[ALAC] NCUC Response to "thick" Whois PDP WG Questions

ÐÏࡱá>þÿ ŠŒ
þÿÿÿˆ‰ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥ÁÀ ø¿


pubjbjAA 0š#y#ybm ÿÿÿÿÿÿ·üüÌÌÌÌÌÿÿÿÿààà8d|4à(=°:êêêêÅÅÅŸ<¡<¡<¡<¡<¡<¡<,@@²òBZÍ<ÌÅÅÅÅÅÍ<œÌÌêêÛâ<œœœÅ ÌêÌêŸ<œÅŸ<œœR
9ô«;ÿÿÿÿÀi$’ýòÍ
ÿÿÿÿÏî:‹<ø<0(=%:†
LCœLC<«;œ«;Ì¿;ÌÅÅÅÍ<Í<œÅÅÅ(=ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿLCÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅü–’:


Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template ‘thick’ Whois PDP Working Group PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY 9 January 2012 TO THE GNSO SECRETARIAT ( HYPERLINK "mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org"
gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org), which will forward your statement to the Working Group. If additional time is needed by your SG / C to provide your feedback, please inform the secretariat accordingly, including the expected delivery date so that this can be factored in by the WG. The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to consider recommendations in relation to ‘thick’ Whois. Part of the working group’s effort will be to incorporate ideas and suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies through this template Statement. Please note that the WG is currently in an information-gathering phase. Inserting your response in this form will make it much easier for the Working Group to summarize the responses. This information is helpful to the community in understanding the points of view of various stakeholders. However, you should feel free to add any information you deem important to inform the working group’s deliberations, even if this does not fit into any of the questions listed below. For further information, please visit the WG Workspace ( HYPERLINK "https://community.icann.org/display/PDP/Home" https://community.icann.org/display/PDP/Home). Process Please identify the member(s) of your stakeholder group / constituency who is (are) participating in this working group Avri Doria Roy Balleste Wilson Abigaba Amr Elsadr Please identify the members of your stakeholder group / constituency who participated in developing the perspective(s) set forth below This document was drafted by Amr Elsadr, circulated to the full NCSG list and other members, including Kathy Kleiman and Roy Balleste, reviewed and edited it. Please describe the process by which your stakeholder group / constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below The initial and revised drafts were circulated to the NCSG list. A large number of NCUC members declared their support for the views expressed in the final version of this document, including several members of the NCSG Policy Committee who are NCUC members. In addition, the ideas and concerns expressed below have been shared by the NCUC many times and in many forums over many years. If not indicated otherwise, the WG will consider your submission a SG / C position / contribution. Please note that this should not prevent the submission of individual and/or minority views as part of your submission, as long as these are clearly identified. This is an NCUC statement. No minority views were expressed. Topics: The WG is tasked to provide the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation regarding the use of ‘thick’ Whois by all gTLD Registries, both existing and future. As part of its deliberations, the WG is expected to consider the topics listed below in the context of ‘thick’ Whois. Please provide your stakeholder group’s / constituency’s views, including quantitative and/or empirical information supporting your views, on these topics in relation to whether or not to require ‘thick’ Whois for all gTLDs and/or provide any information that you think will help the WG in its deliberations (for further information on each of these topics, please see the WG Charter  HYPERLINK "https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag" https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag): Response consistency - a ‘thick’ Registry can dictate the labeling and display of Whois information to be sure the information is easy to parse, and all Registrars/clients would have to display it accordingly. This could be considered a benefit but also a potential cost. This might also be a benefit in the context of internationalized registration data as even with the use of different scripts, uniform data collection and display standards could be applied. Your view: What might be lost in the pursuit of “response consistency” may be innovation and ingenuity. Key issues of IDN (Internationalized Domain Name) data have not yet been resolved. Registrar innovation in the handling and processing of different scripts may overcome barriers and challenges that centralized committees may not see or know. There is virtually no limit to the number of new scripts that may come online, and that innovation and ingenuity of how to handle them would be something we would lose with response consistency. Stability - in the event of a Registrar business or technical failure, it could be beneficial to ICANN and registrants to have the full set of domain registration contact data stored by four organizations (the Registry, the Registry's escrow agent, the Registrar, and the Registrar's escrow agent), which would be the case in a ‘thick’ registry. Your view: Certainly stability and ability to transfer and continue services is key to the domain name process, but existing Registrar data and Registrar escrow requirements should provide that capability. The downside of the suggested “stability” model is that highly personal and identifiable data – including addresses, cell phones and private emails – is placed in multiple sites and much more easily targeted for abuse and theft. Four sites for each set of Whois data, scattered around the world, are more susceptible to attack and misuse, then two sites. When one thinks about the 100 million+ entries that would be in a centralized .COM database, the problem magnifies immeasurably. We suggest that the Registrar database and Registrar escrow agent database should suffice for stability, particularly in light of the new compliance activity and RAA work. Accessibility - is the provision of Whois information at the registry level under the ‘thick’ Whois model more effective and cost-effective than a ‘thin’ model in protecting consumers and users of Whois data and intellectual property owners? Your view: To this we provide a multi-layered response: 1) Generally: There is no evidence supporting that accessibility to Whois information at the Registry level under a thick Whois model would be more effective or cost effective. ICANN's contractual compliance team determined that Registrar adherence to the RAA's requirement of port 43 Whois data accessibility was 94% in a “contractual compliance port 43 Whois access report” covering the period from July 2011 until February 2012. This showed a drop from 99% compliance as per the report prior to last year's. Both .com and .net (representing the vast majority of registered domain names) are currently operating on a thin Whois model. There is no empirical data suggesting that monitoring them and enforcing their contractual compliance under a thick Whois model would be more effective and/or cost effective. 2) Further, there are downsides for the future: Currently the Whois data, service and protocol are under review at ICANN and the IETF. Should we logically determine that the global publication of physical addresses of individuals, political organizations, or religious institutions (including minority groups or dissenting groups) are unnecessary for global public distribution regardless of intent or use, then the Centralized Whois becomes a major target. It will contain information that private entities, and government entities seek – with or without legal rationale, with or with due process. One can envision Registries of future gTLDs in Saudi Arabia, Syria, N. Korea, China and other jurisdictions not known for their human rights and due process protections. Placing an entire Whois database into the hands of a Registry company in these countries and others, under enormous pressure to disclose, package, search and sort this Whois data and provide it to law enforcement and range of private parties for a range of reasons – is not “good ” in and of itself. Accessibility then is a downside, not a feature. 