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

PEDNER BC Position Statement Draft v0.3
by Berry Cobb Aug. 11, 2010

Aug. 11, 2010

BC, Here is the next draft per feedback from Philip and Mikey. Thank you! Note that this position paper is a refined restatement of the BC's prior position at the beginning of the PEDNER WG. It basically mimics the survey being advertised and made available for the public to complete during the open period. Around the time the WG publishes its Final Report, I will ensure scheduling of a PEDNER debrief, so that we may present this topic and formulate the BC's final position on the PDP efforts. Not much has changed from v0.2 I sent last week, but a few mentions are noteworthy: 1. Removed highlighted sections referencing BC member weighting and modified to only represent a single BC position (per Philip's feedback) 2. Updated slides attached as an appendix that references Post Expiration process documentation (per Mikey's feedback). I will pass the final draft to Steve DelBianco on Friday 8/13 at 12:00 EDT. Afterwards he will post the position on the PEDNER Public Comment side by COB 8/15 (PEDNER Due Date). Please advise if you have any other suggestions or require clarification. Thank you. Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://infinityportals.com 720.839.5735

2 1

ICANN reply to GAC on DAG
by Philip Sheppard Aug. 10, 2010

Aug. 10, 2010

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-dryden-05aug10-en.pdf

2 1

RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
by john＠crediblecontext.com Aug. 9, 2010

Aug. 9, 2010

1 0

FW: IMPORTANT: BC Members advice to CSG leadership on candidates for Review Teams for SSR and WHOIS--COMMENT PERIOD: AUGUST 7-14, 2010
by Marilyn Cade Aug. 7, 2010

