July 2009 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] gTLD global outreach programme
by Phil Corwin July 12, 2009

July 12, 2009

Good to hear from you Michael. I am on the train to NYC at this moment and looking forward to a day of constructive engagement tomorrow. As for Rod Beckstrom I know there are many who hope that his inspiring remarks in Sydney translate into meaningful regime change. Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: Michael Castello <michaelc(a)traveler.com> To: Phil Corwin Cc: BC Secretariat <secretariat(a)bizconst.org>; BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Sun Jul 12 15:22:03 2009 Subject: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] gTLD global outreach programme Hello Phil, I read your comments and agree. ICANN protocol appears to be a smoke screen. It seems to me that ICANN has created an onion skin type of bureaucracy that on its surface appears to give the impression that it is inclusive in its decision making with the public and constituencies. In reality there appears to be a nucleus amongst its ranks that decide future agenda and policy. Whomever makes the funding decisions for ICANN may well be those that control it. It is mind boggling to see the time and effort many put into trying to help ICANN's future growth just be ignored and diminished in their capacity. I do hope future ICANN President Rod Beckstrom gives ICANN the direction it badly needs. Michael Castello CEO/President Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc. http://www.ccin.com michael(a)ccin.com<mailto:michael@ccin.com> -- Saturday, July 11, 2009, 9:40:50 AM, you wrote: I am very puzzled, and indeed disturbed, by this Outreach Program as well as by why ICANN is undertaking the considerable expense of facilitating it. The explanation of the events (at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm) states: With the expected introduction of New generic top-level domains (New gTLDs) into the market place in 2010, ICANN is hosting a series of live events and webinars starting June 2009. These events are designed in a wide range of formats to address different levels of knowledge. The purpose of these events is to explain the Program, share the progress that ICANN has made to-date and to receive feedback from the community that will facilitate shaping the program. These events are geared towards businesses small and large, trademark experts, professional associations, consumer and other civil society groups, members of the domain name industry, government officials, potential applicants and the ICANN community. All events are free of charge, but pre-registration is required. During the upcoming consultation sessions in New York (13 July) and London (15 July), attendees will have the chance to hear from ICANN staff and others who have contributed to the ongoing process, including members of the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) that submitted their report to the ICANN Board on measures to protect intellectual property. The proposed events in Hong Kong (24 July) and Abu-Dhabi (4 August) will mainly focus on the New gTLDs and Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) programs details. The main language of the events is English. (emphasis added) I will be attending the NYC event, and it and London are billed as "Live Consultations", described as follows: Live consultations will engage the global Internet community to discuss workable solutions to outstanding issues on specific aspects of the program, particularly trademark protection and malicious behavior. These sessions are aimed at people that have been closely following the Program development and still have concerns. The Hong Kong and Abu-Dhabi programs are more general "Live Outreach" events meant for a more general and less well informed audience; as no agenda has yet been posted for either event it is not possible to know what shape they will take. A review of the Agenda for the NYC event ( http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/ny-agenda-speakers-13jul09-en.pdf) reveals that the vast majority of its focus is on trademark protection. The time breakdown is as follows: General introduction -- 30 minutes Trademark protection (IRT Report) -- 4 hours 45 minutes Malicious behavior -- 1 hour 30 minutes Economic Impact & Root Scaling Security and Stability -- 45 minutes In other words, of the entire 7.5 hours of the program, more than 60% is devoted to trademark protection. Given this heavy emphasis on trademark protection -- and given the clear failure of the IRT report to garner consensus support from the community, as was apparent to anyone who attended the Sydney meeting or has reviewed a sample of the comments posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/index.html -- one would have hoped that ICANN would seek to present a balanced presentation, acknowledging that those who have presented well thought out criticisms of aspects of the IRT Report "have contributed to the ongoing process" just as much as members of the IRT. But a review of the scheduled speakers shows that all but one is an IRT member or other person who will be strongly supporting its report; the only critic I can identify is Richard Tindal of Demand Media, and their principal concern is the proposed GPML. There is not a single speaker likely to criticize the very controversial URS, which critics (like myself, on behalf of ICA) have charged constitutes not only a major and unjustifiable diminution of registrant rights currently available under the UDRP but is also a major new Policy initiative, and not a mere technical implementation detail, and therefore cannot be adopted outside the normal PDP process overseen by the GNSO. So my first question relates to why there is no adequate balance to this panel on trademark protection that recognizes the very real splits within the ICANN community on the IRT report? How are attendees adequately informed by such a one-sided presentation? Another question is raised by the claim in the program description that these events will "receive feedback from the community that