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

Need Your individual sign off on attached Comments on Filling Board Seat 13
by BC Secretariat Feb. 18, 2010

Feb. 18, 2010

All, Sorry for the fire drill, but comments are due on the issue of filling ICANN Board Seat 13 by Feb. 18 (tomorrow!). Because we did not have enough time to follow our usual 14 day process to circulate comments for full BC sign on, we're trying a modified approach. I've attempted a very short one pager with comments for those from the BC who wish to add their names individually . If you can sign on individually, could you let me know? Note that the IPC and ISPs are filing something similar and it will be important to make sure that our Non-Contracted House isn't restricted when it comes time next year for our group to select Board Seat 14. Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670

5 4

Summary of BC member comments on Expression of Interest (EOI)
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 18, 2010

Feb. 18, 2010

the proposed plan for new gTLD Expression of Interest (EOI) will be discussed in Nairobi and one of the few items likely the Board may vote on. If the BC wants to have approved talking points for the GNSO session and Board forum in Nairobi, we need to start the clock now on our required 14-day comment period. Just in case the membership wants to have an official position in Nairobi, please consider this note a draft of possible position points for discussion. Below I¹ve shown major points from submissions by several members during ICANN¹s public comment period on the EOI proposal. (Apologies if I¹ve missed other member comments. Please bring them up on our BC Member call if this topic merits further consideration.) Philip Shepard, AIM ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00205.html and http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00149.html ) > 1. Distraction The EOI process should not distract ICANN from the > fundamental task of addressing unresolved issues relating to new TLDs such as > trade mark protection and malicious conduct. (AIM) > > 2. A true pre-registration The proposed mandatory EOI process with a > $55,000 fee is described as a pre-registration suggesting that it is not > reversible regardless of the unresolved overarching issues such as trade mark > protection and malicious conduct. > > 3. Inconsistency The principle of pre-registration is inconsistent with > all previous ICANN practice. > > 4. Ignores market dynamics Brand owners may feel compelled to enter into an > EOI purely for defensive reasons, so that they do not suffer when a speculator > is given rights in their brand. There seems to be no facility to allow > competition for the same domain names after pre-registration. Moreover, > pre-registration may tip-off competitors to new business models prematurely. > > 5. A lower than market fee may encourage speculation Speculators may pay > $55,000 to secure rights to certain domains instead of $185,000 in the hope of > selling on. This is surely not the intent of ICANN¹s Board. > > 6. Applicants are forced to invest blind Because there are unresolved > issues, the pre-registration model forces applications in ignorance of > potential future costs. Ayesha Hassan, ICC ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00208.html ) > > ICC does not support the implementation of any EoI until the rules for the new > gTLD application process are developed and agreed upon by the ICANN > community.- It is very difficult for business to evaluate participating in an > EoI when new or changed gTLD application rules could significantly impact > business plans and models. There are still several important issues that > remain unresolved in the current Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG), and it is > not certain they will be resolved by DAG4. (ICC) > An EoI is not a substitute for an independent economic analysis on the demand > for new gTLDs, which was requested by the Board in October 2006 to be > conducted prior to the launch of an EoI and the first application round. > (ICC) Steve DelBianco, NetChoice ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00233.html ) > ICANN¹s Board should avoid taking a decision on EOI until the threshold > question about its purpose is answered is it data gathering or is it > mandatory pre-registration for a specific string? There is no need for > disclosure of strings if the EOI is just data gathering. If it is mandatory > pre-registration, then ICANN should finish the Applicant Guidebook and > Registry Contract before asking applicants to file an EOI with a hefty fee. Chris Martin, USCIB ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00250.html ) > the EOI does not adequately recognize the need to have established rules in > place in order for potential applicants to adequately assess their business > strategies for any potential new gTLD application. The current model also > appears to bypass the careful policymaking decisions that must go into the > more fundamental questions surrounding new gTLDs. In this way, the EOI > process could be viewed as a backdoor to moving the larger gTLD process along > without addressing those critical underlying issues, such as ensuring adequate > safeguards for trademarks and ensuring the security and stability of the > Internet. An EOI also should not hinder the process for addressing these > overarching issues and finalizing the rules for new gTLD applications. > > EOI initiative jumps ahead of more fundamental questions regarding new gTLDs > and their effect on consumers, businesses and the security and stability of > the Internet and domain name system. > > USCIB recognizes the potential usefulness of an EOI in gathering data that may > inform ICANN about important issues associated with the rollout of new gTLDs. > However, USCIB cannot support the implementation of an EOI initiative until > the final rules for the application process are fully developed and agreed > upon by the ICANN community. Serious issues still remain with the current > Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG), and it is unclear that the ICANN community > will reach final consensus by DAG4 on many important issues. As a result, > USCIB members question how ICANN can expect potential new gTLD applicants to > engage in a mandatory EOI process, with limited terms by which any investment > deposit may be refunded, while the rules for applications are not yet > finalized. It is extraordinarily difficult for business to even assess > participating in an EOI when new or changed gTLD application rules could > drastically impact business plans and models. Vague guarantees to tackle key > issues before the EOI begins are not enough; ICANN should be explicit in > determining exactly what key issues must be final before an EOI begins. > > two issues cited in the draft model, vertical separation and 3-character > requirements for IDN strings, must be finalized before EOI moves forward. The > community should agree upon brand protections, rules on background checks, > financial disclosures, lack of conflicts of interest, IPv6 and the technical > requirements, as well as the ability to maintain a registry. The rules for new > gTLD applications must be clear and final before businesses with interests in > submitting applications for new gTLDs can participate in an EOI. > > As a further point regarding the role of an EOI as an information source, > ICANN should be careful in recognizing that while an EOI can help provide > information on the number of new gTLDs that are likely to be applied for, such > an indicator does not equate with public/registrant demand for new gTLDs. > USCIB believes that an EOI would measure the demand for supply of new gTLDs, > as opposed to the economic demand for new gTLDs themselves. Given this > differentiation, an EOI cannot substitute for the promised independent > economic analysis on the demand for new gTLDs. ICANN should quickly implement > the Board¹s October 2006 request that such a study be conducted prior to > launching the first application round for new gTLDs. > > USCIB supports ICANN¹s logic in developing parts of its model, such as the > need for a reasonable deposit fee and a global communication campaign. USCIB > agrees with ICANN¹s logic for an EOI fee at a level that balances the > competing needs of being high enough to deter speculation but low enough to > ensure the fee is not a barrier to entry. The overall EOI should not, > however, be a cost-generator and any deposit or participation in an EOI should > not be viewed by the applicant as a promise that they will be awarded a new > gTLD, nor a basis to engage in raising capital and investors > Mike Palage ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00124.html ) > Hmmm... it¹s nearly impossible to summarize Mike Palage, but here¹s why he > says, ³Just say No²: > > The EOI Raises Major Public Policy Considerations on Which the Government > Advisory Committee (GAC) Has Not Been Able to Meaningfully Provide Advice. > > The creation of a secondary market for gTLD applicant slots that could be > bought and sold prior to the commencement of the actual new gTLD application > process > > ICANN requesting financial commitment from prospective gTLD applicants prior > to the publication/approval of the final Applicant Guidebook > > The Process Envisioned Violates Article III, Section 6 of the ICANN Bylaws > > The Proposal Violates Both the Letter & Spirit of the Affirmation of > Commitments > > CADNA ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00241.html ) > CADNA does not believe that ICANN should move forward with the EOI model as > proposed. There remain a variety of problems with the Guidebook that ICANN has > yet to resolve, including the potential for infringement, malicious conduct, > and compromised Internet security. Moving forward with the EOI would undermine > the bottom-up policy development process currently at work. ICANN should > focus on addressing the concerns that have yet to be adequately addressed and > its Draft Applicant Guidebooks, such as the demand for such a launch, its > possible effects on the domain name space, business and Internet users alike, > and trademark protection concerns. > > By requiring participation in the EOI for access to the first round of new TLD > applications, ICANN is essentially asking applicants to agree to participate > without knowing how the final process will take shape. > > While the EOI is being billed as a process by which to gauge demand, it is not > structured in a way that would gather information and study demand; instead, > with participation in the EOI mandatory for eligibility in the first > application round for new TLDs and a $55,000 price tag, the EOI only serves to > move up the process of applying for a TLD. This mechanism will play on the > fear of potentially being ³left behind,² will artificially inflate demand and > ultimately squander the opportunity to genuinely study the demand for new > TLDs. > > demand demonstrated during the EOI may pressure ICANN to move forward with > gTLDs before resolving these problems. In the EOI proposal, ICANN states that > there is a possibility that parties will push for changes to the Guidebook > based on the published list of strings defined during the EOI process. > Although ICANN points out that it is important to avoid such an occurrence, it > provides no suggestions or ideas for how to go about preventing it. It is > crucial that this process is not a black box all members of the Internet > community must have access to the list of applied-for strings and applicants. > CADNA recommends that ICANN make this information available as it happens. > This would also be beneficial if the way that an EOI application reserves TLD > strings is on a first-come, first-served basis. If all members of the Internet > community do not have access to the list of applied-for strings and > applicants, they will be forced to waste time applying for strings that are > already taken. To promote fair competition, potential applicants should have > the opportunity to see what strings are being registered so they can better > weigh their decision regarding whether to participate in the EOI. For ICANN staff summary of the 370 comments received, see http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-eoi-15feb10-en.pdf -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