3) Furthermore, the .COM Whois, in particular, creates an enormous target in this regard. Should it be centralized, it would impose enormous costs on Verisign as every law enforcement, corporate attorney and intellectual property attorney seeks rapid, easy, unlimited access to its data – and a range of features to assist in the data mining of its data. While we doubt Verisign will weaken on strong positions it has taken to protect due process and the rule of law, a future owner of the Verisign company (.COM has already transitioned from Network Solutions, Inc., to SAIC, to Verisign over the years) might not be as strong in its principle. A centralized Whois for .COM creates an enormous, enormous target for misuse and abuse from an accessibility perspective. Impact on privacy and data protection - how would ‘thick’ Whois affect privacy and data protection, also taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? Your view: This issue, also, deserves a multi-layered response: 1) Generally: Requiring existing and future gTLD registries to provide thick Whois services would effectively bypass data privacy laws based on local legislation and jurisdictions. Laws recognizing the right to personal privacy of those falling under their jurisdiction should be adhered to, and this led to the development of the ICANN “Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law” by the GNSO. The NCUC notes the negative effects likely to occur if privacy and data protection standards are omitted from the Report to be submitted to the GNSO Council and from the subsequent practice by ICANN. There is an understanding that the thick Whois model is beneficial because it ensures consistent data, faster queries, and provides data retention. It has also been noted that the ICANN's community developed the "Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law" as a means for resolving any potential conflicts for Registrar operators with local legal requirements. NCUC has already demonstrated its particular interest in this topic, and the negative impact moving thick Whois data to a registry would have, especially regarding registrants' choices in seeking the services of registrars within these jurisdictions. The requirements of thick Whois, to us, should be based on privacy safeguards strengthened by international human right principles, and not on the desire by any stakeholder to exercise increased control over domain name registrations. Registrants should not be compelled to disclose personal information. If, in the interest of uniformity and standardization, disclosure does become mandatory, then standards must be drafted to ensure that all personal information collected is utilized for its intended purpose. Once a registrar disseminates personal data, it must follow standards that protect registrants, in particular, against repressive governments. The disclosure of personal data without restraints would threaten individuals’ right to privacy, and thus, their freedom of expression. Privacy is a human right firmly rooted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and its guarantee, in Article 1, that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” The UDHR specifically protects privacy in Article 12. There are government obligations to implement these rights at the national level (Art. 2 ICCPR), in addition to protecting privacy (Article 17 ICCPR), and the right to hold and express one’s opinion freely (Art. 19 ICCPR). This is also noted in the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment on this provision, that the “freedom to impart information and ideas of all kinds” is rooted in our human existence. Article I of the 1948 American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, articulates the right of every human being right “to life, liberty and the security of his person.” Article IV declares “the right to freedom of investigation, of opinion, and of the expression and dissemination of ideas, by any medium whatsoever.” Above all, Article V notes “the right to the protection of the law against abusive attacks upon his honor, his reputation, and his private and family life.” Similar guarantees exist in the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights (Art. 11), and the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Art. 8). Human rights are also recognized in the constitutions and other legal acts of nation-states around the world. These documents demonstrate a worldwide consensus on the existence of the universal right to privacy. Furthermore, the United States, European nations, and almost all of the governments that participate at ICANN, have signed and ratified the ICCPR, which codifies the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including Articles 17 (privacy) and 19 (freedom of expression). 2) Furthermore, any conversion of .COM raises enormous additional privacy and data protection questions. While it is easy to say that .ORG converted to a thick Whois, and thus all conversions should be similarly easy, that is not case. .ORG converted a number of years ago, and was a much smaller database than the current .COM database. Data protection commissioners were not consulted or otherwise involved in the process. As shown by recent letters to ICANN (RAA proceedings), data protection commissioners are now watching ICANN processes closely, and ICANN must be proactive in their consultation with them regarding the enormous movement of data from multiple jurisdictions to one. Specifically, local registrars have collected the Whois data pursuant to their local privacy laws and speech protections. The movement of that that data, and ownership of that data, from a European, or Canadian, or Japanese, or Korean jurisdiction (among regions/countries with strong data protection laws) to another country (the US) raises enormous issues. This movement must be considered in light of the authority over the data that is being transferred, the possible/probable ownership of data that is being transferred, and the future implications of that transfer if/when ICANN rules on Whois data, service and protocol. The .COM is an existing database of data provided by customers to their registrar and kept locally. Movement and consolidation of this massive amount of personal data is not for an ICANN PDP WG to determine – but subject the concerns, principles and precedent of a highly sensitive and developed field of national, regional, and international law. Consultation must take place upfront, and with active outreach to data protection commissioners, freedom of express experts and data privacy law specialists. This is not an issue to lie in wait in a short comment period to see if someone notices – outreach, involvement, and solicitation of input from international experts is absolutely key. A credit card company cannot unilaterally move and consolidate databases of personal data, and organizational data with personal elements, from locations worldwide into the US without compliance with an extensive number of local and national laws, and international treaties, and neither can ICANN with the massive amount of .COM Whois data. The requirements of thick Whois need privacy safeguards, because while some nations have laws in place to protect data, others have few or no laws at all. For example, the United States lacks comprehensive federal mechanisms to protect data, and instead, the consumer has to rely on the Federal Trade Commission Act (for the business sector), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (for the financial sector), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. There are also supplementary state laws, and other non-enforceable guidelines and best practices. In Latin American nations, there is a recent trend to move toward data directives, and in the case of Argentina, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico, these nations have enacted data protection laws. The European Union Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) of 1995 addresses the collection and disclosure of personal information. The Directive has been enacted into national laws by the 27 members states. Articles 1(1) of the Directive states that member states “shall protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and …their right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data.” According to Article 6, member states are obliged to handle personal data lawfully, collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes, having regard to the purposes for which they were collected, and appropriate safeguards for personal data stored for longer periods. This protection is further enhanced for the 47 member states of the Council of Europe in the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data of 1980, and the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows of 2001. The requirements of thick Whois can draw further guidance from several international instruments. The OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, in Article 1(b) states that “personal data” means any information relating to an identified or identifiable individual. That right is to be protected through careful administration of personal, while disallowing for personal data retention, data abuse and unauthorized disclosure. The Guidelines (Art. 19) require of member states to establish legal, administrative or other procedures for the protection of privacy and individual liberties in respect of personal data. These Guidelines express a basic compromise on privacy as a human right. The 2004 APEC Privacy Framework, (Art. 11) describes publicly available information as “personal information about an individual that the individual knowingly makes or permits to be made available to the public, or is legally obtained.” The Framework (Art. 14) recognizes the prevention of “misuse of personal information.” The Framework notes that “personal information controllers” (Art. 15) “should provide clear and easily accessible statements about their practices and policies with respect to personal information that should include a notice that their information is being collected, the purpose, to whom personal information might be disclosed, the identity and location of the personal information controller, and the choices offered to individuals for limiting the use and disclosure of their information. The UN General Assembly in its