will facilitate shaping the program". What's going on here? The IRT was disbanded after delivering its Report, and that Report was thoroughly debated in Sydney. The comment period closed this past Monday. So, from a procedural standpoint, any "feedback" received at these events, in which critics of the report are relegated to the audience, should have no effect on "shaping the program". As the NYC Consultation is aimed at individuals who have been "closely following the program development" all these individuals were either already heard in Sydney or had an opportunity to comment officially. The Chair of the GNSO Council filed a comment, in her personal capacity, stating that the IRT was an attempt by trademark interests to have a second bite at the apple, to put proposals back in the mix that had already been rejected in the GNSO consensus process, and that adoption of the URS as a mere implementation detail would destroy the legitimacy of ICANN's bottom-up consensus process: ...the work of the IRT, if it goes directly from the IRT to implementation will not only constitute new top down policy but some parts of it will be new policy that the GNSO specifically decided there was no consensus for making. Going beyond the consensus making purview of the GNSO to create policy as part of the implementation cycle of the program not only directly contradicts the policy made by the GNSO but also endangers the legitimacy of the entire consensus policy process. Further one of the recommendations, the Uniform Rapid Suspension System, constitutes an entirely new policy mechanism that affects previous policy, the UDRP, without proper policy review. (http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/pdfNhBqKA4CfN.pdf) So do trademark interests not just get a second bite at the apple outside the GNSO consensus process, but also get extra time after the closing of the formal comment period to further "shape" the process? This is not only wrong but silly -- from a substantive viewpoint, depending on who turns out, the NYC and London events can only demonstrate one or both of the following propositions: * trademark interests strongly support the recommendations in the IRT report, produced by a group which had its membership and agenda controlled by the IPC * other members of the ICANN community have strong reservations about or outright opposition to virtually every aspect of the IRT Report, including whether various proposals contained within it are major new policy initiatives that require a formal PDP process Well, we already knew all that. didn't we? I shall be very surprised if any feedback is received at the NYC event that has not already been fed to ICANN in Sydney or through the comment process. A last question would be how much $ is ICANN spending to put on these events and to fly various staff around the world to them? And are any of the other speakers having their expenses covered by ICANN, just as members of the IRT received travel support at a time when ICANN tells other constituencies and supporting organizations that it lacks funds for their monetary support requests? To put my comments here in context, I invite you to visit http://www.internetcommerce.org/node/198 which contains the text of ICA's comment letter as well as an introduction that documents the IRT Report dissent and criticism coming from key ICANN constituencies. ICA supported some aspects of the Report with proper tweaking; while we took strong exception to the URS we suggested an expedited PDP that could put in place balanced UDRP reforms prior to the launch of any new gTLD in the fourth quarter of 2010 -- this process could directly benefit trademark owners by addressing many .com problems, which is where the vast majority of their current infringement issues arise and are likely to keep doing so in the future. And, more important, it would respect and not run roughshod over ICANN's policymaking process. In closing, let me note two other news items of the last week to put this whole IRT debate in broader context: * On July 8th Mary Kay Cosmetics sued Yahoo! for trademark infringement (http://www.thedomains.com/2009/07/09/another-day-another-suit-yahoo-sued-tr… ) alleging that Yahoo! inserted links to unauthorized resellers in e-mails sent by Mary Kay salespeople send to their customers. I note this not to endorse the allegations but simply to observe that that trademark infringement suits are a growth industry and that even strong infringement critics and IRT report supporters like Yahoo! can find themselves in the cross-hairs. * Comcast has just announced a "Domain Helper Service" (http://domainnamewire.com/2009/07/09/comcast-starts-typosquatting-domain-na… ) that serves up ads against nonexistent domain names, mostly typos of legitimate trademarked names, thereby following in the footsteps of other major ISPs. If these names were registered as individual domains they might well be subject to UDRP or URS actions, but ISPs contend that serving up ad pages (primarily supplied by Google and Yahoo!) and not 404 error messages is a customer services and not typosquatting. So I wonder if we can get ironclad pledges from members of the ISP constituency (many of whom are strong IRT report proponents) that they will not serve up ads against any domain that has been suspended in a URS action? And if they won't do that, then why are we taking the risk of tearing the ICANN community apart and destroying its policy-making process? After all, if an Internet user sees the same ads when they mistype micosofft.web what's the difference if a domain owner or an ISP is pocketing the PPC income that may be generated? If you've read this far, thanks for your time on this weekend. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of BC Secretariat [secretariat(a)bizconst.org] Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 11:12 AM To: BC gnso Subject: [bc-gnso] gTLD global outreach programme Dear Members Please find below a link to information about the ICANN gTLD global outreach and consultation programme Best wishes Gary http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD

