
h1
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
margin-top:8.05pt;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:8.05pt;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:24.0pt;
font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;
color:#333333;
font-weight:normal;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;
color:#333333;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:45110871;
mso-list-template-ids:1160523950;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">From</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-US"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions">https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions</a><span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<h1 style="margin-top:0cm"><span lang="EN">Answering some of
your questions on the stewardship transition<o:p></o:p></span></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">By delivering the IANA stewardship transition
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-ntia-transmissions-2016-06-13-en">proposal</a>
to the U.S. Department of Commerce's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in
March, the global Internet community executed the
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-accountability-participation-statistics-2015-11-04-en">largest
multistakeholder process</a> ever undertaken in Internet
governance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">The transition proposal achieved the broad support
thousands of Internet stakeholders by reinforcing the
current multistakeholder system and making ICANN more
accountable to Internet users around the world. The proposal
also garnered support from global representatives of
industry, the technical community, civil society groups,
academics, governments and end users.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">The timely completion of the transition will help
preserve the continued openness of the Internet by
entrusting its oversight with those who have made the
greatest investments in its extraordinary success so far –
the volunteer-based multistakeholder community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">Still, some questions remain about the nature of
the IANA functions, ICANN, and the likely impacts of the
transition and we wanted to answer them for you in one
place.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:15.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">Does the transition threaten Internet freedom?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">No. The United States Government's contract with
ICANN does not give the U.S. any power to regulate or
protect speech on the Internet. The IANA functions are
technical – not content – based. The freedom of any person
to express his or herself on the globally interoperable
Internet is in fact enhanced by the transition moving
forward. ICANN is not, has not been, and by its Bylaws
cannot become, a place for regulation of content.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">Ensuring that the Internet remains open,
interoperable and stable in the long-term helps protect
Internet freedom. Some believe that extending the contract
may actually lead to the loss of Internet freedom because it
could fuel efforts to move Internet governance decisions to
the United Nations (U.N.). Former Homeland Security
Secretary Michael Chertoff and retired Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/06/keep-internet-free-and-open-icann-000140">stated</a>
that, "rejecting or even delaying the transition would be a
gift to those governments threatened by a free and open
Internet."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:15.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">Will countries be able to censor speech on the
Internet after the transition?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">No more so than they can today. Right now, there
is nothing about ICANN or its contract with the U.S.
Government that prevents a country from censoring or
blocking content within its own borders. ICANN is a
technical organization and does not have the remit or
ability to regulate content on the Internet. That is true
under the current contract with the U.S. Government and will
remain true without the contract with the U.S. Government.
The transition will not empower or prohibit sovereign states
from censoring speech.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">Many leading
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2016/05/CSstatementonIANAtransitionMay2016-1.pdf">civil
society and advocacy groups</a> [PDF, 106 KB] actually
argue that the transition will enhance free speech on the
Internet. Human Rights Watch, Access Now, Article19, Open
Technology Institute and Public Knowledge, support the
transition because "executing upon the IANA transition is
the best way to ensure the continued functionality of the
global internet and to protect the free flow of information
so essential to human rights protection."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:15.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">Will ICANN be more susceptible to capture by a
single entity after the transition?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">No. ICANN's multistakeholder model is designed to
ensure that no single entity, whether country, business or
interest group, can capture ICANN or exclude other parties
from decision-making processes. Features of this model
include open processes where anyone can participate,
decisions made by consensus, established appeals mechanisms,
and transparent and public meetings. These elements are all
reinforced in the
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-ntia-transmissions-2016-06-13-en">community
transition proposal</a> and have been building blocks for
the free and open Internet we see today.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">NTIA, along with other U.S. Government agencies
and a panel of corporate governance experts, conducted a
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/2016/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-assessment-report">thorough
review of the transition proposal</a>. NTIA confirmed that
the proposal mitigated the risk of a government or
third-party capture of ICANN after the transition. Columbia
University's John Coffee also
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202762978409/Adventures-in-Corporate-Governance-Guarding-the-Internet?mcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=ALL">concluded
that</a>, "ICANN has been given so many checks and
balances that it is difficult to imagine a hostile
takeover," after the transition.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:15.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">4.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">Will ICANN seek oversight by the U.N. to maintain
its antitrust exemption after the transition?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">No. ICANN is not, and never has been exempted from
antitrust laws. ICANN has not been granted an antitrust
exemption through any of its contracts with NTIA or the U.S.
Department of Commerce. No court ruling in favor of ICANN
has ever cited an antitrust exemption to support its ruling.
This past July, NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2016/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-internet-governance-forum-usa">addressed
the concerns</a> about the possible antitrust liability of
a post-transition ICANN and reaffirmed that "ICANN always
has and will continue to be subject to antitrust laws."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">After the transition, ICANN will have no mandate,
need or reason to seek to be overseen by another
governmental or inter-governmental group for protection.