resolution 45/95 of 14 December 1990, titled “Guidelines for the regulation of computerized personal data files,” offers additional guidance. The WTO General Agreement on Trade and Services, art. XIV(c)(ii) notes, inter alia, “the protection of the privacy of individuals in relation to the processing and dissemination of personal data and the protection of confidentiality of individual records and accounts.” In conclusion, there is an urgent need to establish privacy and data protection standards within the requirements of thick Whois. While there may be a need for the collection of information by law enforcement officials, the process to follow would still need to be in the best interest of the consumer. The Whois databases system should not provide access to personal data without a pre-established process to access and disclose that information. The thick Whois requirements should uphold internationally recognized human rights as a good steward of data. It is vital that ICANN considers not only privacy laws across nations, but also be ready for new and future developments. Consumers have the right to be informed when personal data is being disclosed, and to be allowed to give or withhold consent for the requested information. Cost implications - what are the cost implications of a transition to 'thick' Whois for Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties for all gTLDs? Conversely, what are the cost implications to Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties if no transition is mandated? Your view: We have no first-hand information to offer concerning the cost implications, but look forward to reading the input of Registries and Registrars on this matter. We note that the cost implications involve not only the transition from thick to think (e.g., the data 100 million+ records are consolidated into a massive .COM database), but the ongoing work the Registry will need to pay for and provide staff for for the servicing of the Whois systems, and the response to Whois requests. We ask that both sets of costs be evaluated by this WG. We note that the costs for Registrars may not only be technical, but legal, should they face challenges to the transition from local data protection or other authorities, or fines and penalties should such a transition be determine after the fact to be illegal. We ask for input in this area. Synchronization/migration - what would be the impact on the registry and registrar WHOIS and EPP systems for those Registries currently operating a thin registry, both in the migration phase to ‘thick’ WHOIS as well as ongoing operations? Your view: Please see our response to the previous question as it applies to this question as well. Further, we note that the precedence of the .ORG transition should give us little comfort here. That .ORG migration, then only few million names, was tiny compared the massiveness of a .COM consolidation. The scale and scope are totally different here – creating enormous worries on the technical side, we would expect, for synchronization/migration, as well as deep worries for assuring continuity and stability. We look forward to reading the comments of Registries and Registrars – and pose the question can 100% assurance of no difficulties, problems, errors or inconsistencies be made? Authoritativeness - what are the implications of a ‘thin’ Registry possibly becoming authoritative for registrant Whois data following the transition from a thin-registry model to a thick-registry model. The Working Group should consider the term “authoritative” in both the technical (the repository of the authoritative data) and policy (who has authority over the data) meanings of the word when considering this issue. Your view: Registrars should remain the repository of the authoritative Whois data for their registrants and customers. We've discussed reasons for this under the privacy/data protection discussed above. Particularly for the existing 'thin' Registries, the Whois data was given by the registrant (the customer) to his/her Registrar, and the Registrar was given ownership of this data. The Registrar holds the contractual relationship with the registrant, and that relationship should, of course, be honored and maintained. Competition in registry services - what would be the impact on competition in registry services should all Registries be required to provide Whois service using the ‘thick’ Whois model – would there be more, less or no difference with regard to competition in registry services? Your view: In the event that all Registries be required to provide thick Whois services, a competitive factor will be eliminated. Registrants who wish their personal information to remain private would undoubtedly choose to register a domain name using a gTLD providing this option. Transition of current Registries operating a thin Whois model to thick would not only deprive registrants of this option in future domain name registrations, but would additionally take away this benefit from current registrants who have already made this choice. Existing Whois Applications - What, if anything, are the potential impacts on the providers of third-party WHOIS-related applications if ‘thick’ WHOIS is required for all gtLDs? Your view: Clearly those who have invested time and energy in providing Whois services – that provide access across the registrars and data pursuant to current Whois policies and often combine it with other useful services – would be impacted by a single thick .COM database. They may lose their ability to provide services. More importantly, there may be an impact for all future gTLDs should the standard be thick and only thick Whois. The ability and incentive of third-party providers to provide innovative new services that help with the yet-unsolved problems of internationalized domain name data, for example, will be diminished, and their ability to help us grapple with new scripts as they come online, dramatically reduced – further shifting costs to contracted parties within ICANN and away from the DNS community as a whole. Data escrow - ‘thick’ Whois might obviate the need for the registrar escrow program and attendant expenses to ICANN and registrars. Your view: We trust the data escrow issues have been addressed in the new RAA, and ask that this WG solicit, collect and deliberate on the existing Registrar Escrow Program, and the compliance resources that ICANN has committed to monitoring it. Absent other information, we submit that the registrar escrow program is working and effective. As discussed above, multiple data escrow sites (e.g., for registrars and registries) raises its own security and access problems. Registrar Port 43 Whois requirements - ‘thick’ Whois could make the requirement for Registrars to maintain Port 43 Whois access redundant. Your view: We have no comment at this time. Based on your assessment of these topics, you are also encouraged to indicate whether you think there should or there shouldn’t be a requirement for ‘thick’ Whois by all gTLD Registries. Your view: NCUC strongly believes that there should not be a requirement for thick Whois by all gTLD Registries. We believe that ICANN has a fundamental responsibility to domain name registrants who wish for their personal registration data to remain private, especially if they fall under a legal jurisdiction that affords this right. We believe that this is the primary issue at stake here and that the appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that ICANN meets this responsibility. The desire for personal data privacy of registrants should not be assumed to be motivated by a registrant's bad faith or intent to perform illegal acts such as infringement or even dilution of intellectual property rights. Personal identifiable data privacy is a basic human right, and in some cases, not recognizing this right could put a registrant’s personal safety and security at risk. Furthermore, the privacy of data runs to those of organizations, groups and individuals engaged in political, religious, ethnic, racial, and other types of speech (including the minority and dissenting speech so valuable in open societies). The privacy, and even anonymity of the names, locations and contact information of the organizations, groups and individuals engaged in this type of speech is protected by freedom of expression and free speech rules, for both privacy and even anonymity. It is a natural and protected part of privacy rights, human rights and speech rights to want to protect data that exposes individuals, organizations and groups to persecution and abuse. Additionally, there is still a survey on Whois technical requirements being conducted that may or may not determine whether thick Whois is actually technically required by the community or not. Until the results of this survey and its analysis has been published, it seems ill-advised for a PDP requiring thick Whois for all registries to take effect. If there is any other information you think should be considered by the WG as part of its deliberations, please feel free to include that here. Other information:      #3RST~©ªÞßàÿ  , ðÞÏÞÀÞŽ¥•ˆ¥q^Dq5qŽ¥hûqéhÓdu0JCJOJQJ3j
hûqéhÓdu>*
B*CJOJQJU
phÿ$hûqéhÓdu>*
B*CJOJQJphÿ-jhûqéhÓdu>*
B*CJOJQJU
phÿhžž5CJOJQJ^JhûqéhÓdu5CJOJQJ^JhûqéhÓduCJOJQJ^JhÓduCJOJQJ^JhâE*5CJOJQJ^JaJ*hŒd@5CJOJQJ^JaJ*#h×BihÓdu5CJOJQJ^JaJ*hÓdu5CJOJQJ^JaJ*3STü ý ƒ „ )*2ªµÂÑÜcñÛññññññññññʹ¹¹¹Ê§„h
dh