1 0

gTLD global outreach programme
by BC Secretariat July 12, 2009

July 12, 2009

Dear Members Please find below a link to information about the ICANN gTLD global outreach and consultation programme Best wishes Gary http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD

3 3

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 9 July 2009
by BC Secretariat July 10, 2009

July 10, 2009

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 9 July, 2009 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090709.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#july Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants
by Rick Anderson July 7, 2009

July 7, 2009

I know that in our firm it is not really the $7 registration fees which are the issue, even though x hundreds of registrations it adds up. The more serious cost is the tens of thousands of dollars in lost time while people sort these things out (usually in the legal department, an expensive resource), without even getting into the thousands more occasionally required for a UDRP or for the legal threats and wrangling preceding one. It is this lost time and trouble which I believe most people find the most aggravating and wasteful, moreso than the registration fees per se, and regarding which the thought of mutiplying it xfold for new TLDs is anathema. It sound like you are applying your creative juices in the right direction, if you can develop a method which fairly preserves the (bonafide) rights of TMholders with minimal hassle, then you may well significantly lessen the reflexive antagonism re new TLDs. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 office: (403) 750-5535 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Mon Jul 06 23:03:03 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants Hi Rick, On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Rick Anderson wrote: > What I see wrong in this notion - at least as described here - is that it probably encourages tasting, squatting, speculation as much as it assists TMholders. The unintended effect of subsidizing these activities is not a great plan. Thanks for the feedback. One method to refine the concept further is to truly limit things to defensive registrations (as opposed to speculative registrations at lower cost) through a link to an active "base" domain name (one that does resolve). For example, the domain typo generator at DomainTools.com spits out a number of matches for "Verizon": http://www.domaintools.com/domain-typo/?q=verizon&mode=reg&status=b&rules%5… Let's say that the "base" domain name is declared to be Verizon.com. Then if Verizon wanted to own verizoln.com or verizom.com, but the traffic from those domains wasn't worth $7/yr to Verizon (i.e. it doesn't "pay" for them resolve), they could pay say $3/yr to register them but have no nameservers, at the same time linking it to Verizon.com. They could do the same for domains in other TLDs, declaring them "defensive registrations" that all link to one base domain that does resolve. One could develop an algorithm to test whether a domain that is declared as "defensive" is similar enough to that base domain name to qualify (e.g. a certain number of common characters, common typos like wwwdomain.com, etc.). An algorithm probably wouldn't capture 100% of defensive registrations, but it could probably reduce costs for a healthy fraction of them. There could also be a function to list all defensive registrations (with no nameservers) for a given base domain, to make abusers easier to bring to justice. For example, let's say someone other than Disney did own wwwdisney.com and used that as their active "base" domain for speculative but low traffic domains (which didn't generate $7/yr worth of traffic) such as wwwdisney.org. A markholder would be able to more easily capture the entire set of typos that didn't resolve (and thus were registered under the lower cost system) in one action because of that linkage. > As well, what actually makes sense with these secondary TM registrations is to point them at the primary site (rather than to leave them to non-resolve). That's a better user experience, and if the holder has to go to the effort of registering them (a bigger cost really than the reg cost), whatever traffic they may generate may as well find its destination. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If the domain doesn't generate $7/yr worth of traffic, a markholder might still keep the domain registered in order to avoid facing the UDRP and legal costs of $5,000+ if the domain is abused by someone else. If these marginal names could face lower carrying costs (say $3/yr instead of $7/yr), that cost savings could be dramatic, thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars per year. Registry operators might not be happy by the loss of "fully priced" defensive registration fees that they're used to currently, but that's not a suitable business model to begin with. Depending on the elasticity of demand, ironically registries might even actually increase the number and total revenues from defensive registrations, as the lower price for domains deemed "defensive" would actually increase the total number registered and possibly the total profitability for the registry. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.