NTIA also would not allow the transition to occur if ICANN
were to replace the role of the U.S. Government with another
government or inter-governmental organization.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:15.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">5.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">Will governments have more control over the
Internet after the transition?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">No. The transition proposal does not increase the
role of governments over the Internet or ICANN as an
organization. The multistakeholder model appropriately
limits the influence of governments and intergovernmental
organizations to an advisory role in policy development.
More than 160 governments actively participate as a single
committee and must come to a consensus before policy advice
can be issued.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">After the transition, there will be times where
the ICANN Board must give special consideration to the
public policy advice of governments. However, this will only
happen when there is no objection from any government in the
committee – which includes the United States. This is a
stricter requirement than is currently in place for
government advice.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">In a <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20160317/104682/HHRG-114-IF16-Wstate-PlonkA-20160317.pdf">March
testimony before Congress</a> [PDF, 103 KB], Intel
Corporation stated that the transition proposal "strikes the
right balance of including governments in a true
multistakeholder community, while not giving them increased
influence over ICANN's decisions," after the transition.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:15.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">6.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">Does delaying the transition by one or two years
have any negative consequences?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">Yes, any delay of the transition could have
significant global consequences. The Internet is a
voluntary, trust-based system. A delay would introduce
uncertainty, for businesses and other stakeholders, which
could have long-term business, social, cultural, political
and economic impacts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">This past March, U.S.
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=418B1D81-1F0B-4E09-BB71-A98FBABE42B9">Ambassador
David Gross testified</a> that, "the clearest impact [of a
delay] is on the broader, global community. It will signal
that the U.S. has changed its position and no longer
believes in a private-sector led internet and that
governments will play a primary role in making the final
decision. Russia, China, and others will welcome such a
decision." In addition, the
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.ourinternet.org/press/statement-by-gcig-regarding-iana-transition/">Centre
for International Governance Innovation added</a> to this
sentiment by expressing that "[A delay will] increase
distrust, and will likely encourage some governments to
pursue their own national or even regional Internets."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:15.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">7.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">Will ICANN relocate its headquarters outside of
the United States after the transition?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">No. ICANN will not relocate its corporate
headquarters location after the transition. The
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-transition-proposal-final.pdf">transition
proposal clearly states</a> [PDF, 2.32 MB] that "the legal
jurisdiction in which ICANN resides is to remain unchanged."
California law is the basis for the new mechanisms created
to empower the ICANN community and hold ICANN the
organization, Board and community, accountable. In addition,
ICANN's Articles of Incorporation are filed under California
law, and its Bylaws state that ICANN's headquarters are in
California.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:15.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">8.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">Is it illegal to allow the transition to move
forward without congressional approval because it is a
transfer of U.S. property?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">No. ICANN is not aware of any U.S. Government
property that would be transferred as a result of the
transition. In a
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/20160810_-_ntia_response_to_grassley_goodlatte_-_iana.pdf">letter
to Chairman Grassley and Chairman Goodlatte</a> [PDF, 1.25
MB] last month, NTIA stated that the Department of Commerce
Office of General Counsel conducted a legal review of this
issue and advised NTIA that transition would not result in
the transfer of U.S. Government property, and that, in the
view of the Department, the authoritative root zone file is
not U.S. Government property.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:15.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">9.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">Will Verisign have the ability to raise prices
of.com domain names on 1 October 2016 as a result of the
transition?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">No. The cost of .com domains is capped at $7.85
until 30 November 2018. The current pricing of the .com
registry is defined by two separate contracts (1) the .com
Registry Agreement between Verisign and ICANN; and (2) the
Cooperative Agreement between Verisign and the Department of
Commerce. After 2018, Verisign and NTIA will have to
negotiate to change the terms for the Cooperative Agreement
or agree to end the Cooperative Agreement before discussing
new pricing of the .com domain with ICANN.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">In <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/2016-8-31_doj_response_to_cruz-lee-duffy.pdf">letters</a>
[PDF, 851 KB] to Chairman Cruz, Chairman Lee, and Chairman
Duffy last week, the Assistant Attorney General stated that,
consistent with past practices, it is expected that NTIA
will seek the advice of the U.S. Department of Justice on
any competition issues implicated by the extension of these
two contracts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:15.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">10.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">Do the recent independent review process (IRP)
decisions regarding applications for new generic top level
domains prove that ICANN is not sufficiently transparent or
accountable enough for the transition?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">No. An IRP is an accountability mechanism used to
review and resolve a concern raised by the community over a
policy decision made by ICANN. Any result from an IRP,
whether positive or negative, demonstrates that the system
of checks and balances built into the ICANN multistakeholder
model works. The IRP has been enhanced to strengthen ICANN's
commitment to employ open, transparent, bottom-up,
multistakeholder processes after the transition.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:15.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">11.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">Does ICANN have an operational relationship with
the Chinese government?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:15.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333"
lang="EN">No. ICANN does not have any operational
relationship with the Chinese Government. ICANN's engagement
center in China is one of seven around the world. The
presence of an ICANN engagement center or operational hub
within a country does not imply any level of support for the
nation's government or its policies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca">Lanfran@Yorku.ca</a> Skype: slanfranco
blog: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com">http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com</a>
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852</pre>
</body>
</html>