1$7$8$H$^„h
gdie &
F
dh

1$7$8$H$gdie &F
dh

1$7$8$H$gdÓdudh

&d

1$7$8$H$PÆÿ

gdÓdu dh

1$7$8$H$gdÓdu, 9 : û ü ý H \ è ÷ 06fzˆ‰–ž©ªÕêòËƒ Œ œ É õ ÷ ø ôèÜÍèŸèŸô²èŸèŸŠŸŠŸŠŸèšŽšŸè‚rfWfrhÎÜhžžCJOJQJ^JhžžCJOJQJ^JjhžžCJOJQJU
^Jh3KCJOJQJ^Jh;CJOJQJ^JhÎÜCJOJQJ^JhŒd@CJOJQJ^JhâE*CJOJQJ^Jh×BihÓduCJOJQJ^JhûqéhÓduCJOJQJ^JhþÿCJOJQJ^JhÓduCJOJQJ^JhÓŒCJOJQJ^J ø $%)*12xy©ªÛÜ !Cbc,@zïßÓÄ·§››maÄUÄIÄ=UmÄUÄhÓŒCJOJQJ^JhâE*CJOJQJ^JhÓduCJOJQJ^JhieCJOJQJ^J"hiehie56CJOJQJ^Jhieh6ñ5CJOJQJ^JhŒd@CJOJQJ^Jh6ñCJOJQJ^Jh×BihÓdu5CJOJQJ^JhÓdu5CJOJQJ^Jh×BihÓduCJOJQJ^Jh3KCJOJQJ^JjhžžCJOJQJU
^J hâ^áhžž0JCJOJQJ^J{þ?@HI:; '(‚78äîÜ˹±±±±±Š±±±Š±žžždh

gdçNß &Fdh

gd;dh

gd;„h
dh

1$7$8$H$^„h
gdçNß &F
dh

1$7$8$H$gdþÿ„h
dh

1$7$8$H$^„h
gdie &F
dh

1$7$8$H$gdÓduz{»}þ
?@GHIZè<^–—œèìôâÐâÄôзªšŽ‚s‚gVEV7VhÎÜCJOJQJ^JaJ hfàhŒd@CJOJQJ^JaJ hfàhÓduCJOJQJ^JaJhÉvCJOJQJ^Jh±2zh±2zCJOJQJ^Jh±2zCJOJQJ^Jh3KCJOJQJ^Jh×BihÓdu5CJOJQJ^Jh˜_”5CJOJQJ^Jh;5CJOJQJ^JhþÿCJOJQJ^J"hçNßhçNß56CJOJQJ^J"hçNßhie56CJOJQJ^JhÓduCJOJQJ^Jìø=Þßë6789:;OR ïÞÍ»­œ­»‰»­xj[ÍM>Íh“)@h^rCJOJQJaJh^rCJOJQJ^JaJhÉvhžžCJOJQJ^JhÓduCJOJQJ^JaJ hfàhÓduCJOJQJ^JaJ$h[vÆh˜_”0JCJOJQJ^JaJ h˜_”h˜_”CJOJQJ^JaJh˜_”CJOJQJ^JaJ#jh˜_”CJOJQJU
^JaJ hfàh˜_”CJOJQJ^JaJ hfàhâE*CJOJQJ^JaJ hfàhÉvCJOJQJ^JaJ ÄÙ'(14‚Œ³ÒÓóãäåòõÖ×áâ íÞʹʚ—‰z—íÞʹʹÊhš—‰z—íÞT&hihi56CJOJQJ^JaJ#hçNßhçNß5CJOJQJ^JaJh“)@h^rCJOJQJaJh^rCJOJQJ^JaJ hfàh˜_”CJOJQJ^JaJ hfàh^rCJOJQJ^JaJ hçNß56CJOJQJ^JaJ&hçNßhçNß56CJOJQJ^JaJhßZ5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hžžhßZ5CJOJQJ^JaJäå×â ;#<#›'œ'œ**Ä+Ï+,œ--Ø0Ù0õ3ö3û:ü:®=¯=#@$@÷ì÷ääääää÷ì÷ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜdh

