Re: [lac-discuss-en] lac-discuss-en Digest, Vol 91, Issue 12
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Send lac-discuss-en mailing list submissions to
> lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> lac-discuss-en-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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 transfÃrà ----------
> From: Ron Baione <ron.baione@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> lac-discuss-es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Phil Novack: phil_novack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> March 3, 2016
>
> Cruz, Lankford, and Lee Raise New Concerns About ICANNâs Relationship with
> Authoritarian China
> Senators send letter to ICANN Chairman Dr. Stephen Crocker
>
> WASHINGTON, D.C. â 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.
>
> Todayâs letter to Dr. Crocker follows a letter Cruz, Lankford, and Lee
> sent to ICANNâS CEO Fadi Chehadà last month. The letter to Mr. ChehadÃ
> 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.
>
> âLast month, we sent you a letter stating our concerns regarding ICANN CEO
> Fadi ChehadÃâs participation in the Chinese-government-sponsored World
> Internet Conference,â the senators wrote today. âMr. ChehadÃâs
> 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 ICANNâs relationship with the Chinese
> government may be a systemic problem within the organization itself and not
> limited to a single individual.â
>
> 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 ChehadÃâs participation in the Chinese-government-sponsored World
> Internet Conference. Mr. ChehadÃâs 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 ICANNâs
> 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 ICANNâs meeting was Mr. Shang Bing, Vice
> Minister of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. As you
> must be aware, the Chinese governmentâs Ministry of Industry and
> Information Technology (MIIT) is not only a central component of Chinaâs
> censorship regime, but it has pressured American companies such as IBM,
> Microsoft, and Apple to reveal their productsâ 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 Chehadà stated in his opening remarks, âChina
> 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 ICANNâs 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 thatâs why weâre here today.â
>
> 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)âan 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 CNNICâs
> Steering Committee stated that the âICANN 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.â
>
> 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 CNNICâs statement that it would âinvest
> 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 Chinaâs Internet industry.â
>
> 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 âFreedom on the Net 2013â just above Iran and Cuba on Internet
> freedom. And since ICANN opened its Engagement Center in Beijing, Chinaâs
> 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.â The
> Chinese government also announced in December 2014 that Lu Wei would become
> the new chairperson of CNNICâthe very organization that had claimed to be
> operating ICANNâs global engagement office in Beijing. Given Weiâs central
> role within the Chinese government, it is not surprising that he supports
> the Obama Administrationâs 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 Chehadà stated, âThis
> marks another milestone in ICANN's globalization efforts after we
> established our first engagement center in Beijing last Aprilâ.This
> partnership is a testament to how Chinaâa country with over one fifth of
> the global Internet population and a vibrant Internet industryâcan engage
> and contribute in the ICANN global community.â A few of the stated
> objectives of the Memorandum of Understanding are to promote the Chinese
> communityâs participation in ICANN, align academic and public research, and
> improve ICANNâs 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 (âXYZâ), 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 ICANNâs Board of Directors approves this request, it will allow
> XYZ to become a complicit actor with Chinaâs censorship regime.
>
> For example, XYZ will have to comply with Article 27 of Chinese Internet
> domain name regulations, Chinaâs 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 âare 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 peopleâs legal rights and interests; or other contents
> prohibited in laws, rules and administrative regulations.â
>
> Furthermore, XYZ will also have to comply with Article 34 and Article 35
> of the Chinese Internet domain name regulations. Article 34 states that,
> â[i]n case the domain name is in violation of the provisions and the
> relevant laws and regulations,â XYZ âshall delete it and notify the domain
> name holder in written form.â Additionally, Article 35 states the
> requirement that âDomain 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.â
>
> There is additional concern within ICANNâs Generic Names Supporting
> Organization (âBusiness Constituencyâ), the business constituency group
> which represents commercial users of the Internet within ICANN. The
> Business Constituency has raised concerns that aspects of XYZâs RSEP are
> too vague and need additional clarification. For example, the term âChinese
> registrantâ 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 Peopleâs Republic
> of China. The Business Constituency also emphasized that
> âgovernment-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.â
>
> 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,
> âif 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 toâcancel, ...any registration or transaction ... to comply with
> any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law
> enforcement, or any dispute resolution process.â This is identical to our
> current treatment of complaints from governments about illegal domain name
> registrations.â
>
> 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 ICANNâs 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 Houseâs (NCPH) Commercial Stakeholder Group who
> participated in a meeting with ICANN in February 2016 and stated, âThe
> ICANN board wants to engage more with China and India following the IANA
> transition, which somewhat explains the boardâs decision not to take action
> against ChehadÃ.â
>
> In order to gain a better understanding of the potential implications of
> ICANNâs 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 ChehadÃ
> had agreed to co-chair a high-level advisory committee for the Chinese
> governmentâs state-sponsored World Internet Conference.
>
> a. Please provide a yes-or-no answer to the following question: Did
> you agree with Fadi ChehadÃâs decision to co-chair a high level advisory
> committee for the World Internet Conference?
>
> b. Did ICANNâs Board of Directors approve of Fadi ChehadÃâs decision
> to co-chair a high level advisory committee for the World Internet
> Conference?
>
> c. Did any member of ICANNâs Board of Directors ask Fadi Chehadà 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 ICANNâs Board of Directorsâ meeting(s) with
> Fadi Chehadà 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 ICANNâs Board of Directors took no action against
> Fadi Chehadà because â[t]he view eventually prevailed that no reactive
> action should be taken lest China lose face.â Did ICANN refrain from taking
> action against Fadi Chehadà due to concern that China may lose face?
>
> 3. Fadi Chehadà 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 ICANNâs inaction.
>
> 4. During ICANNâs 46th public meeting in Beijing, Fadi ChehadÃ
> stated, âChina 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 ICANNâs
> 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 thatâs why
> weâre here today.â 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 âinvest 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 Chinaâs
> Internet industry.â Please provide yes-or-no answers to the following
> questions:
>
> a. Did CNNIC invest human and material resources in the construction
> of ICANNâs global engagement office in Beijing?
>
> b. Is CNNIC actively carrying out the functions, coordination,
> communication, or operation of ICANNâs global engagement office in Beijing?
>
> c. Do any individuals associated with CNNIC or the Chinese
> government have a formal or informal role in ICANNâs 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 ICANNâs 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 Constituencyâs concern that the
> term âChinese registrantâ in XYZâs 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 XYZâs 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 Houseâs (NCPH) Commercial
> Stakeholder Group recently stated, âThe ICANN board wants to engage more
> with China and India following the IANA transition, which somewhat explains
> the boardâs decision not to take action against ChehadÃ.â
>
> a. Please describe ICANNâs plans for engagement with China following
> a potential IANA transition.
>
> b. Did ICANNâs post IANA transition plans with China play any role in
> the decision not to take action against Fadi ChehadÃ?
>
> 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 ChehadÃ, 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@xxxxxxxxxxx <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
> * To: * <lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> * Cc: * LACRALO list <lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> lac-discuss-es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <
> lac-discuss-es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> * 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@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
> >
> > http://www.lacralo.org
> lac-discuss-en mailing list
> lac-discuss-es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-en mailing list
> lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>
>
_______________________________________________