Aug. 7, 2010

FIRST, NOTICE THAT THIS NOTICE IS SENT TO THE PUBLIC LIST. We are using the public list for 'Notice" because the fact that we are undertaking a consultation with BC members and asking their views on priorities should be part of our archives. Members will be advised of the final CSG decisions and recommendations, and these will be provided as guidance to the Councilors who are elected to represent the BC's positions on the GNSO Council. IF YOU ARE RESPONDING WITH ANY PRIVATE COMMENTS THAT INVOLVE CANDIDATE RELATED INFORMATION, PLEASE DO NOT USE TH PUBLIC ARCHIVE. COMMENTS RELATED TO CANDIDATES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVATE AND SHOULD BE SENT, AS NOTED BELOW TO THE INDIVIDUAL BC CSG REPS. [Please pardon spelling errors. I am typing without a mouse or spellcheck accessible. ] URGENT ATTENTION TO BC MEMBERSFROM : CSG BC REPS: SARAH DEUTSCH AND MARILYN CADE======================================================== Dear BC Members: As you know from earlier email updates, two Review Teams (RTs) are undergoing appointment in the immediate days ahead. One additional RT will be appointed AFTER the process of introducing new gTLDs and is not the subject of this round of RTs. Nominations were received from a significant number of highly qualified candidates. The link below has all the relevant information. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29jul10-en.htm IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH ACCESSING DETAILS THAT YOU NEED, PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL TO marilynscade(a)hotmail.com or to sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com and we will provide you with guidance on how to access the detailed information. The opportunity to advise the CSG leadership on candidates for the two RTs will be open for a week. Comments should be sent to sarah.b.deutsch(a)verisign.com and marilynscade(a)hotmail.com. Sarah is CSG rep from BC and Marilyn is alternate. The CSG leadership includes: Steve Metalitz and Claudio DiGangi, IPC; and Tony Holmes and Antonio Harris, ISPCP and Sarah Deutsch and Marilyn Cade, BC. The CSG leadership has reserved a CSG call on August 17 to make a final coordinated recommendation. The CSG can recommend one name and, if agreed, one alternate to the Council from our Stakeholder Group. The CSG can endorse other groups candidates. The CSG is discussing this as an option. Summary of situation: SSR: 3 seats from GNSOno female candidates self nominated from any SG/SO. Two candidates from CSG. Candidates from ALSC, GAC, and SSAC provide some geographic diversity. Due to the spread of geographic nominees from other SOs/ACs, the BC will lead a CSG recommendation that the GNSO Council look FIRST at full geographic diversity before applying geographical diversity requirements to the GNSO candidates. GNSO candidates : Total all candidates/all SGs/SOs/ACs: 20 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION OF CSG TO COUNCIL: The GNSO Council should put forward four names; one each from the four SGs. Additional alternates should not be provided. REMINDER THAT INDEPENDENT EXPERT NOMINATIONS ARE SEPARATE* WHOIS: 4 seats from GNSOFour female candidates: i CSG/GNSO; 1 NCSG/GNSO; 1 ccNSO; 1 Registry/GNSOTwo candidates from CSG. Candidates from ALSC, GAC, and SSAC provide some geographic diversity. Due to the spread of geographic nominees from other SOs/ACs, the BC will lead a CSG recommendation that the GNSO Council look FIRST at full geographic diversity before applying geographical diversity requirements to the GNSO candidates. Total all candidates/all SGs/SOs/ACs: 15 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION FROM CSG TO COUNCIL: The GNSO Council should put forward four names; one each from the four SGs. Additional alternatives should not be provided. REMINDER THAT INDEPENDENT EXPERT NOMINATIONS ARE SEPARATE* *Parties with qualifying expertise for independent expert roles should apply separately for those positions. Applying for these RT seats does not preclude applying as an independent expert. IF you are interested in that role, you should apply asap /and separately. Please do notify the CSG if you do so, as a courtesy. UPDATE: Earlier last week, the CSG hosted a candidates call which was available to all BC [and other CSG members]. Several candidates attended that call and provided comments and took questions. All CSG candidates participated in the call. A transcript is being developed and will be posted separately. The CSG then met on Friday via conference call to discuss the candidates for these two Review Teams related to the Affirmation of Commitments. There are several candidates for both Review Teams (RTs). I will provide a summary /overview of the process below, but this is a formal request from the CSG BC reps: Sarah Deutsch and Marilyn Cade for you to advise of your views on candidates. The decisions on names to put forward to the CSG [ISPCP/IPC/BC] leadership will be advised by BC members views. You are asked to do three things: 1) read CSG candidate background/bio/statements: SSR: CSG: Jeff Brueggeman, AT&TCSG: Bill Smith, PayPal WHOISCSG: Susan Kawaguchi, FacebookCSG: Bill Smith, PayPal 2) Carefully review the following suggested issues-look at the experience, expertise, and familiarity with ICANN's process for all candidates from the CSG-consider the relelative factors of how different candidates fit into a larger picture of a fuller RT [you need to read the backgrounds of other candidates to make this assessment] 3) provide private and confidential comments on candidates priority, in your view, to Sarah Deutsch and Marilyn Cade by Saturday, August 14. Your comments should be marked private and confidential. They will not be shared outside of the BC CSG representatives. If you have no preference, or prefer not to express a view, send an email saying No comment on SSR. or No comment on WHOIS or No comment on SSR or WHOIS. You can also watch the website and note that 'endorsements' are coming in for other SOs/ACs. To be helpful to your consideration, see my rough analysis below, without prejudice of your own analysis. SSR: 3 seats GNSO/20 total candidates/no women candidates/some geographical diversity in other SOs/ACs ALAC 1 seat/2 candidates: MX and DEeither Latin American or European diversity GAC1 seat1 candidate: SEEuropean diversity SSAC2 seatsUKUSUSChChEndorsed: appears to be 2 US [stay tuned to observe final validation of endorsements RSSAC1 seatUS ASO1 seat0 nominationsNOTE: MSC conferred /may be a nomination coming in still ccNSO2 seatsCZUSUKMOST likely: US and one other/TBD: thus European diversity GNSO - 7 candidates/no females/iimited geographical diversity3 seats total from GNSO US - CSGAU - NCSGUS - CSGUS - Registry/RegistrarUS- RegistryUS- RegistrarGH -NCSG Proposal by BC reps to CSG: Council asked by CSG to put forward four names, one from each CSG, without prejudice or prioritization, leaving the selection to the "Selectors", based on the expertise and experience of the candidates. Support for that from other SGs under exploration by CSG reps. WHOIS - 4 seats in total for GNSO/14 total candidates/four women candidates/some geographical diversity in other SOs/ACsALAC2 seats1 nomination to date: DEmost likely: European diversity GAC3 seatsone nomination: Brazilmost likely: more nominations may be forthcomingat a minimum: Latin American diversity SSAC1 seatPakistanAsia diversity RSSACno seats ASO1 seatBDAustria ccNSo1 seatUKEuropean diversity GNSO - 7 nominations/3 female/limited geographical diversity4 seatsUS - NCSGUS- CSGUS- Registry/RegistrarUS- RegistrarUS- RegistrySwitzerland/Canada- NCSGUS- CSG SUMMARY OF BC MEMBERS ACTIONS: - review submissions of CSG candidates-review other submissions-consider what is overall composition of RT, and how CSG candidates will fulfill the responsibilities as described in the AoC. -Consider the Candidates submissions and their statements in the Candidates Conf, call/per transcript-IF you want more details from CSG candidates, please send questions to Sarah and Marilyn to send to Candidates. DO not send directly to candidates, please.-Provide your comments, privately to Sarah and Marilyn as CSG representatives. deadline: Saturday, August 14. FOR Members comment: Proposal by BC reps to CSG: Council asked by CSG to put forward four names, one from each CSG, without prejudice or prioritization, leaving the selection to the "Selectors", based on the expertise and experience of the candidates for both SSR and WHOIS. Support for that from other SGs under exploration by CSG reps. DEADLINE for comments to CSG reps: Saturday, August 14. IF you will miss this deadline, you MUST advise Marilyn and Sarah of when you can comment. The CSG leadership discussion is Tuesday, August 17.