gdÎfîdh

gdi &Fdh

gd;dh

gd;  M Š Õ õ !!-!R!s!…!†!`"€"á"
#š'œ'Š'ª'³)µ)œ**Â*Å*Ã+Ä+Î+Ï+2,R,€,œ,ïÛïÛïÛïÛïÛïÛïÛïÛïÛïÛïÛʹ«œ¹Š{gVgV hŒp\56CJOJQJ^JaJ&hÎfîhÎfî56CJOJQJ^JaJhßZ5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hžžhßZ5CJOJQJ^JaJh“)@h^rCJOJQJaJh^rCJOJQJ^JaJ hfàh˜_”CJOJQJ^JaJ hfàh^rCJOJQJ^JaJ&hihi56CJOJQJ^JaJ hi56CJOJQJ^JaJ!œ,M-t-{-›--¥-j.Ž.'/G/‹/Œ/(0H0Ù01; ;1DOD>F]FÊGéGcKKM6MO*OcO‚OÿQR‘S±SHTgTòTÿTžU×UsVtVuV†V‰VìÛìÛìÛìÛìÛìÛìÛìÛìÛìÊìÊìÊìÊìÊìÊìÊìÊìÊìÊìÊìÊ잧–ˆh^rCJOJQJ^JaJ hfàh˜_”CJOJQJ^JaJ hfàh^rCJOJQJ^JaJ#hžžhi5CJOJQJ^JaJ hí&n56CJOJQJ^JaJ hŒp\56CJOJQJ^JaJ&hÎfîhÎfî56CJOJQJ^JaJ/$@/D0D`KbK<N>NpQrQ-S/StVuV”WŸWœYŸYãZäZÓ[Þ[†^‡^.`9`9b÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ïïäïÜÜÜïäïïïäïïdh

gdí&n &Fdh

gd;dh

gd;dh

gdÎfî‰V“W”WžWŸWöW%XåXYŸYÚYâZãZäZýZ[Ò[Ó[Ý[Þ[†^‡^˜^›^-`.`8`9`ñà﫚«š«š«ˆwàiñàο«wàiXàο h“)@h^rCJOJQJ^JaJh^rCJOJQJ^JaJ hfàh^rCJOJQJ^JaJ#hí&nhí&n5CJOJQJ^JaJ hí&n56CJOJQJ^JaJ&hí&nhí&n56CJOJQJ^JaJhßZ5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hžžhßZ5CJOJQJ^JaJ hfàh˜_”CJOJQJ^JaJh“)@h^rCJOJQJaJ9`l`Œ`ï` a@a„a”aŽaÊaêa8b9b:bZb]bPcQc[c\chcsc{c›cPdQdidŸdseìÛìÛìÛìÛìÛìǶ¥—ˆzhYìÛìÛìÛìÛìhßZ5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hžžhßZ5CJOJQJ^JaJhžžCJOJQJ^JaJh“)@h^rCJOJQJaJh^rCJOJQJ^JaJ hfàh˜_”CJOJQJ^JaJ hfàh^rCJOJQJ^JaJ&hcTøhí&n56CJOJQJ^JaJ hcTø56CJOJQJ^JaJ&hcTøhcTø56CJOJQJ^JaJ9b:bQc\cteue'f2fnioióiþiËkÌkWlblƒl„l?mJm*o÷ìäÜÜÏÆÆÆÏÆÆÆÏÆÆœœœŽ $
dh

gdcTø $
dh

gd˜_” $
dh

gdßZ$
&Fdh

gd˜_”dh

gdœs¶dh

gdžž &Fdh

gdžždh

gd;seteuee“e&f'f1f2fg€gnioizi}iòióiýiþiËkÌkðkókVlWlalblƒl„lïÛÊŒ­Ê›ŒxgxVÊŒ­Ê›ŒxVÊŒ­Ê›ŒxÊ hfàh^rCJOJQJ^JaJ hcTø56CJOJQJ^JaJ&hcTøhcTø56CJOJQJ^JaJhßZ5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hžžhßZ5CJOJQJ^JaJh“)@h^rCJOJQJaJh^rCJOJQJ^JaJ hfàh˜_”CJOJQJ^JaJ&hœs¶hœs¶56CJOJQJ^JaJ h^r56CJOJQJ^JaJ„l?mImJmsm¥m‰pŠp¹pœp\s†s¿sßstt”t»tŒtGuKuMu`uaubucueufuhuiukuluoupuïÝκ©º˜º˜º˜º˜º˜º†ïuïÝud\X\X\X\Xdh‰jh‰U
hfàh˜_”CJOJQJ^JaJ hfàhßZCJOJQJ^JaJ#hcTøhcTø5CJOJQJ^JaJ h‰8Û56CJOJQJ^JaJ hcTø56CJOJQJ^JaJ&hcTøhcTø56CJOJQJ^JaJhßZ5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hžžhßZ5CJOJQJ^JaJ hfàhÉvCJOJQJ^JaJ *o+o[s\sŒtœtMu`uaubudueuguhujukumunuoupuööööíííííèæèæèæèææí
gd6ñ $
dh

gd˜_” $
dh

gdcTø.:pè5`°Ð/ °à=!°"°# $ %°°Ð°ÐÐ¿DÐÉêyùºÎŒ‚ªK©àÉêyùºÎŒ‚ªK©Nmailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.orgŽ