4 3

BC Policy Coordination calendar for Friday's member call
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 18, 2010

Feb. 18, 2010

Date: 18-Feb-2010 To: Business Constituency Members From: Steve DelBianco, vice chair for policy coordination Subject: Policy Coordination Calendar The purpose of this document is to inform members of policy work before the BC, and to inspire participation and debate. ICANN generates an overwhelming volume of material, so this is our first attempt to get it all in one place. We intend to publish this document whenever deadlines are looming or important new issues arise. We'd like to publish this material online in a wiki or on the BC website, and welcome your ideas for making it accessible even on mobile devices. First, let's acknowledge that we face 3 challenges in policy coordination in the present BC: 1. Talent: Recruit volunteers to be rapporteurs and working group members 2. Timing: Must get written positions circulated in time for 14-day comment period (plus time for discussion & voting if there is significant disagreement) 3. Tone: keep it professional (even when questioning motives) Second, this document is organized around the 4 distinct channels where BC policy work and advocacy should be coordinated: 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment processes 2. Supporting discussion and voting of BC Representatives on GNSO Council 3. Supporting discussion and voting on policy matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (Board breakfast, outreach events, Cross-Constituency, public forum, etc.) Current activity within each of these Channels are summarized below: 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment processes: ICANN Public Comment page is at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ Comments recently closed: 1. Affirmation of Commitments review process (closed 10-Feb). 32 comments filed. The BC can develop views on Terms of Reference for the Accountability Review, since that process will occur throughout 2010. For example, NetChoice proposed a definition for 'public interest' that is open to continued debate. 2. Consumer Constituency Charter (closed 13-Feb) 17 comments filed. 3. Amendment of the GNSO Operating Procedures on the 2010 Selection Process for ICANN Board Seat 13 (closed 18-Feb) Comments open now: (in order of deadline dates) 1. Selection process for at-large Board seat (closes 6-Mar) no comments filed. 2. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (closes 22-Mar). Zahid is on the WG 3. Registration Abuse Policies Initial Report (ends 28-Mar) 4. Global DNS-CERT Business Case (ends 29-Mar) 5. Proposed Strategic Initiatives for Improved DNS Security, Stability and Resiliency (SSR) (ends 29-Mar ) 6. Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) ( 1-Apr ) 7. TM Clearinghouse ( 1-Apr ) 8. Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PPDRP) ( 1-Apr ) 9. Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP) ( 1-Apr ) 10. IDN 3 Character ( 1-Apr ) 11. IDN Variants ( 1-Apr ) 12. Benchmarking of Registry Operations ( 1-Apr ) 13. Process for gTLD Registry Agreement Amendment ( 1-Apr ) 14. Proposed Framework for the Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Plan and Budget ( 1-Apr) 15. Draft Report on WHOIS Accuracy ( 15-Apr) 2. Supporting discussion and voting of BC Representatives on GNSO Council Upcoming discussions & votes: 1. Feb 18 vote on process to nominate Accountability Review team members from GNSO. 2. Vertical Integration PDP charter. Draft by 1-Mar; Council vote on 10-Mar Council Working Groups: Status at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/notes-council-18feb10-en.htm <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/notes-council-18feb10-en.htm> Vertical Integration Drafting Team drafting PDP charter now. DT members: Mike Rodenbaugh, Berry Cobb IRTP-B (Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B) nearing a report that will require BC review and comment. WG members: Berry Cobb, Chris Chaplow, Mike O'Connor, Mike Rodenbaugh. RAP (Registration Abuse Policies) prelim report published 12-Feb. WG members: Mike Rodenbaugh (GNSO Council liason), Zahid Jamil, Phil Corwin, Martin Sutton, Mike O'Connor, Caleb Queern. BC should review and comment RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) discussions ongoing re issues to potentially cover in revised RAA. WG members: Phil Corwin, Phil Lodico, Mike Rodenbaugh PEDNR (post-expiration domain name recovery) discussion ongoing to standardize transfers. WG members: Berry Cobb; Phil Corwin; Mike O'Connor; Mike Palage; Mike Rodenbaugh HSTLD (High Security TLDs) convened an expert group, based on ICANN Staff proposal. Participants: Mike O'Connor, Mike Rodenbaugh IDN Working Group. stalled-out! Members: Steve DelBianco, Mike Rodenbaugh PPSC (Steering Committee for OSC & PDP WTs). Member: Mike Rodenbaugh, Alternate: Zahid Jamil PDP-WT (Policy Development Process ) Work Team. WT members: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Marilyn Cade OSC-WT (Operations Steering Committee) includes several sub-teams. Members incl: Philip Shepard (chair), Zahid Jamil, Mike O'Connor Geographical Regions WG. Stalled. Members: Zahid Jamil Also see GNSO Council pending projects, at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 3. Supporting discussion and voting on policy matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) CSG selection Accountability Review team candidates from the GNSO (Feb 24) Joint CSG submission on Board Seat 13 Drafting of a charter for the CSG (targeted date? ) 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (Board breakfast, outreach events, Cross-Con, public forum, etc.) Note that if the BC does not adopt consensus comments/positions on issues arising in Nairobi, no member or officer is authorized to speak on behalf of the BC. On Feb 15, ICANN posted several documents regarding new gTLD process, at http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-15feb10-en.htm Among those documents released are several with comment periods thru 1-Apr-2010: Staff Discussion Memo for the Board as they consider the EOI Proposal. In the trademark area, new/updated Draft Proposals on Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), Trademark (TM) Clearinghouse, Post Delegation Dispute Resolutions Procedure (PDDRP). In the IDN area a relaxation of the 3 character requirement, and an approach to IDN variants at the top level. In registry operations, release of a benchmark of Registry Operations and a proposed process for future changes to the gTLD registry agreements. ICANN also released summaries and analyses of comments received on: DAGv3 Summary of comments on URS and TM Clearinghouse Summary of comments on EOI and Pre-registration Economic studies on new gTLDs: although a study was promised by late January, there will be a verbal update by two new economists retained by ICANN. ICANN has contracted with Greg Rosston of Stanford University and Michael Katz of University of California Berkeley. Work will be done in a three-phase project with initial report expected in mid March and the second early June. During the first phase, the economists will survey published resources that describe the potential impacts of new gTLD introduction; examine theoretical arguments about benefits and costs of increased gTLDs; consider and propose empirical studies to identify areas where additional work can serve to assess costs and benefits. A verbal report on results will be presented during the ICANN Nairobi Meeting Vertical Integration (aka Registry/Registrar Separation: talks about proposing a new model for community consultation sometime in the future. Based on debates on the subject held at the ICANN meetings in Seoul, discussion during the consultation with certain community representatives held on 7-Jan-2010 in Washington DC, ICANN will propose for community comment a new registry-registrar separation model for inclusion in the next draft of the gTLD agreement. We expect Board and community will discuss the issue in Nairobi. Root Scaling. Staff anticipates a report from SSAC and RSSAC before Nairobi. Also, four demand scenarios for application volumes have been modeled: below expected, expected, above expected and significantly above expected. For each demand scenario, there's an assumption that only a fraction of the applications will lead to delegations, and that the processing time for the successful applications will be spread out. If there are more than, say, 500 applications, the processing will be batched further spreading out the delegation rates. These models will be published before the Nairobi meeting. Malicious Conduct: In an effort to reduce malicious conduct in new gTLDs, ICANN created an initiative called the High Security Zone Top Level Domain ("HSTLD") Advisory Group. This group brings together community representatives to evaluate a voluntary program, supporting control standards and incentives that could be adopted to provide enhanced trust and security over the baseline registration-authority controls. A concept paper was published as a component of the new gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook version 3 and can be referenced on the following link: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/high-security-zone-verification-04o ct09-en.pdf [PDF, 214 KB] The HSLTD Advisory Group continues to work on the concept of a voluntary HSTLD program. Relevant next steps include a review and approval working draft material and work on controls necessary to support the HSTLD purpose, goals and principles. Also part of addressing malicious conduct concerns is the creation of another advisory group addressing Zone File Access. The group was formed to study and discuss (benefits and methods) to effectively and efficiently enhance access to zone file information (anticipating an environment with many gTLDs). Details of this groups work can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/zone-file-access-en.htm Updated documentation on the malicious conduct work will be available prior to Nairobi. Upcoming Critical Program Meetings During the ICANN Meeting in Nairobi, staff will hold several New gTLD sessions, including: * Program update and a panel discussion regarding the Expressions of Interest and Pre-Registrations proposed process; * Trademark Protection; * High Security Top-Level Domains (HSTLD) & Zone File Access Advisory Group Meetings; * New gTLD introduction session for new comers. The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 4 is expected to be published prior to the ICANN Brussels Meeting (20-25 June 2010). Related Resources: * New gTLD Program: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm <http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm> * Additional information about the HSTLD program, the HSTLD AG and recordings of the HSTLD AG meetings can be accessed at the following link: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/hstld-program-en.htm <http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/hstld-program-en.htm> * Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 <http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.5 MB]

