October 2010 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Revised Draft #3 of UDRP Provider Standard Mechanisms Position Paper
by Phil Corwin Oct. 21, 2010

Oct. 21, 2010

Attached is a 3rd draft of the BC position paper, in both redline and clean form. This draft incorporates recent input from Sarah, Philip, and others. It excises all reference to "contract" or "sanctions" in the UDRP context. The basic message is that no new UDRP providers should be accredited until ICANN establishes a "standard mechanism" for their oversight that includes "flexible and effective means of enforcement". It leaves the details of what that mechanism and means should be to future consideration. The current draft reflects suggested textual changes and comments from more than half a dozen members of the BC. As the internal comment process has now lasted almost one week, and as the comment filing date is one week from tomorrow, I would suggest that we leave the current draft open for further comments until the end of tomorrow (other than formatting and other typographical alterations) and then lock it down and use the appropriate process to assure that there is a consensus within the BC for filing it. I defer to Marilyn, Steve and others on the approval procedure. Thanks again to all who have provided input on this matter. Best to all, Philip 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

4 3

RE: [bc-gnso] For review / approval by 28-Oct: BC Comment on Accreditation of UDRP providers
by berrycobb＠infinityportals.com Oct. 18, 2010

Oct. 18, 2010

First let me begin by supporting the position started here. I also agree with Phils statement that this issue is separate from the issue of UDRP evaluation standards, etc. But, while separate issues, perhaps the issue of accreditation and/or standard UDRP Provider based contracts can be reviewed via the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group recommendation of a UDRP review. Presently, there is a RAP Implementation team reviewing each of the RAP recommendations, one of which where the RAP WG reached unanimous consensus in review of UDRP. That recommendation requests for an Issues Report to initiate and launch the PDP process. The RAP IMP team will prioritize the recommendations for implementation and hopes to submit its efforts back to the GNSO council by close of October. At this time, we have not agreed on recommendation prioritization, but there does seem to be agreement that any UDRP Review PDP may require multiple PDPs, similar deployment to IRTP. Secondly, I attached an updated version of the BC Position Statement, per Marilyns comment to use a style template on a previous position statement. I took the liberty to update the template using the BCs latest logo and style created by Chris Chaplow. I did not have the soft files of the images, so this template could be improved some. Let me know your thoughts. I DID NOT include Marilyns edits in this version of the draft. Steve, can you ensure they are incorporated? Thank you. B Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://infinityportals.com 720.839.5735 From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:10 PM To: Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] For review / approval by 28-Oct: BC Comment on Accreditation of UDRP providers These comments are offered as a member of the BC, in my private capacity. First, I think that we need to continue to develop our BC comments in a positive tone, with a consistent 'look and feel', and with a view to leadership. Secondly, I provided some suggestions to the authors. However, I am not wedded to my language, but I am wedded to supporting that the BC's comments should show leadership. I know that was the intent, and hope that my suggestions might contribute to that approach. It is great to see such rapid turn around to get something out to members for consideration. Thanks, Phil, and Steve. I do have a question. Would you expect to freeze the document at some point, so that mmbers can respond to a final version? Marilyn Cade ________________________________________ From: sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] For review / approval by 28-Oct: BC Comment on Accreditation of UDRP providers Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:03:00 +0000 This draft comment is being circulated today (14-Oct) so that BC members will have 14 days to review, revise, and consider approval before the ICANN deadline of 28-Oct-2010. The attached comment was drafted by Phil Corwin and was polished for submission by Mike Rodenbaugh. Phils original note is shown at the bottom of this email, and contains some contextual material that may be helpful in your consideration of this draft. This draft comment is in response to ICANNs proposal to recognize a new domain name dispute provider. For background on this proposal, see below, or at http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#acdr-proposal Explanation/Background: ICANN has received a proposal from the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDR) to be recognized as one of the official dispute resolution providers under the UDRP. The proposal was submitted pursuant to the process specified at http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/provider-approval-process.htm. The ACDR is jointly established by the Arab Intellectual Property Mediation and Arbitration Society (AIPMAS) and the Arab Society for Intellectual Property (ASIP), with headquarters in Amman, Jordan and additional offices in other Arab Countries. Both the AIPMAS (established in 1987) and ASIP promote the activities of the Arab Center of Mediation and Arbitration, established in 2003, active in resolving conflicts related to intellectual property through international arbitrators. If approved, the ACDR would be the first Approved UDRP Dispute Resolution Service Provider headquartered in an Arab state. At its 5 August 2010 meeting, the Board approved staffs