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

marcellus Jean Bernard tutojeanbernard at gmail.com
Fri Mar 4 17:08:47 UTC 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org>:

> Send lac-discuss-en mailing list submissions to
>         lac-discuss-en at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         lac-discuss-en-owner at 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 at yahoo.com>
> To: lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Cc: lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org,
> lac-discuss-es at 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 at cruz.senate.gov
> Phil Novack: phil_novack at 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 at isoc-cr.org <crg at isoc-cr.org>;
> * To: * <lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org>;
> * Cc: * LACRALO list <lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org>;
> lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org <
> lac-discuss-es at 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 &amp; schedule
> from: crg at 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 at 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 at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-en mailing list
> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20160304/6187db62/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the lac-discuss-en mailing list