1 0

ETNO approval - Need Your individual sign off on attached Comments on Filling Board Seat 13
by Debecker J.L. Feb. 18, 2010

Feb. 18, 2010

Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Dear Mrs Deutsch, Dear Sarah, On behalf of ETNO I am pleased to confirm that our association supports the views expressed in the attached document and would appreciate being seen as one of its signatories. Many thanks and best regards, Leo Debecker J.L. Debecker Executive Manager, Operations Avenue Louise, 54 B-1050 Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32.2.219.32.42 Fax: +32.2.219.64.12 Website: <http://www.etno.eu/> www.etno.eu -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of BC Secretariat Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:47 AM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Need Your individual sign off on attached Comments on Filling Board Seat 13 All, Sorry for the fire drill, but comments are due on the issue of filling ICANN Board Seat 13 by Feb. 18 (tomorrow!). Because we did not have enough time to follow our usual 14 day process to circulate comments for full BC sign on, we're trying a modified approach. I've attempted a very short one pager with comments for those from the BC who wish to add their names individually . If you can sign on individually, could you let me know? Note that the IPC and ISPs are filing something similar and it will be important to make sure that our Non-Contracted House isn't restricted when it comes time next year for our group to select Board Seat 14. Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670

4 3

FW: [bc-gnso] Need Your individual sign off on attached Comments on Filling Board Seat 13
by BC Secretariat Feb. 18, 2010

Feb. 18, 2010

I support this initiative. Please add me to the list. Thank you Sarah. Berry A. Cobb Infinity Portals LLC 866.921.8891 From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of BC Secretariat Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 22:47 To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Need Your individual sign off on attached Comments on Filling Board Seat 13 All, Sorry for the fire drill, but comments are due on the issue of filling ICANN Board Seat 13 by Feb. 18 (tomorrow!). Because we did not have enough time to follow our usual 14 day process to circulate comments for full BC sign on, we're trying a modified approach. I've attempted a very short one pager with comments for those from the BC who wish to add their names individually . If you can sign on individually, could you let me know? Note that the IPC and ISPs are filing something similar and it will be important to make sure that our Non-Contracted House isn't restricted when it comes time next year for our group to select Board Seat 14. Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670

1 0

Chair: UPDATE and some initial news regarding Kenya agenda/organization
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 17, 2010