1 0

BC Position on PEDNER Initial Report
by Berry Cobb Aug. 5, 2010

Aug. 5, 2010

BC, Attached is a draft BC Position regarding the Initial Report produced by the Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNER) Working Group (WG). Per Marilyn's notice of the Public Comment period for the WG is extended to 15 Aug 2010. Please review and provide feedback or support, if any, by 13 Aug 10. I will compile changes and resend a draft out on the 14th for posting on the 15th. The other BC WG participants have not had much of a chance to review this prior to this notice, so I invite them to comment where I may have misstated something. This draft does not stray from our previous position statement of November 2009, but it does offer refinement to areas being considered for Consensus Policy (CP) with respect to expiration phase of a domain lifecycle. I do not suspect much opposition regarding this PDP topic within the BC, but if you do have concerns, please voice them. Specifically, we require refinement to concepts #8 through #12 & #18. When reviewing the document take notice of the highlighted text, as it denotes what I suspect to be areas we need to seek agreement. Key take-away(s) of PEDNER WG to this point: . BP vs. CP - many of the concepts discussed within the PEDNER WG equally contend with the issue of whether change should be considered a non-binding "Best Practice" instead of a "Consensus Policy" change where by agreements with Contracted parties require modification. . Largest potential change with respect to Redemption Grace Period (RGP) becoming Consensus Policy. Consistency is the primary driver for this change. The chair of the GNSO, and as one of the contributors to RGP is on record having difficulty understanding why it was not created as Consensus Policy at inception. To date, clear consensus on RGP is visible among the non-contracted parties and perhaps a few in the contracted party house. . Other potential CP changes: o Ability to recover a domain (CP) with a time to recover somewhere around 1 month o Notice of expiration prior should occur at least twice (CP), minimum intervals and how they are to be sent o Post-Expiration notices and other warnings (CP) o Clarification within WHOIS status changes regarding expired domains o Web and Email hosting services going Dark upon expiration (CP) o Clarity in Agreements and Post Expiration fees (CP) o Ability to transfer in an expired state & RGP (CP) . Registrant education, perhaps sponsored by ICANN, is critical to reduce the consumer confusion PEDNER - Social Text site: https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi BC Members of WG: . Mike Rodenbaugh - poll contributor . Phil Corwin . Mike O'Connor - poll contributor . Michael Palage . Berry Cobb - poll contributor Please advise if you have questions. Thank you, B Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://infinityportals.com 720.839.5735

2 1

REMINDER: Updated Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 5 August 2010.
by Marilyn Cade Aug. 3, 2010

