Re: [bc-gnso] RE: A follow-up letter from US Senators, regarding China and the transition

[Chuck Warren <warren65@xxxxxxxxx>]

And he does care about this issue.

Chuck

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 4, 2016, at 3:24 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for sharing this, Steve.
>  
> While ICANN is under no legal compulsion to answer the inquiry, failing to 
> answer comprehensively may be a high-risk strategy given that later this year 
> Sen. Cruz may either be the Republican Presidential nominee, or be back in 
> the Senate with plenty of time to engage on issues he cares about.
>  
> Best, Philip
>  
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/Cell
>  
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>  
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>  
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Steve DelBianco
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 2:49 PM
> To: BC List
> Subject: [bc-gnso] A follow-up letter from US Senators, regarding China and 
> the transition
>  
> U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Mike Lee 
> (R-Utah) today sent a follow-up letter to Dr. Crocker, demanding a response 
> to a series of unanswered questions that remain from previous congressional 
> oversight letters concerning ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government 
> and the planned transition away from U.S. government oversight of the 
> Internet.
>  
>  
>  
> <image001.png>
> UNITED STATES SENATE
> Sen. Ted Cruz Press Office
>  
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>  
> April 4, 2016
>  
> ICANN Is Stonewalling the U.S. Congress
> Senators send follow-up letter after failing to get answers about ICANN’s 
> relationship with the Chinese government
>  
> WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), James Lankford (R-Okla.), 
> and Mike Lee (R-Utah) today sent a follow-up letter to Dr. Stephen Crocker, 
> chairman of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), 
> demanding a response to a series of unanswered questions that remain from 
> previous congressional oversight letters concerning ICANN’s relationship with 
> the Chinese government and the planned transition away from U.S. government 
> oversight of the Internet.
>  
> “On March 3, 2016, we sent you a letter requesting information 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. Since then, ICANN has submitted to the U.S. 
> government an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal that seeks to end U.S. 
> government oversight of the IANA functions. Given this recent development and 
> congressional concerns over ICANN’s transparency, accountability, and 
> relationship with the Chinese government, it is imperative that we receive a 
> response to our letter,” the senators wrote.
>  
> “After sending our initial request 32 days ago, your staff indicated that you 
> would be unable to respond before March 18. Two weeks has passed since your 
> own self-extended deadline, and ICANN has not only failed to provide a 
> response, but has been unable or unwilling to provide an exact date for when 
> we can expect a complete response to our March 3 letter.
>  
> “This series of events comes on the heels of ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé’s failure 
> to respond to all of the questions in our February 4, 2016 letter addressed 
> to him. We would note that not only did Mr. Chehadé fail to respond to our 
> questions in full, but he disparaged the oversight request during a February 
> 5 question-and-answer session in Los Angeles, California with members of 
> ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization Non-Contracted Party House.”
>  
> The senators continued: “To our dismay, ICANN has failed to respond in full 
> to questions posed in two oversight letters. We are therefore resending our 
> questions and ask that you and Mr. Chehadé provide a response to all 
> unanswered questions (provided below) from our February 4 and March 3 letters 
> as soon as possible, but no later than 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 7, 2016.”
>  
> Read the latest Cruz-Lankford-Lee letter here and below:
>  
> April 4, 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,
>  
> On March 3, 2016, we sent you a letter requesting information 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. Since then, ICANN has submitted to the U.S. 
> government an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal that seeks to end U.S. 
> government oversight of the IANA functions. Given this recent development and 
> congressional concerns over ICANN’s transparency, accountability, and 
> relationship with the Chinese government, it is imperative that we receive a 
> response to our letter.
>  
> After sending our initial request 32 days ago, your staff indicated that you 
> would be unable to respond before March 18. Two weeks has passed since your 
> own self-extended deadline, and ICANN has not only failed to provide a 
> response, but has been unable or unwilling to provide an exact date for when 
> we can expect a complete response to our March 3 letter.
>  
> This series of events comes on the heels of ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé’s failure 
> to respond to all of the questions in our February 4, 2016 letter addressed 
> to him. We would note that not only did Mr. Chehadé fail to respond to our 
> questions in full, but he disparaged the oversight request during a February 
> 5 question-and-answer session in Los Angeles, California with members of 
> ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization Non-Contracted Party House. 
> During the session, Mr. Chehadé stated:
>  
> And you know that this letter is not driven by anyone really worried about 
> the transition. This is someone really worried about politics. So let's not 
> bring politics into the transition…. Let's resist bringing the politics of 
> our lovely capital into this process…. I think everyone knows this is 
> political, even those in his own party….We will answer all these questions… 
> And we will respond to the questions fully, to the Senators' full 
> satisfaction.
>  
> To our dismay, ICANN has failed to respond in full to questions posed in two 
> oversight letters. We are therefore resending our questions and ask that you 
> and Mr. Chehadé provide a response to all unanswered questions (provided 
> below) from our February 4 and March 3 letters as soon as possible, but no 
> later than 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 7, 2016.  
>  
> Four weeks ago, on March 3, 2016, we asked you to provide the following 
> information:
>  
> 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 Chehadé 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.[1] 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?
>  
> Sixty days ago, on February 4, 2016, we asked Fadi Chehadé to provide the 
> following information:
>  
> 1.      On December 23, 2015, in an ICANN blog post, you announced that you 
> would be serving as the co-chair of a newly formed advisory committee to the 
> World Internet Conference in Wuzhen. In that blog post, you noted that “the 
> first meeting of the committee will take place in Summer 2016.” However, a 
> World Internet Conference press release on December 21, 2015, announcing the 
> advisory committee stated that “[t]he advisory committee held its first 
> meeting on the sidelines of the second WIC in Wuzhen of east China's Zhejiang 
> Province.”
>  
> a.      Please provide a yes-or-no answer to the following question: Did the 
> advisory committee meet in Wuzhen during the second World Internet 
> Conference? If yes, did you participate?
>  
> b.      What was discussed during the meeting? Specifically, did the advisory 
> committee discuss the IANA transition or the role of the United States 
> Government?
>  
> c.       Do you believe that advisory committee participants share the United 
> States’ view of a free and open Internet?
>  
> 2.      Did ICANN’s Board of Directors approve your attendance and 
> participation at the World Internet Conference?
>  
> 3.      When did you first notify ICANN’s Board of Directors that you had 
> agreed to serve as a co-chair of the advisory committee for the World 
> Internet Conference?
>  
> 4.      Have you notified the National Telecommunications and Information 
> Administration (NTIA) or any official within the United States Government 
> regarding your commitment to serve as a co-chair of the advisory committee? 
> If yes, please list who you notified and the date of the notification.
>  
> a.      Have you notified NTIA of any personal conflicts of interest? If yes, 
> please describe the conflicts discussed and if such conflicts will be 
> addressed.
>  
> 5.      Given the Chinese government’s history of censorship and suppression 
> of free speech, is it appropriate to participate in the World Internet 
> Conference while serving as the Chief Executive Officer of ICANN?
>  
> 6.      Do you believe that your attendance and participation in the World 
> Internet Conference makes ICANN complicit in the Chinese censorship regime?
>  
> Thank you for your cooperation and attention in this matter. 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,
>  
>  
> Ted Cruz                                                                    
> United States Senator                                                  
>  
> James Lankford
> United States Senator
>  
> Michael S. Lee
> United States Senator
>  
>  
> cc: Mr. Fadi Chehadé, Former 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
>  
> ###
> 
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11942 - Release Date: 04/02/16
> 
> [1]Contact. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, n.d. Web. 
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/contact-2012-02-06-en>.