Feb. 17, 2010

in response to Ron's question about who is keeping track of BC attendees in Nairibo, Gary Hills, the secretariat is gathering that information [secretariat(a)bizconst.org] I had asked him to gather names, arrival times, and hotels, and mobile phones if you want to be kept in touch with on ground, and that is a private /confidential document, of course. I also asked whether we would use a special short list for emails during the meeting, but I am thinking that given the number of members who are not traveling, that we should use the full list. We can discuss this on Friday's members call to confirm members agreement. I do want to thank you and others for confirming your presence in Nairobi. [send an email to me directly, and copy Gary Some updates: I have just met with the other constituencies, along with Sarah Deutsch, the CSG rep, and will work on whether we can switch the CSG and constituency meetings so that we can be a little friendlier for US and European time zones so would be more likely that members can participate in the CSG. It may not be feasible, but have asked, with concurrence of other constituencies. I think we should treat this meeting as 'special' and not try to do a lot of on ground work, since so many of our members are not traveling. That may mean that I'll call some 'extraordinary' members sessions via teleconference around the meeting to fill in, but that is a proposal, to be vetted with the ExeComm and members, and suited to what work needs to be advanced. At present, let me overview a few logistical items to begin to organize your time/diaries: Sunday night: local business community has organized a special dinner/reception, and I am working with our colleague, Waudo Siganga on that event. All from business will be invited. There will be separate invitations, but please 'hold' the date, if you are coming to Kenya ICANN. Monday: regular ICANN agenda, except we will consider special BC interactions and organize a 6 pm. Nairobi /remote update to our CSG members Tuesday: Breakfast for Board/all Cross Constituency attendees and special guests from ISPs, IPC and Business community -- locally [more on that]. the location is a hotel, and transportation will be provided back to the Center. Tuesday: Constituency and CSG meetings, GAC meeting with GNSO CouncilTuesday: 6p.m. remote consultation, similar to Monday update Wednesday and beyond: regular ICANN agenda/discussion on Members call re priorities and how to effect BC input during various sessions. BC Agenda: on Friday's members call, we will be trying to finalize a more formal agenda of topics for the meeting, keeping in mind that many of the BC members will be participating remotely. From: randruff(a)rnapartners.com To: sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Kenya Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:39:56 -0800 Dear members, For those keeping track of who is planning to attend the Nairobi meeting, this email is to confirm that I, too, will be attending. Kind regards, RA From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 6:27 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Kenya This just in. I’m still planning to go. Date: Monday, 15 February 2010 ICANN's internal team – including staff from the US (California, Texas, New Jersey), France and Niger - continued to meet daily over the weekend to discuss and share information regarding the ICANN Nairobi meeting. Today and last night, we had direct contact with the local Kenyan members of the security planning committee, and there has been an enhanced, on the ground commitment for additional security and this group will work closely with the on-site security experts that ICANN has under contract. ICANN's security team thinks these are strong, positive steps. The Kenya National Intelligence Service (NISIS) has increased its efforts to mitigate potential terrorist threats. The Kenya Anti-terrorist Police Unit (ATPU) is currently actively involved in the security planning process and has already started to put detection, as well as other preventative measures in place. The Kenya Diplomatic Protection unit has also been activated to assist with the security of the conference. Additionally, covert and overt security forces are being deployed at the KICC, hotels and venues where official functions will be held. Additionally, the airport, and road from the airport to hotels. will be actively monitored and patrolled by security forces. It is important for delegates to understand that ensuring a safe conference is a very important to the Government of Kenya. The country relies heavily on tourism and strives to be a preferred destination for international conferences. We are all seeing community members starting to react to the situation in Kenya, as they perceive it. There have been posted letters from Neustar and GoDaddy, among others, indicating that they will not attend or send representatives. Also, the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) has decided to hold an alternative meeting in New York. Others in the community are re-confirming their attendance in Nairobi. In a note from ccNSO Chair, Chris Disspain, to be posted today, he has confirmed that the ccNSO is expecting to participate in the Nairobi meeting, as planned, with all or most all counselors in attendance. Less formally, I've heard that many in At Large have expressed the same view. So, where does this leave all of us? The first order of business, is that ICANN will continue to monitor the status in Nairobi, and will share all relevant information with the community, in accordance with our goal to be fully transparent . I will ensure we do that on an ongoing basis. We are left with a situation where some people would choose to attend the meeting, and some choose not to attend, based on exactly the same information. One answer will clearly not work for all. One alternative being discussed is how to better support a meeting where remote participation is going to be a more significant part of the meeting. What does enhanced remote participation look like in the context of an ICANN meeting? Remote participation is a challenge when a minority of participants are using that mode; if many were, how effective could that be? How would this work with scheduling, time zones, and the expected meeting formats we've used? Any comments you have on this would be greatly appreciated. Look for a posting on the ICANN blog, where you can respond directly.

2 1

FW: [council] Policy Update Webinar Meeting Details
by Mike Rodenbaugh Feb. 16, 2010

Feb. 16, 2010

Fyi. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:46 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Policy Update Webinar Meeting Details PRE-NAIROBI ICANN POLICY UPDATE BRIEFING MEETING DETAILS AND HOW TO PARTICIPATE In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming Nairobi meeting remotely or in person, youre invited to a quick reminder of the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Thursday, 25 February at 13.00 and 19.00 UTC, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: - GNSO Improvements - GNSO Registration Abuse Policies Working Group - GNSO Whois Studies - GNSO Vertical Integration Policy Development Process - ccNSO IDN PDP - ccNSO Delegation and Re-delegation Working Group - ccNSO Strategic and Operational Plan Working Group - ASO Global policy for handling IPv4 address space The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the Q&A function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the slides and MP3 will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, 13.00 UTC or 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address.

