This morning at the NCUC meeting I asked Strickling about the issues regarding internationalization of the oversight in a post-NTIA era. My view is that in the IANA transition process there are opportunities for advancing an internationalization agenda. In the case of the numbers community, I think there are no significant difficulties on this topic, given the way the registries' system is organized and operating. In fact, I think the methods and processes conducted jointly by the RIRs have practically turned the number governance into almost a non-issue -- despite the fact that the community bears [a small] part of responsibility for the difficulties in transitioning to IPv6. Mnemonics is another matter entirely, a good measure of which is shown by the complications in the CWG process (while the numbers community has already delivered its proposal). A component of this process, although totally ignored in the CWG, is internationalization. In any "model" which may win this process, whether internal or external, the issues of accountability, as well as of policy and compliance are at stake. One of these issues is jurisdiction and the international nature of the domain name system. The multistakeholder approach adopted in any reorganization of the administration and oversight instances need to include the international component -- stakeholders from all sectors and all regions. Further, the oversight system cannot be vulnerable to challenges like the one in the example below, revealed today by Russia in a GAC meeting. Or the strong objections made by France regarding the same in ICANN51. How could an oversight mechanism (contract co., trust etc) be protected as much as possible from specific national jurisdictions? To host it in a country which accepts international organizations without the precondition of being part of the UN? Uruguay, for instance? How to guarantee balanced international representation in this mechanism's board and executive structure? If separability is adopted, e.g, with the Trust external model, could this Trust be constituted in such a way? I think it is surprising that not even the word "international" is in the CWG reports. There is no worry about this, while we have to chronically confront the challenges posed by a group of States who would like to either move ICANN from the USA (which in my view is practically impossible) or turn critical resources' governance to the ITU (including a significant portion of organized civil society which is a militant of Internet governance issues). Is it worth to simply ignore this and go ahead with a new structure entirely based in the USA and under its laws? My request is that NCSG seriously considers these factors in the transition. fraternal regards --c.a. >>RUSSIA: I NEED TO MAKE A STATEMENT. PLEASE BE PREPARED, BECAUSE I WILL SPEAK IN RUSSIAN. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND HIGHLIGHT A RECENT DECISION MADE BY A U.S.-BASED REGISTRAR. THERE WAS A NOTIFICATION FOR REGISTRANTS LOCATED IN A CERTAIN GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, IN A CERTAIN GEOGRAPHICAL REGION ABOUT TERMINATION OF THE ACCOUNTS, CANCELLATION OF THE DOMAINS, AND REVOCATION OF THEIR DOMAIN NAMES AS OF JANUARY 31, 2015. THIS REGISTRAR OFFERED THE EXPLANATION OF TRADE RESTRICTIONS THAT PREVENT THE U.S. COMPANIES FROM CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITH COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS LOCATED IN THE CRYMEA. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT RUSSIA HAS ALWAYS OPPOSED ANY SANGS INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE AREA OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, IN PARTICULAR IN WHAT REFERS TO THE INTERNET. SIMILAR SANCTIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE IMPOSED ON INTERNET USERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A RESTRICTION OF UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS TO RECEIVE INFORMATION AND IDEAS REGARDLESS OF ANY FRONTIERS. AND THIS IS IN VIOLATION OF THE ARTICLE 19 OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AND ALSO A VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES AND THE SPIRIT OF WSIS, THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY, IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF ICT. ALSO A VIOLATION OF THE TUNIS AGENDA FOR THE INFORMATION SOCIETY. WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THIS INCIDENT HIGHLIGHTS THE ENTIRE INTERNET GOVERNANCE SITUATION WITH A PARTICULAR GOVERNMENT USING UNILATERAL MEASURES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERNET USERS IN A PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHIC REGION. THAT SAME GOVERNMENT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL DOMAIN NAMES -- THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM WORLDWIDE. THESE UNILATERAL RESTRICTIONS UNDERMINE THE UNIVERSAL ACCEPTED MULTISTAKEHOLDER-BASED PRINCIPLES AND VALUES; THE TRUST, AND THE OPEN, AND THE INTERCONNECTED CYBERSPACE, AND IS DISCREDITING THE EVOLUTION OF EFFECTIVE INTERNET GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS, CREATING A SERIOUS THREAT OF ITS FRAGMENTATION. THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION PROPOSES THAT ALL STAKEHOLDERS AND ALL COUNTRIES REFRAIN FROM ANY ATTEMPTS TO USE BLOCKING OF THE INTERNET, INCLUDING THE BLOCKING OF DOMAIN NAMES, WITH POLITICAL MOTIVATION AND MAKE EVERY POSSIBLE EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE INTERNET USERS' RIGHTS. THIS PROBLEM, IN MY OPINION, HIGHLIGHTS A POTENTIAL FOR FURTHER DIFFICULTIES AND COMPLICATIONS. ONE THING WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND AT THIS POINT IS WHETHER THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL WILL DEMONSTRATE ITSELF AS A VIABLE MODEL CAPABLE OF PROTECTING THE VALUES THAT WE ARE PROCLAIMING. SECONDLY, WE NOTE THE VACUUM THAT EXISTS IN THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE AREA, BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THIS TOPIC IS OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE. WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE IT REFLECTED IN THE GAC COMMUNIQUE.