recommendation to publish the ACDR proposal for a public comment for a period of not less than 30 days. Upon completion of the public comment period, ICANN staff will analyze the comments received and evaluate further recommendations to the Board on proceeding with the ACDR proposal. The proposal and relevant annexures are at: ACDR Proposal [PDF, 156 KB] Annex 1 ACDR Initial List of Panelists [PDF, 176 KB] Annex 2 ACDR Screening Process [PDF, 8 KB] Annex 3 ACDR Supplemental Rules [PDF, 100 KB] ----- Forwarded Message From: Phil Corwin <pcorwin(a)butera-andrews.com> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:54:47 +0000 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, bcprivate <bcprivate(a)bizconst.org> Thanks to you, Steve, Sarah, Ron, Mikey, Chris and everyone else who put in place and participated in Tuesday's meeting of the Business Constituency. It was very worthwhile and hopefully will be an annual event. During the policy portion of the meeting I noted that there is a pending request for comment regarding the application of the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDR) to become a certified UDRP arbitration provider. ACDR is located in Amman, Jordan; The comment period closes on October 28th. Steve invited me to provide further details, and this e-mail takes up that offer. I don't yet have an ICA comment letter to share that has been approved by the ICA Board, but I can provide this background -- I noted that the ICA intended to oppose approval of this application at this time on the grounds that no new UDRP providers should be accredited until ICANN implements a standard contract with all accredited providers or finds some other mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities. Let me make clear that ICA's opposition will not be based in any way on the fact that this particular applicant is "Arab" and is located in the developing world. There were recent reports that an Indian organization is contemplating a similar application, and it may yet do so -- and ICA would take the same position in regard to them -- as we would in regard to any applicant from the US, EU, or any other part of the developed world. Nor are we necessarily alleging that ACDR or its proposed panelists are lacking adequate professional credentials (we are still reviewing all of their supporting documents). That said, future UDRP providers are likely to be located in jurisdictions that have different local legal cultures, and this make it even more important to have a standardized governing document to keep the "uniform" in UDRP. The problem is this -- it makes absolutely no sense to require that domains be registered or renewed via ICANN-accredited registrars who are under a standard contract (the RAA) but then provide that you can have your domain transferred away through a process administered by an organization that has been granted this power by ICANN -- yet is under no contract that defines its practices and procedures, is not subject to any regular or standardized review by ICANN, and for which ICANN's only disciplinary tool is accreditation revocation (so extreme a sanction that it is unlikely to ever be used). I would think that everyone in the Business Constituency would understand the importance of a contractual relationship that defines and constrains this grant of power, and provides flexible and effective enforcement mechanisms, because that delegated power can extinguish substantial monetary investment and goodwill in a domain. Granting this kind of power absent any restraints is not an accountable practice. As I noted yesterday, this is not just a domain investor/developer issue. We appear to be transitioning from a DNS that featured an effective duopoly of UDRP providers (WIPO and NAF) and in which all significant gTLDs were based in the developed world -- to one in which the majority of gTLDs may well be headquartered in nontraditional jurisdictions. Business interests may well be investing substantial amounts in these new gTLDs, for both defensive and new branding purposes. In this type of environment it is even more important that a proliferating cast of UDRP providers be subject to uniform and enforceable responsibilities, as that is the only means of assuring that UDRP decisions are consistent within and among UDRP providers, and that the UDRP remains an expedited and lower cost means of addressing cybersquatting. Let me conclude by noting that this issue of whether UDRP providers should be under standard contract with ICANN is almost entirely separable from the question of whether the UDRP evaluation standards for determining the existence of cybersquatting should be reformed. That latter issue is a more complicated matter, and ICA recently suggested to ICANN that it should undertake an expert and impartial study contrasting trends in Internet trademark law decisions in major jurisdictions with trends in UDRP practice in order to provide a common foundation of information to inform any broader UDRP reform effort. There is no need to debate the substantive elements of the UDRP in order to address the fundamental issue of whether UDRP providers should be under standardized contract. I realize that it is difficult for the BC to reach consensus or act quickly. But I would ask fellow members to start thinking about this issue of whether you want expanded ranks of UDRP providers to be able to decide disputes involving your domains registered in hundreds of new gTLDs located in multiple national jurisdictions without being under contract in that role. If the BC is unable to oppose this particular application I would at least hope we could achieve a consensus statement expressing concern about the lack of a contractual relationship between these providers and ICANN. Thanks to my fellow members for taking this under advisement -- and thanks again to all who contributed to yesterday's event. Regards to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell)