1 0

ICANN Kenya
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 16, 2010

Feb. 16, 2010

This just in. I¹m still planning to go. Date: Monday, 15 February 2010 ICANN's internal team including staff from the US (California, Texas, New Jersey), France and Niger - continued to meet daily over the weekend to discuss and share information regarding the ICANN Nairobi meeting. Today and last night, we had direct contact with the local Kenyan members of the security planning committee, and there has been an enhanced, on the ground commitment for additional security and this group will work closely with the on-site security experts that ICANN has under contract. ICANN's security team thinks these are strong, positive steps. The Kenya National Intelligence Service (NISIS) has increased its efforts to mitigate potential terrorist threats. The Kenya Anti-terrorist Police Unit (ATPU) is currently actively involved in the security planning process and has already started to put detection, as well as other preventative measures in place. The Kenya Diplomatic Protection unit has also been activated to assist with the security of the conference. Additionally, covert and overt security forces are being deployed at the KICC, hotels and venues where official functions will be held. Additionally, the airport, and road from the airport to hotels. will be actively monitored and patrolled by security forces. It is important for delegates to understand that ensuring a safe conference is a very important to the Government of Kenya. The country relies heavily on tourism and strives to be a preferred destination for international conferences. We are all seeing community members starting to react to the situation in Kenya, as they perceive it. There have been posted letters from Neustar and GoDaddy, among others, indicating that they will not attend or send representatives. Also, the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) has decided to hold an alternative meeting in New York. Others in the community are re-confirming their attendance in Nairobi. In a note from ccNSO Chair, Chris Disspain, to be posted today, he has confirmed that the ccNSO is expecting to participate in the Nairobi meeting, as planned, with all or most all counselors in attendance. Less formally, I've heard that many in At Large have expressed the same view. So, where does this leave all of us? The first order of business, is that ICANN will continue to monitor the status in Nairobi, and will share all relevant information with the community, in accordance with our goal to be fully transparent . I will ensure we do that on an ongoing basis. We are left with a situation where some people would choose to attend the meeting, and some choose not to attend, based on exactly the same information. One answer will clearly not work for all. One alternative being discussed is how to better support a meeting where remote participation is going to be a more significant part of the meeting. What does enhanced remote participation look like in the context of an ICANN meeting? Remote participation is a challenge when a minority of participants are using that mode; if many were, how effective could that be? How would this work with scheduling, time zones, and the expected meeting formats we've used? Any comments you have on this would be greatly appreciated. Look for a posting on the ICANN blog, where you can respond directly.

3 2

FW: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Program Makes Available New Documents for Community Discussion
by Mike Rodenbaugh Feb. 16, 2010