3 2

Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants
by Rick Anderson July 7, 2009

July 7, 2009

Hmm. This is not my favourite GK idea of all time. However, I do think the motivation is well-placed: how do we nurture the innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship and competition inherent in new TLDs and new registries and new models, while not saddling TMholders with the infinite costs of protecting their trademarks in an endless parade of TLDs. Figure that out, George, and we shall be away to the races. What I see wrong in this notion - at least as described here - is that it probably encourages tasting, squatting, speculation as much as it assists TMholders. The unintended effect of subsidizing these activities is not a great plan. As well, what actually makes sense with these secondary TM registrations is to point them at the primary site (rather than to leave them to non-resolve). That's a better user experience, and if the holder has to go to the effort of registering them (a bigger cost really than the reg cost), whatever traffic they may generate may as well find its destination. But I do agree with your premises, just not this particular tactic.... cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 office: (403) 750-5535 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Mon Jul 06 20:21:02 2009 Subject: [bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants Hi folks, Any rational reading of the IRT comments archive demonstrates deep divisions between TM holders and the broader public, in particular domain name registrants: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/ So, I thought it might be a good idea to try to find common ground between the two sides. Since we continue to lack a true cross-constituency GNSO mailing list, we'll have to do the best we can with those on both sides represented in our own constituency. Here's the first of several ideas that I'd like to "test", to see whether they have the support of folks here: 1) Registry fees should be lower for domains that do no resolve (i.e. have no nameservers). Since TM holders register a large number of domains only for defensive purposes, they waste considerable sums on domain names they simply do not really want to own or use. Conceivably abusive registrants would benefit by being able to register larger numbers of domains too at lower cost --- however, they'd be unable to actually USE these domains, since the names do not resolve. Please respond with "yes", "no", "maybe" and perhaps an explanation of why you feel the way you do about the idea. Perhaps we can queue up other ideas from both sides, and after devoting a day or two or three to each idea (in separate threads), be able to come up with a package of solutions that has strong consensus support (even unanimous support) that we can bring to other constituencies. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.

2 2

Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants
by George Kirikos July 7, 2009

July 7, 2009

Hi folks, Any rational reading of the IRT comments archive demonstrates deep divisions between TM holders and the broader public, in particular domain name registrants: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/ So, I thought it might be a good idea to try to find common ground between the two sides. Since we continue to lack a true cross-constituency GNSO mailing list, we'll have to do the best we can with those on both sides represented in our own constituency. Here's the first of several ideas that I'd like to "test", to see whether they have the support of folks here: 1) Registry fees should be lower for domains that do no resolve (i.e. have no nameservers). Since TM holders register a large number of domains only for defensive purposes, they waste considerable sums on domain names they simply do not really want to own or use. Conceivably abusive registrants would benefit by being able to register larger numbers of domains too at lower cost --- however, they'd be unable to actually USE these domains, since the names do not resolve. Please respond with "yes", "no", "maybe" and perhaps an explanation of why you feel the way you do about the idea. Perhaps we can queue up other ideas from both sides, and after devoting a day or two or three to each idea (in separate threads), be able to come up with a package of solutions that has strong consensus support (even unanimous support) that we can bring to other constituencies. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

BC Sydney meeting notes
by BC Secretariat July 3, 2009

July 3, 2009

The notes of the BC meeting Sydney can be found on the BC web site www.bizconst.org under the meetings tab and also latest news. Gary

1 0

Latest news and events GAC
by BC Secretariat July 3, 2009

July 3, 2009

http://gac.icann.org/ LATEST NEWS & EVENTS The next GAC Meeting will be held in Seoul, South Korea from October 25-30, 2009 Sydney Communique` GAC Chairman's Report for the information to the ITU Council's Working Group - WSIS June 2009