˜žžžžžžžž666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>666666666666666666666666666š6666666666ž666666666666h
H
66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666°66866666662ÀÐàð 0@P`pˆ˜ÈÐàð2(Ø
è
0@P`p€ÀÐàð 0@P`p€ÀÐàð 0@P`p€ÀÐàð 0@P`p€ÀÐàð 0@P`p€ÀÐàð(8HX`~€8
X
ø
V~ OJPJQJ_H
mH nH sH tH @`ñÿ@NormalCJ_H
aJmH sH tH DA òÿ¡D Default Paragraph FontRióÿ³R 0Table Normalö4Ö
l4Ö
aö(k ôÿÁ( 0No List6U`òÿñ6Ódu0 Hyperlink>*
B*phÿhÅ@

hÓdu Colorful List - Accent 1 „Ð^„Ðm$
OJPJQJ^J6

66ñ0 Footnote TextDþoòÿ!
D6ñ0Footnote Text CharCJaJ@&`òÿ1
@6ñ0Footnote ReferenceH*
H™@
B
H 6ñ0Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJNþoòÿQ
N
6ñ0Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJR^@
b
R ­Mv0Normal (Web)€d€d[$
\$
CJOJ QJ aJPK!›èpOü[Content_Types].xml¬‘ËjÃ0E÷…þƒÐ¶Ørº(¥Ø΢]‹ôyl‹Ø#!MBò÷;.”…nÒÌœ÷Ìš\ÆAí1&ç©Ò«ŒÐ ÉúÆQWéÏÍKv¯Ub OXé#&œ®¯¯ÊÍ1`R¢ŠTéž9<“l#€Ü$©Ž>ŽÀr `·Ð¡¹-Š;c=1g<yèº|Âv«çƒ<ŸHD®Õã©oŠª4„08, fªš³ºˆCº ÜSó‹.[ÈrQÎæ©w!Ý, ﲚèTù Fá0,CâÏóHF‹ùeæ3ÑŸmÅÆÛÝ(ëÈgãÅìO«ÿ‰þÎ4óßÖ_ÿÿPK!¥Ö§çÀ6
_rels/.rels„ÏjÃ0‡ï…œƒÑ}QÒÃ%v/¥C/£}á(h"ÛëÛOÇ »„€ï÷©=þ®‹ùá”ç šªÃâC?Ëháv=¿‚É…€§%[xp†£{Ûµ_ŒPÑ£<Í1¥H¶0•ˆÙOŒR®BdÑÉÒJEÛ4b$§‘q_טžà6LÓõR×7`®šÉÿ³Ã0̞OÁ¯,åEn7”Liäb¡š/ãSœšeªÔеžùÖý
ÿÿPK!ky–ƒŠtheme/theme/themeManager.xmlÌM à @á}¡wÙ7c»(Eb²Ë®»öCœAǠҟÛ×åãƒ7Îß՛K Y,œ ŠeÍ.ˆ·ð|,§šÚHÅ,láÇæéxÉŽßIÈsQ}#Ր…­µÝ Öµ+Õ!ï,Ý^¹$j=‹GWèÓ÷)âEë+& 8ý
ÿÿPK!!Z¢„!Ûtheme/theme/theme1.xmlìYOoE¿#ñF{/±'M¢:UìØ Ži£Ø-êqŒ;öN3»³š'ñ µG$$DAšÄ*µ—òiEP€~ÞÌì®wâq“”4‡Ö;û{oÞûœ?óg¯\=J: BRž6ƒú{µ‘4äMGÍàv¿{i5@Rá4Œ§€Lˆ®nŒûÎŒ®b’ò©\ÇÍ V*[_X!cùÏH ï†\$XÁ£-D‚Þ„-,Öj+ Ši€Rœ€Ú[Ã! êk•ÁF¡ŒÃà1UR„LôŽjâHlŽ_×9‘m&Ð
fÍæ‰øaŸ©1,Œh5ó,l\YÀë¹Ssd+r]ó—ËåÑþ¢™SŒå€õncíòV©ß˜šÅu:v§^ê3†à©µ¥ª³Ñ]­· ý9«»][®5\|EÿҌÍk­Vky-·Å*5 û³1ƒ_­­46Œ
YüòŸÑÚl·WŒ
YüÊŸ{ym¥áâ (f4ݟAë€v»¹ö2älÛ_øj-‡OQ evé)†<Uór-Á÷žè@V4Ej’‘!!‹Û˜Ñ zŒNpå å̐žÉPÐL5ƒ21Õ÷òÙw/Ÿ=AÇ÷ŸßÿñøÁƒãû?XEŽÔ6NGU©ß|úÇ£ÐïOŸ~ñðs?^Vñ¿|ÿñÏ?}æBùLÍyþÅã_Ÿ>~þå'¿}ûÐßxP…÷iB$ºIÑOÀ1Êk9ˆóIôcL«›éHâëY<ú;*vÐ7'˜a®E\ïh>àµñ=Çà^,Æ*·ãÙõ8q€;œ³^®ë¹*4÷ÇéÈ?¹Wq{øænãԉogœA߀>•í˜8fî2œ*<")QH¿ãû„xøºK©Ãë —|šÐ]ŠZ˜z)éӁ“MS¡mš@\&>!Þ7;wP‹3Ÿ×[äÀEBU`æ1ŸO˜Cã5<V8ñ©ìã„U ¿Uì3²7aב "="Œ£ND€ôÉÜào%èסuøßÃ&‰‹ŠîûtÞÀœW‘[|¿ã$óa{4«Ø÷å>€(F»\ùà;Ü­ýqÀéÜpß¡Ä ÷éÝà69&MD¿O,¯îäoo†˜˜VMÝéÕ M_ÕžèÛ¹ãמ¡U>ÿê‘Çî7µeo ŸšÙ>ÑšçáN¶ç6}ó»ó§» bv‰zۜß6çà?ߜçÕóÅ·äi†­·Lv£m¶ÝÉÜ]÷2ÖSFnH³ñ–°öD]ÔræÄIÊSXÃO]É0ƒ ldàêCªâ^Œ3؎׭d$sÕ#‰2.á°h†œº56þÊ5—õ!Äv‰Õìð’.Î¥cÕÈh‹‰–Ž‚³N¶t9W ŸœÎdumԙg«ÓLStf+]Ö›C9P^ºƒ%›°©A°–Wà̯§†Ãf$ÒŒÛa1Qø{B”{m‰qDlˆœá ›u»"…füÓîÙ9›%k@ÚéF˜Ž˜Ÿ?g$¹P0%OVK«µÅRtØ֖—â¬á˜?“‚&õ6³Ü…Jج=µM‘N=^ógUn.æŒSƙjËØÆÐŒÊCÅR=“µq¹¡“íbð4“³Y±Ž )ò¯Y
¡vCK†Cªj°+#š;û˜wB>VDôâè ØXìa?pªý‰š„Û SÐú
®Ö4Ûæ•Û[óNSœÐ28;ŽYãŒ[꫙¢â,Üô“ÒóT1|óÚnœ;¿+ºâ/ʕjÿÏ\ÑË
\,E:!Üì Œt¥4.TÌ¡e1 »Ö}Ó; [àz^ùp¿lþä@ÿokÎê0e g@µGGHPXNT,م¶d²ïeõ|é±*Y®ÈdTÅ\™Y³䀰Ÿî+º(†T7Ý$ow2ÿÜ猂#œG©Ö›ÓÉÊ¥ÓÖÀ?œq±ÅNØKèü-ø/M,W÷éêgåx±FVÑ/Š»€FQÎâ·¶–Oõš&œe
®¬µ¶cÍxŒž\QœõËýLW@Hÿë!³+ô‚Úç{Ð[|{°ü!ÈêKº«Aéi `ßcm2iU–Ú|ç£Y+ëÞš–óž [[v–xŸ“ìråNçÔâE’3ìpmÇæR ‘=Y¢04,Î!&0æ+WõC܃@oÁ•ÿ˜ÙOS2ƒ'SÙ®0Ù5àÑ$ÿÉ€]pmÖé3ŒF²tŽŠóGɄ-!ûy€Ø"ŽӉV .ù ®`Ž×¢vµ,…O.%ÌÌвKas—æSÇòÆ­v€·MÖz­‹«`Š¥…²3ï§Ì{ò9+eö øÊ@œeêèՔåL
y³‰Ÿ7†£WÏô_XtlŠ›”ÝøÿÿPK! ѐŸ¶
'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels„M Â0„÷‚wooÓº‘&݈ЭÔ„ä5 6?$Qìí ®,.‡aŸ™i»—Éc2Þ1hª:é•qšÁmžìŽ@RN‰Ù;d°`‚Žo7íg‘K(M&$R(.1˜r'J“œÐŠTù€®8£Vä"£ŠAÈ»ÐH÷u} ñ›
|Å$œb{Õ–Pšÿ³ý8‰g/]þQAsم(¢ÆÌà#›ªLÊ[ººÄßÿÿPK
-!›èpOü[Content_Types].xmlPK
-!¥Ö§çÀ6
-
_rels/.relsPK
-!ky–ƒŠtheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK
-!!Z¢„!ÛÓtheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK
-! ѐŸ¶
'( theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]
#<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/>pmšÿÿÿÿ , ø zì  œ,‰V9`se„lpu;=>@ABDEGHJKä$@9b*opu<?CFIL©ßÿŒ÷$Þ 6pmXÿ„Xÿ„Xÿ„ð8ð