Feb. 16, 2010

FYI. Anyone interested in joining the small team that will consider BC comments on these documents, please advise. Thanks. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: ICANN News Alert [mailto:communications@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:42 AM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com Subject: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Program Makes Available New Documents for Community Discussion <http://www.icann.org/> ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-15feb10-en.htm _____ New gTLD Program Makes Available New Documents for Community Discussion 15 February 2010 ICANN is publishing today several materials related to the New gTLD Program. These materials have been grouped below in categories to facilitate understanding. Highlight: The Board plans to decide whether to conduct an Expressions of Interest (EOI) exercise for new gTLDs at the ICANN Meeting in Nairobi <http://nbo.icann.org/> . The Board and the community will have the opportunity to discuss the Expressions of Interest and Pre-Registrations model, which takes into account the community feedback during the two recent public comment periods. Besides the background information and description of the current proposed model, the Explanatory Memo also presents some discussion points about costs and other implementation aspects. You can download here <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/discussion-eoi-pre-registration-pr…> [PDF, 1.26 MB] the current Explanatory Memo – Discussion of the Expressions of Interest (EOI)/Pre-Registration Process Model. Below is a list and direct link to the new Public Forum. All open 15 February 2010 and close on 1 April 2010. Document Redline Topic Direct link to Public Forum TRADEMARK & COMMUNITY PROTECTIONS Uniform <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-urs-clean-15feb10-en.pdf> Rapid Suspension (URS) [PDF, 128 KB] redline <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-urs-redline-15feb10-en.pdf> [PDF, 181 KB] The URS is one of the proposed mechanisms to address trademark protection concerns – one of the open issues being addressed by staff and community experts. The Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) Procedure describes an expedited process to provide trademark holders with a rapid take-down in clear cut instances of trademark abuse. The URS procedure is expected to provide trademark holders with a new, cost effective remedy in addition to those available under the UDRP and applicable law. View <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#urs> TM <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-clearinghouse-proposal-c…> Clearinghouse [PDF, 153 KB] redline <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-clearinghouse-proposal-r…> [PDF, 124 KB] The trademark clearinghouse is one of the proposed mechanisms to address trademark protection concerns – one of the open issues being addressed by staff and community experts. The Trademark Clearinghouse Model describes a proposal for a central repository of authenticated trademark information for use by registries to support their sunrise or trademark claims processes. This Model is designed to introduce efficiencies into the pre-launch processes for trademark holders and new gTLD registries. View <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#tmc> Post <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-trademark-pddrp-clean-15feb1…> Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PPDRP) [PDF, 65 KB] redline <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-trademark-pddrp-redline-15fe…> [PDF, 105 KB] The Trademark PPDRP is one of the proposed mechanisms to address trademark protection concerns – one of the open issues being addressed by staff and community experts. This post delegation procedure should only afford trademark holders the right to proceed against registry operators who have acted in bad faith, with the intent to profit from the systemic registration of infringing domain names (or systemic cybersquatting) or who have otherwise set out to use the gTLD for an improper purpose. View <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#ppdrp> Registry <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rrdrp-clean-15feb10-en.pdf> Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP) [PDF, 61 KB] redline <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rrdrp-redline-15feb10-en.pdf> [PDF, 69 KB] The RRDRP is one of the proposed mechanisms to address post delegation concerns. The purpose of the RRDRP is to handle complaints from a harmed organization or individual alleging that a community-based restricted gTLD registry operator was not meeting its obligations to police the registration and use of domains within the restrictions stated in the terms of the gTLD registry agreement. View <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#rrdrp> IDN ISSUES IDN <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/idn-3-char-requirement-15feb10-en.…> 3 Character [PDF, 148 KB] This document is a follow-up to the independent Implementation Working team’s recommendation on IDN string requirements. The previous requirement for at least three characters in all gTLD strings was considered problematic for some languages, and the team released a recommendation to relax the requirement in some cases. An excerpt of guidebook text is included to help inform the discussion. View <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#3-char> IDN <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/idn-variants-15feb10-en.pdf> Variants [PDF, 160 KB] An independent Implementation Working team has proposed an approach to IDN variant management at the top level. Language communities that use variant characters are affected by the management and implementation of variants in new TLDs . An excerpt of guidebook text is included to help inform the discussion. View <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#variants> REGISTRY OPERATIONS & AGREEMENT Bench <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/benchmarking-report-15feb10-en.pdf> Marking of Registry Operations [PDF, 648 KB] An exercise to gather industry data on registry operations was undertaken as part of the ongoing implementation of the evaluation criteria and procedures for the New gTLD Program. This took the form of a study including analysis of public industry information and data collected through a survey of existing registry operators. View <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#benchma…> Process <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-agreement-amendment-proce…> for gTLD Registry Agreement Amendment [PDF, 129 KB] An update on discussions concerning the process for future amendments to the registry agreements for new gTLDs. The paper outlines and seeks comment on several possible amendment process models, including a model recently proposed by the GNSO's Registry Stakeholder