1 0

Call for volunteers for Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery - PDP Working Group
by Philip Sheppard July 3, 2009

July 3, 2009

Please let the BC secretariat know if you wish to participate as the BC representative. Philip ------------------------------------- The GNSO Council at its meeting on 24 June 2009 passed a resolution on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery - PDP Working Group Charter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/pednr-wg-charter-24ju… tm Each constituency, and the liaisons, are invited to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. Other stakeholders and experts may be invited to join the WG by the GNSO Council. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat <gnso.secretariat[at]icann.org> and the invitations will be reviewed by the GNSO council. The GNSO Council RESOLVES To form a Working Group composed of Constituency representatives as well as interested stakeholders in order to develop potential policy and/or best practices to address the issues covered, while seeking additional information as appropriate to inform the work. The WG will also be open to invited experts and to members or representatives of the ICANN Advisory Committees, whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC. The Working Group initially shall: 1. Pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery of domain names following expiration are enforced; 2. Review and understand the current domain name life cycle; 3. Review current registrar practices regarding domain name expiration, renewal, and post-expiration recovery. The Working Group shall then consider the following questions: 1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names; 2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough; 3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations; 4. Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined); 5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. The Working Group is expected to organize an issue update / workshop at the Seoul meeting, in addition to an update to the GNSO Council. The Working Group should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy. Working Group processes: All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public. A PEDNR WG mailing list has been created (gnso-pednr-dt(a)icann.org) with public archives at:http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/.

4 3

Public Comment Encouraged on Revised GNSO Stakeholder Group Charters
by BC Secretariat July 2, 2009

July 2, 2009

ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01jul09-en.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Public Comment Encouraged on Revised GNSO Stakeholder Group Charters 1 July 2009 As part of the comprehensive GNSO Improvements effort, last year the ICANN Board approved the formation of four new GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs). After considering proposed SG Charters that were submitted by the community and posted for public comment , the ICANN Board passed a Resolution in May directing its Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) and ICANN Staff to revise the SG Charters to make them consistent with the Board’s GNSO Improvements Report (and related Resolutions). Background and Explanation Stakeholder Groups are integral elements of a new, restructured GNSO, and are intended to be lightweight “caucuses” bringing together like-minded international groups (Constituencies) to elect the best representatives to fill the SG’s allotted Council seats. Stakeholder Groups ensure that the ratio of Council seats among SGs remains the same while encouraging the formation of new Constituencies and the continued growth and diversification of the GNSO community. The overall GNSO Improvements effort and the role SGs will play in that arena is more fully described in the Stakeholder Group section of the GNSO Improvements Information Web Page. The SIC provided the community with the revised charters linked below and discussed these documents during ICANN’s recent Sydney meeting. The revised charters are posted to further encourage public comment via email to gnso-stakeholder-charters(a)icann.org by 21 July 2009. a.. Commercial SG Charter [PDF, 29K] b.. Non-Commercial SG Charter [PDF, 59K] c.. Registrars SG Charter [PDF, 60K] d.. Registries SG Charter [PDF, 117K] Relevant Board Resolutions, Bylaws and Constituency Submissions a.. GNSO Improvements Information Web Page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ b.. GNSO Improvements Report adopted by the Board (3 February 2008): http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe… c.. Resolution of 26 June 2009 Board Meeting: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#2 d.. Minutes of 28 August 2008 Board Meeting: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-28aug08.htm e.. Minutes of 1 October 2008 ICANN Board Meeting: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-01oct08.htm f.. Five Stakeholder Group Submissions received from the community: http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/stakeholder-process-en.htm The Process From Here At the end of this public comment forum period, the ICANN Staff will provide a summary/analysis of the comments submitted regarding each Stakeholder Group submission. That summary/analysis will be shared with the community and the Board. The Board will subsequently take action on each Stakeholder Group petition and charter as it deems appropriate. Deadline and How to Submit Comments A 21-day public consultation forum has been opened from 30 June through 21 July 2009. The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here: http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#stakeholder To submit comments: Comments on the documents are welcome via email to gnso-stakeholder-charters(a)icann.org. To view comments: An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/. Staff Responsible: Robert Hoggarth Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0