2 1

nominating Berry for the Councillor slot
by Mike O'Connor Oct. 16, 2010

Oct. 16, 2010

hi all, it gives me great pleasure to nominate Berry Cobb for the upcoming GNSO Councillor position. here's why i think he'd do a terrific job. -- he's trustworthy. in my experience he's careful to only make promises he can keep, and then he keeps those promises. -- he's up to speed on the policy front. he's been an active participant and strong contributor on a boatload of working-groups over the last couple years. he's one of the people who shows up on all the calls, all the way to the end. -- he's a strong analyst. some of this is just his nature, some of it is his background coming from IBM. but Berry's delivered a lot of analysis for the working groups he's been on. those analyses often form the starting place when we come to consensus. we who have worked with him often refer to him the master of the pivot-table. -- he "gets" the new role of the Council. Berry understands the destination that the GNSO Council is headed toward -- that of being the manager of a policy-making process rather than the policy-making body. i think he can play a crucial role to help the Council achieve that destination. i think Berry would be a great representative for us at the Council. i hope he will accept this nomination, and that the rest of you will support him. thanks, mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

2 1

INFORMATIONAL: Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 28 October 2010.
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 15, 2010

Oct. 15, 2010

I am asked to forward the draft GNSO Council agenda to the BC members list so that members are aware of the Council's agenda and topics. Thanks, Marilyn Cade Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 28 October 2010. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-28oct10-en.htm https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_28_october_2010 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 5 August 2010 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 20:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 13:00 PDT; 15:00 CDT; 16:00 EST; 17:00 Buenos Aires; 17:00 Brazil; 22:00 CET; 24:00 Moscow Friday, 29 October 01:00 Pakistan; 04:00 Hong Kong; 05:00 Tokyo, 07:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (15 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest • Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding “any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party’s judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion” in this meeting. Here is the definition provided in the procedures: “Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue.” The main issue for this meeting is GNSO Prioritization 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 7 October 2010 meeting minutes – Approved on 28 October 2010. Item 2: GNSO Project Prioritization (20 minutes) 2.1 Refer to posted project ratings: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-work-prioritization-project-list-value-r… 2.2 Key points made in the 15 July Council meeting (from meeting minutes): • “. . . not a useful exercise, not much was learnt, should not proceed further with the prioritization exercise.” • “. . . spending more time on the exercise will not accomplish useful results.” • “It was a difficult exercise, policy matters were not prioritized and the core issue, management of the workload, still has not been resolved.” • “The exercise was intended as a first step and not intended to solve the workload management; other steps are needed. The exercise contributed an important degree of common awareness and dissent to the group.” • “The prioritization process could be improved with further input from the Councilors and stakeholder groups.” • “The exercise is important and informative from a staff perspective and the Council needs to look at a two-step process going forward: step one - form a small team to improve the process used to date drawing on input received; step two - develop a process to manage the workload with input from staff of the resources being used to support each of the working groups, which will reflect both staff and community efforts.” • “Support was expressed for continuing the prioritization work, but linking it to the overall ICANN Staff and Community workload and to the Budget process.” • “The question of available resources should be looked at in context. The Vertical Integration working group as an example of one that would not normally have commenced with all the work before Council, yet it did and the community resources were available.” • “Some believe that work should be prioritized but the methodology chosen is not the most appropriate or efficient.” 2.3 Next Steps • Staff Utilization Analysis (Liz Gasster) Refer to: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-council-resource-management-polic… • Results of Adobe Connect Poll regarding possible next steps: o Option 1: Spend no more time on prioritization - 5 votes (33%) o Option 2: Develop a plan for using the results to manage the workload in the near term - 2 votes (13%) o Option 3: Form a drafting team with the task of developing a new process - 0 votes (0%) o Option 4: Form a drafting team with the task of improving the process - 1 vote (7%) o Option 5: Other? (including combinations of options 2, 3, and or 4) - 7 votes (47%) • Discussion? • Action Items Item 3: Whois Study #3 - WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse (15 minutes) Refer to: The Abuse Study Staff Analysis http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct… 3.1 Status Report (Liz Gasster) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Next steps? Item 4: Absentee Voting Procedures (25 minutes) 4.1 Overview (Ken Bour, Staff; Ray Fassett, GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) Chair) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Report from Operations Steering Committee/ GNSO Council Operations Work Team (OSC/GCOT) (Philip Sheppard, OSC Chair; Ray Fassett) 4.4 Next steps? Item 5: Disclosure of Interest Procedures (15 minutes) 5.1 Report from OSC/GCOT (Philip Sheppard, Ray Fassett) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next steps? Item 6: Planning for Cartagena Meetings (15 minutes) 6.1 Overview of plans/schedule (Stéphane Van Gelder, Glen de Saint Géry) 6.2 Next steps? Item 7: Status of Continued Action Items (10 Minutes) 7.1 Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter (Chuck Gomes) 7.2 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvements implementation (Glen de Saint Géry) • Volunteers to date: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISCPC), Tatyana Khramtsova (RrSG), Ray Fassett (RySG), Avri Doria (NCSG), Rudi Vansnick (NCSG), Philip Sheppard (CBUC) • Feedback from Steering Committees (Rob Hoggarth) • Question raised regarding GNSO Operating Procedures: Should the concerns about the newly approved disclosure of interest requirements be dealt with by the OSC & GCOT or by the standing committee? • Next steps? Charter? 7.3 Progress of House/SG Elections • Councilors • Chair & Vice Chair Nominations • NCA Assignments 7.4 Whois Studies • Refer to redline version of Proxy/Privacy Reveal study (Study 4) RFP at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29sep10-en.htm • Status of Whois Study 4, WHOIS Privacy/Proxy Relay & Reveal Study (Liz Gasster) Item 8: Other Business (5 Minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. ________________________________________ Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ________________________________________ Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 20:00UTC ________________________________________ California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 13:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+0DST 21:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+0DST 00:00 next day Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 07:00 next day ________________________________________ The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Communication
by Chris Chaplow Oct. 9, 2010