Aug. 3, 2010

Dear BC Colleagues THE AUDIOCAST FOR GNSO COMMUNITY TO LISTEN LIVE TO THE GNSO COUNCIL MEETINGS IS NOW POSTED. SEE BELOW FOR DETAILS. Marilyn CadeBC Chair+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ REMINDER: Updated Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 5 August 2010. Please distribute the audiocast link to all your constituency and stakeholder group members. The audiocast is available to all of the GNSO community to listen in live to the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 5 August 2010. GNSO Council meeting audiocast: http://stream.icann.org/gnso/ Please distribute this link and the agenda to all your stakeholder group/constituency members http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-05aug10-en.htm Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 5 August 2010. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 28 October 2009 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/operating-procedures-revised-draft-clean-09o… 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 15:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 08:00 PDT; 10:00 CDT & Quito; 11:00 EDT; 12:00 Buenos Aires; 12:00 Brazil; 17:00 CEST; 19:00 Moscow; 20:00 Pakistan; 23:00 Hong Kong; 00:00 Tokyo, 01:00 Melbourne (next day) 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. Please click on the link to join the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/ Please enter as a 'guest'. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org/gnso/ Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members 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: • 15 July Meeting – Scheduled for approval on 28 July 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09389.html Item 2: OSC GNSO Improvement Recommendations (15 minutes) 2.1 Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?5_august_motions 2.2 Read the motion (Olga Cavalli) 2.3 Discussion 2.4 Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this vote.) 2.5 Action Items (if motion passes): • Cheat sheet for new voting procedures (Ken Bour) • Distribution of Constituency & Stakeholder Group Operating Procedures (Glen de Saint Géry) • Staff will distribute a package of materials for SGs and Constituencies regarding charters (Rob Hoggarth) Item 3: Whois Studies (20 minutes) 3.1 Refer to: • Whois Studies Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… • RFP for Proxy/Abuse Study: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm • Liz Gasster's summary chart of the studies: http://gnso.icann.org/whois/whois-studies-chart-30jul10-en.pdf • Brief overview of the study choices presented by Lisa Phifer on 15 July: http://brussels38.icann.org/meetings/brussels2010/presentation-whois-report… 3.2 Motion to delay decision on Whois studies • Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?5_august_motions • Discussion • Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this.) 3.3 Motion to proceed with Study # 1 (if needed) • Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?5_august_motions • Discussion • Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this.) 3.4 Continuing discussion of how to proceed in selecting studies 3.5 Next steps? Item 4: September meeting date September 16 (scheduled date) vs. September 8? (10 Minutes) • Refer to Doodle Poll results: o 8 September 11:00UTC and 15:00UTC http://www.doodle.com/k8ci6c69e8zb9ywq o 16 September 11:00UTC http://www.doodle.com/zvvzwfkd9xdp4wge • Discussion • Adobe Connect Poll (Kristina Nordstrom) Item 5: Prioritization of GNSO work (20 Minutes) 5.1 Refer to posted project ratings: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-work-prioritization-project-list-value-r… 5.2 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.” 5.3 Next Steps • Staff Utilization Analysis targeted for 26 August meeting (Liz Gasster) • Adobe Connect Poll Council regarding possible next steps (Kristina Nordstrom): o Option 1: Spend no more time on prioritization o Option 2: Develop a plan for using the results to manage the workload in the near term o Option 3: Form a drafting team with the task of developing a new process o Option 4: Form a drafting team with the task of improving the process o Option 5: Other? (including combinations of options 2, 3, and or 4) • Discussion? • Action Items Item 6: GNSO Endorsements for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies RTs (10 minutes) 6.1 Refer to: • GNSO AoC Reviews site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/ • GNSO SSR RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/dns-ssr-en.htm • GNSO Whois RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/whois-policies-en.htm 6.2 Key dates in the endorsement process: • 29 July – End of application period • 19 August – Due date for SG input (SG primary endorsements + additional candidates supported for diversity purposes) • 26 