@ñÿÿÿ€€€÷ð’ð

ð0ð(
ð|H&À„ ððB ð
Sð¿
Ë
ÿ
 ?

ð
ª®¯Ž¹ÁÉÐÐ×àèPUSX‰Ž,1rw„zéPUæ뵺2 : !!†!Ž!à!è!0"5"0$4$Q$V$m%r%&”&S'X'G(L(ó(ø(3¢3á5æ5
88"<'<J<O<@CKC|CCùCDªK¯KbLgLúLÿL8Q;QQQVQtQyQvX{X/Y4Yš[Ÿ[P\T\ž\£\ ^%^o^t^Ç^Ì^¥_ª_×_Ü_’e—eŸe£e…kŠkÞkãk“l˜lbmdmemgmhmjmkmmmqm4:ÂÄc¬ZfÏÛ–  ÔØÙ(Â)é3í3=S@S+YUY}[[t]u](lSlbmdmemgmhmjmkmmmqm::::::::::::::ÿÿÿ²3ºGÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ3.O˜oæÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿJ<J†jÂ`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ£mò–kôrÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÂ~tþRÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿbh5\,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿä*a䢎BÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿxnU0pL,iÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ÷èP>öjØÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿG2jÜ4UÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿV,únâ'Â3ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÏmÒx`û„²ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
„„Æ
^„`„OJ
QJ
o(
„8„˜þÆ
Ð^„8`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(
·ð
„„˜þÆ
 ^„`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(
o
„Ø „˜þÆ
p^„Ø `„˜þOJQJo(
§ð
„š„˜þÆ
@^„š`„˜þOJQJo(
úð
„x„˜þÆ
^„x`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(
·ð
„H„˜þÆ
à^„H`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(
o
„„˜þÆ
°^„`„˜þOJQJo(
§ð
„脘þÆ
€^„è`„˜þOJQJo(
úð

h
„h
„˜þ^„h
`„˜þo(‡hˆH.
h
„8„˜þ^„8`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„„˜þ^„`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
h
„Ø „˜þ^„Ø `„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„š„˜þ^„š`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„x„˜þ^„x`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
h
„H„˜þ^„H`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„„˜þ^„`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„脘þ^„è`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
h
„h
„˜þ^„h
`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„8„˜þ^„8`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„„˜þ^„`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
h
„Ø „˜þ^„Ø `„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„š„˜þ^„š`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„x„˜þ^„x`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
h
„H„˜þ^„H`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„„˜þ^„`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„脘þ^„è`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð+„h
„˜þ^„h
`„˜þ56B*CJOJQJo(phÿ†*‡hˆH
-
„ „˜þ^„ `„˜þOJ QJ o(‡hˆH
o
„p„˜þ^„p`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
„@„˜þ^„@`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
„„˜þ^„`„˜þOJ QJ o(‡hˆH
o
„à„˜þ^„à`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
„°„˜þ^„°`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
„€„˜þ^„€`„˜þOJ QJ o(‡hˆH
o
„P„˜þ^„P`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
h
„h
„˜þ^„h
`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„8„˜þ^„8`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„„˜þ^„`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
h
„Ø „˜þ^„Ø `„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„š„˜þ^„š`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„x„˜þ^„x`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
h
„H„˜þ^„H`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„„˜þ^„`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„脘þ^„è`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð

h
„h
„˜þ^„h
`„˜þ‡hˆH.

h
„8„˜þ^„8`„˜þ‡hˆH
.
’
h
„„Lÿ^„`„Lÿ‡hˆH.