Group. View <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#agreeme…> Public Comment Summaries and Analyses After each public comment forum closes, a summary and analysis in response to the general public is usually published. Below is a list of summary analysis regarding New gTLD Program related public forums recently closed. Document Related Public Forum Summary <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-agv3-15feb10-en.p…> & Analysis of Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 [PDF, 1.13 MB] http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200911.html#agbv3 Summary <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-special-trademark…> & Analysis of GNSO Public Comments on Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and Clearinghouse [PDF, 332 KB] http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#sti Summary <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-clearinghouse-urs…> of Proposed Rights Protection Mechanims [PDF, 204K] http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200911.html#prpm-new-… Summary <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-eoi-15feb10-en.pdf> & Analysis of Expressions of Interest and Pre-Registrations [PDF, 844 KB] This summary combines the two Public Fora: 11 <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200912.htm#eoi-new-gt…> Dec 2009 to Jan 11 2009 and 17 <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#draft-eoi> of Dec 2009 to 26 January 2010. It is important to note that there were comments received past the deadline might not be part of the summary analysis, even if they were posted on the Forum. Summary <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-3-character-and-v…> & Analysis of Final Report on Three-Character Requirement and Variant Management [PDF, 116 KB] http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#3cv-final-… Other Open Issues Malicious Conduct As a component of activities that ICANN has initiated to reduce malicious conduct activities in new gTLDs, ICANN has created an initiative called the High Security Zone Top Level Domain ("HSTLD") Advisory Group. This group brings together community representatives to evaluate the viability of a voluntary program, supporting control standards and incentives that could potentially be adopted to provide an enhanced level of trust and security over the baseline registration-authority controls. A concept paper was published as a component of the new gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook version 3 and can be referenced on the following link: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/high-security-zone-verification-04… [PDF, 214 KB] The HSLTD Advisory Group continues to work on the concept of a voluntary HSTLD program. Relevant next steps include a review and approval working draft material and work on controls necessary to support the HSTLD purpose, goals and principles. Also part of addressing malicious conduct concerns is the creation of another advisory group addressing Zone File Access. The group was formed to study and discuss (benefits and methods) to effectively and efficiently enhance access to zone file information (anticipating an environment with many gTLDs). Details of this groups work can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/zone-file-access-en.htm. Updated documentation on the malicious conduct work will be available prior to the Nairobi Meeting. Market/Economic Analysis Additional economic analysis is being undertaken. ICANN has contracted to retain the services with Greg Rosston of Stanford University and Michael Katz of University of California Berkeley, both in the United States. The work will be done in a three-phase project plan with the initial reports expected to be released in mid March and the second early June. During the first phase, the economists will survey published studies and resources that describe the potential impacts of new gTLD introduction; examine theoretical arguments about benefits and costs of increased gTLDs; consider and propose empirical studies to identify areas where additional work can serve to assess costs and benefits. A verbal report on results will be presented during the ICANN <http://nbo.icann.org/> Nairobi Meeting. Vertical Integration (aka Registry/Registrar Separation) Based on debates on the subject held at the ICANN meetings in Seoul, discussion during the consultation with certain community representatives held on 7 January 2010 in Washington D.C., and ongoing study, ICANN will propose for community comment a new registry-registrar separation model for inclusion in the next draft of the gTLD agreement. Additionally, theBoard and community members will be discussing the issue in Nairobi. Root Scaling Staff anticipates a report from SSAC and RSSAC soon. Also, four demand scenarios for application volumes have been modeled: below expected, expected, above expected and significantly above expected. For each demand scenario, there's an assumption that only a fraction of the applications will lead to delegations, and that the processing time for the successful applications will be spread out. If there are more than, say, 500 applications, the processing will be batched further spreading out the delegation rates. These models will be published before the Nairobi meeting. Upcoming Critical Program Meetings During the ICANN Meeting in Nairobi <http://nbo.icann.org/> , staff will hold several New gTLD sessions, including: * Program update and a panel discussion regarding the Expressions of Interest and Pre-Registrations proposed process; * Trademark Protection; * High Security Top-Level Domains (HSTLD) & Zone File Access Advisory Group Meetings; * New gTLD introduction session for new comers. The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 4 is expected to be published prior to the ICANN Brussels Meeting (20-25 June 2010). Related Resources: * New gTLD Program: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm * Additional information about the HSTLD program, the HSTLD AG and recordings of the HSTLD AG meetings can be accessed at the following link: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/hstld-program-en.htm * Draft <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf> Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 [PDF, 1.5 MB] _____ Sign up for <http://www.icann.org/magazine/> ICANN's Monthly Magazine This message was sent from ICANN News Alert to icann(a)rodenbaugh.com. It was sent from: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below. <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Email Marketing by <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> iContact - Try It Free! <http://app.icontact.com/icp/static/images/icons/email_manage_subscription.p…> <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=11033829&l=6333&s=PWHD&m=29…> Manage your subscription <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/track.php?msgid=290868&act=PWHD&r=11033829&c=…>