August – Council meeting • 8 or 16 September – Council meeting (see agenda item 11.2 below) • 12 September – GNSO endorsement slate due to Selectors 6.3 Brief summary of candidates by SG for the SSR & Whois RTs (Glen de Saint Géry) 6.4 Discussion Item 7: Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG (10 Minutes) 7.1 Progress report (Stéphane Van Gelder) 7.2 Timeline • End of public comment period for Initial Report: 13 August • Target date for summary & analysis of public comments: 16 August • Target date for submission of revised Initial Report to Council: 18 August • Deadline for submission of Initial Report to the Board for their retreat: 13 September 7.3 Discussion Item 8: Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report (5 Minutes) 8.1 Refer to: • Final Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf • Summary of Recommendations http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-final-report-conclusion-recommendation… 8.2 Volunteers to develop action plan for Council consideration: • Greg Aaron, chair of the RAP WG • Chuck Gomes, Council Chair • Mikey O'Connor CBUC-RAP WG member • Joi White‪ - IPC CSG • David Donahue -IPC CSG • Berry Cob - CBUC -RAP WG member • Phil Corwin - CBUC -RAP WG member • Mary Wong - NCSG • Faisal Shah -RAP WG member • Fred Felman -RAP WG member • Other? 8.3 Note: • Marika Konings will provide Staff policy support for this effort. • An email list is up and running with all of the above subscribed. • The group will be polled regarding the regular time of the meetings and date of the first meeting; it may be appropriate to use the recurring time that the RAP group used. Item 9: Cartagena Planning (10 Minutes) 9.1 Action items from Brussels Wrap-Up Meeting • Stéphane van Gelder to take the lead, with Glen's assistance, in preparing the schedule for the GNSO calendar for the Cartagena meetings in December 2010. • Glen will follow-up with the ICANN meetings team regarding the following: o Coffee should be available in close proximity to the meeting rooms. o Allowance should be made in the schedule for breaks between all the meetings. o Make Adobe Connect work better with all operating systems or alternatives that allow participation from Linux based systems. o Changing the start time of the Council meeting so that it is no so early. • Wendy Seltzer will lead a group of the following volunteers to develop suggested improvements to the running of the GNSO Public Council meetings: o Tim Ruiz o Kristina Rosette o Wolf-Ulrich Knoben o Edmon Chung o Adrian Kinderis o Others? • A group will be formed to work on the GNSO Council interaction with the Board. o Volunteers: o Terry Davis o David Taylor o Jaime Wagner o Zahid Jamil o Stéphane van Gelder o Others? o Stéphane volunteered to lead this effort. • Target date for completion of work and submission of input to Stéphane & Glen for schedule planning: 15 September. 9.2 Other issues? Item 10: Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter (5 minutes) 10.1 GNSO Volunteers: • Terry Davis (NCA) • Rafik Dammak (NCSG) • Greg Aaron (RySG, Afilias) • Kathy Kleiman (RySG, PIR) • Keith Drazek (RySG, VeriSign) • Mike Rodenbaugh (CSG, CBUC) • Zahid Jamil (CSG, CBUC) • Rodney Joffe (RySG, NeuStar) • Jaime Wagner (CSG, ISCPC) 10.2 Status report (Chuck Gomes) Item 11: Audio-casting of Council meetings (5 minutes) 11.1 Refer to information sent to the Council list by Marika on 26 July 2010. 11.2 Implementation status 11.3 Additional feedback? Item 12: Other Business (10 minutes) 12.1 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvement implementation • Note: As part of the motion to approve implementation of the OSC CCT recommendations, the Council resolved to convene a standing committee whose role will be to monitor, coordinate, and manage the continuing implementation of the various recommendations emanating from the chartered GNSO Improvements Work Teams. • Any suggestions regarding how to do this? 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) 15:00UTC ________________________________________ California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 10:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+1DST 19:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 next day ________________________________________ The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)

1 0

U.S. Online Privacy Legislation
by Phil Corwin Aug. 2, 2010

Aug. 2, 2010

BC members may be interested in an article I have just posted on potential legislation regulating online advertising at http://www.internetcommerce.org/http%3A/%252Fwww.internetcommerce.org/None-… Members may also be interested in checking out the WSJ survey of the tracking practices of the 50 most visited U.S. website at http://blogs.wsj.com/wtk/ as quite a few companies active in ICANN affairs are listed there. 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

2 4