Oct. 9, 2010

Dear member, I have just sent an email to the BC meeting mailing list which many of you have subscribed to. If you have subscribed and did not just receive an email entitled BC meeting mailing list please let me know and I will add you to the list. Thanks, . Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andaluciaws.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andaluciaws.com

1 0

Joint SO/AC-WG Draft Report
by Zahid Jamil Oct. 7, 2010

Oct. 7, 2010

FYI! Comments welcome! http://gnso.icann.org/issues/jas/draft-final-report-excerpt-jas-04oct10-en.p df http://gnso.icann.org/issues/jas/new-gtld-applicant-support-draft-recommenda tions-summary-report-23sep10-en.pdf [This summary has been generated for a briefing to the GNSO, September 2010. This is a summary of the recommendations in draft format. The JAS WG Final Report not yet published].

1 0

Meeting email list
by Chris Chaplow Oct. 5, 2010

Oct. 5, 2010

Dear BC members, We have set up a dedicated non archived email list for BC meetings. The intention is it is to be used for emails that are relevant to attendees of BC or ICANN meeting and not relevant to the membership in general. The next meeting is the BC meeting in Washington DC on the 12th October 2010. Any member who is attending next weeks Washington DC meeting either in person or remotely should email me asking to be added to this list. I will confirm your request and advise you of the email address for posting. (Those members who have already replied to my test email do not need to reply again) Thanks for your support. Best regards, Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andaluciaws.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andaluciaws.com

1 0

FW: Call details & Adobe Connect for GNSO Council meeting Thursday 7 October 2010 at 15:00 UTC
by Mike Rodenbaugh Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

Fyi, for anyone interested. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 10:13 AM To: mail=ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org Subject: Call details & Adobe Connect for GNSO Council meeting Thursday 7 October 2010 at 15:00 UTC Dear Councillors, Please find the dial-in numbers for the GNSO Council call on Thursday, 7 October 2010 at 15:00 UTC. Please notify your constituency and stakeholder group members that the meeting will be audio cast GNSO Council meeting audiocast <http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Meeting Time 15:00 UTC See the following and <http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 08:00 PDT; 10:00 CDT; 11:00 EST; 12:00 Buenos Aires; 12:00 Brazil; 17:00 CET; 19:00 Moscow, 20:00 Karachi, 23:00 Hong Kong, 00:00 Thursday, 9 September 00:00 Tokyo, 02:00 Melbourne Other times may be found at: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html Participant passcode: COUNCIL Please click on the link to join the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/ To log into the Adobe Connect room, please use the login ID and password that you have recently received via email Please let me know immediately if you have any questions in this connection. The agenda is posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-07oct10-en.htm and the agenda on the Wiki has the latest updates https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_7_october_2010 the motions are posted on page: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?7_october_motions The dial-in numbers can also be found on the Wiki at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?call_in_numbers Please let me know whether you would like the operator to call you. Current dial-outs noted: · Andre Kolesnikov · Rafik Dammak · Jaime Wagner · Zahid Jamil Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen ____________________________________________________________________________ _________________ Participant passcode: COUNCIL For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA: 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Announcement on SSR and WHOIS Review Teams
by Deutsch, Sarah B Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

See the attached announcement from ICANN about team selections for the review teams on WHOIS policy and Security Stability and Resiliency (SSR). The reviews will take place over the next 12 months. Our two CSG endorsed candidates, Jeff Brueggeman for SSR and Susan Kawaguchi for WHOIS, are included on the teams. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30sep10-en.htm. 　 Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670

1 0