1 0

FW: [council] Public Comment: Draft Report on WHOIS Accuracy
by Rick Anderson Feb. 16, 2010

Feb. 16, 2010

Hi Mike, and all. I would be delighted to participate in this. Our company is being defamed by anonymous posters on one of these websites who hide behind an odious mix of "privacy" and fraudulent registration. They do not respond to US court orders, involving our own case or others, registered mail is sent to the WHOIS information and returned undeliverable. Assuming the foregoing makes me more "reluctant expert" than "conflicted", count me in. /Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd randerson(a)interborder.ca cell (403) 830-1798 ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org To: BC List Sent: Tue Feb 16 09:39:17 2010 Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: [council] Public Comment: Draft Report on WHOIS Accuracy Linked below is a very long-awaited report on WHOIS Accuracy. Here are the key findings from the Executive Summary: [T]here were three criteria to be met for any WHOIS record to be considered accurate: 1. Was the address of the registrant a valid mailing address? 2. Was the registrant named associated in some way with the given address? 3. When contacted, would the named registrant acknowledge that they were indeed the registrant of the domain name, and confirm all details given as correct and current? An internationally representative sample of 1419 records was drawn from the top five generic top level domains (gTLDs, covering .com, .org, .net. .info and .biz). The address for each selected case was checked against postal records and mapping data for deliverability, searches were conducted in phone listings and other records unrelated to WHOIS for a linkage between name and address, and contact was attempted with the named registrant using phone numbers obtained during the association process. Using strict application of the criteria, only 23% of records were fully accurate, but twice that number meet a slightly relaxed version of the criteria (allowing successful contact with the registrant to imply association, and requiring only that ownership of the site be confirmed, as opposed to confirmation of both ownership and the currency/correctness of all detail). Eight percent of records failed outright with obvious errors. I think the BC most likely would like to comment on this report, so ask if anyone is willing to volunteer to help with draft comments. Of course any Members’ comments to the list would be most welcome. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 5:54 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Public Comment: Draft Report on WHOIS Accuracy http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-15feb10-en.htm Public Comment: Draft Report on WHOIS Accuracy 15 February 2010 The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) recently completed a study commissioned by ICANN to determine the percentage of domain names registered under the top 5 gTLDs (i.e., .com, .net, .org, .biz, and .info) that contain accurate WHOIS data. Today, the draft report is being posted for review and comment through 15 April 2010. Community members are invited to review the draft report and its findings and comment on all aspects of the report. The information in the report is intended to contribute to the ongoing community discussion regarding WHOIS and should be useful in any future policy development process regarding WHOIS. The draft report can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/whois-accuracy-study-17jan10-en.… [PDF, 432 KB] The Process Going Forward: At the end of this Public Comment period, ICANN Staff will review the comments submitted and prepare a summary analysis of the various submissions. Deadline and How to Submit Comments: ICANN Staff is opening a 60-day public comment, from 15 February through 15 April 2010, and invites community comments on the draft report. The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#whois-a… <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#whois-a…> To Submit Comments: whois-accuracy-study(a)icann.org <mailto:whois-accuracy-study@icann.org> To View Comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-accuracy-study/ Staff Responsible: David A. Giza, Senior Director, Contractual Compliance Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org 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.

1 0