h
„Ø „˜þ^„Ø `„˜þ‡hˆH.

h
„š„˜þ^„š`„˜þ‡hˆH.
’
h
„x„Lÿ^„x`„Lÿ‡hˆH.

h
„H„˜þ^„H`„˜þ‡hˆH.

h
„„˜þ^„`„˜þ‡hˆH.
’
h
„è„Lÿ^„è`„Lÿ‡hˆH.

h
„h
„˜þ^„h
`„˜þo(‡hˆH.
h
„8„˜þ^„8`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„„˜þ^„`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
h
„Ø „˜þ^„Ø `„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„š„˜þ^„š`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„x„˜þ^„x`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
h
„H„˜þ^„H`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„„˜þ^„`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„脘þ^„è`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð

„h
„˜þ^„h
`„˜þo()
€
„8„˜þ^„8`„˜þ‡hˆH
.
‚
„„Lÿ^„`„Lÿ‡hˆH.
€
„Ø „˜þ^„Ø `„˜þ‡hˆH.
€
„š„˜þ^„š`„˜þ‡hˆH.
‚
„x„Lÿ^„x`„Lÿ‡hˆH.
€
„H„˜þ^„H`„˜þ‡hˆH.
€
„„˜þ^„`„˜þ‡hˆH.
‚
„è„Lÿ^„è`„Lÿ‡hˆH.

„Є˜þÆ
Ð^„Ð`„˜þ.
€
„ „˜þÆ
 ^„ `„˜þ
.
€
„p„˜þÆ
p^„p`„˜þ.
€
„@„˜þÆ
@^„@`„˜þ.
€
„„˜þÆ
^„`„˜þ.
€
„à„˜þÆ
à^„à`„˜þ.
€
„°„˜þÆ
°^„°`„˜þ.
€
„€„˜þÆ
€^„€`„˜þ.
€
„P„˜þÆ
P^„P`„˜þ.
h
„h
„˜þ^„h
`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„8„˜þ^„8`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„„˜þ^„`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
h
„Ø „˜þ^„Ø `„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„š„˜þ^„š`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„x„˜þ^„x`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
h
„H„˜þ^„H`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„„˜þ^„`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„脘þ^„è`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
h
„Є˜þ^„Ð`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„ „˜þ^„ `„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„p„˜þ^„p`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
h
„@„˜þ^„@`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„„˜þ^„`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„à„˜þ^„à`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð
h
„°„˜þ^„°`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(‡hˆH
·ð
h
„€„˜þ^„€`„˜þOJ QJ ^J o(‡hˆH
o
h
„P„˜þ^„P`„˜þOJQJo(‡hˆH
§ð„h
„˜þ^„h
`„˜þOJPJQJ^Jo(
-
€„8„˜þ^„8`„˜þOJ QJ o(
o
€„„˜þ^„`„˜þOJQJo(
§ð
€„Ø „˜þ^„Ø `„˜þOJ
QJ
o(
·ð
€„š„˜þ^„š`„˜þOJ QJ o(
o
€„x„˜þ^„x`„˜þOJQJo(
§ð
€„H„˜þ^„H`„˜þOJ
QJ
o(
·ð
€„„˜þ^„`„˜þOJ QJ o(
o
€„脘þ^„è`„˜þOJQJo(
§ð£mòxnU0÷èPbÂ3.Oÿÿä*aÿÿÏmÒxV,únJ<JG2jÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ   
  
  
  
  
  êÐÚ  
  
  
  
  
              
  
           
  
  
  
  
  
  ‚ЊY  
  
  
…Jª
-å+iemoßZ®sâE*ÙH*Š /;Œd@hZFcRŒp\è5`ií&nš4pÓduÉv­Mv±2zŒ{ÓŒ‰^rk‘˜_”T—3Kžž| Ž/ªœs¶ŒyºÔT¿ªÃŽЉ8ÛÎÜçNßfà4éÎfî6ñcTøþÿbmdm
ÿ@€
t]t]|âz

t]t]pmx@ÿÿ
Unknownÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ G
ÿ*àAxÀ ÿ
Times New Roman5
€Symbol3
ÿ*àCxÀ ÿ
Arial7
ÿáÿ¬@ Ÿ
Calibri7
ÿ¡[ @Ÿ
Verdana;
ÿà[xPŸ
Helvetica7
ÿàÿ@Ÿ
CambriaG5
€  ÿàûýÇjŸMS Mincho-ÿ3ÿ fgC
ï áÿ¡P¿
Lucida Grande3

Times?
 ÿ*àCxÀ ÿ
Courier New;
€WingdingsA
ÿàÿ$BŸ
Cambria Math AˆðÐh
æ*g³zGléûFS] 7ÆS] 7Æéð
 h
h
€€20+m+mKƒqðüý
HPñÿ $P'ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÓdu2!xx ÜÿÿMarika Konings Amr Elsadr<
  þÿ

à…ŸòùOh«‘+'³Ù0|

˜€°ÈÔè ü
,
8
D
P
\
d
l
t
'Marika KoningsNormal.dotmAmr Elsadr5Microsoft Macintosh Word@Ö~@7!I®Ì
@Ìè6ÌÒÍ
@²þpýòÍ
 S]þÿ
ÕÍ՜.“—+,ù®DÕÍ՜.“—+,ù®0
ì
hp€ˆ˜ š°ž ÀÍ'ICANNÆ7+m

Title
à

8@
_PID_HLINKS'A˜
MK%https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag
BO-https://community.icann.org/display/PDP/Home
)'mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org

   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMþÿÿÿOPQRSTUþÿÿÿWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwþÿÿÿyz{|}~þÿÿÿ‚ƒ„…†‡þÿÿÿýÿÿÿýÿÿÿ‹þÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿRoot Entry
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÀFr%’ýòÍ
€Data 
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿN1Table

ÿÿÿÿVˆCWordDocument
ÿÿÿÿ0šSummaryInformation(
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿxDocumentSummaryInformation8
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ€
CompObjÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
þÿ
ÿÿÿÿ ÀF Microsoft Word 97-2004 DocumentþÿÿÿNB6WWord.Document.8