October 2011 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

My first post from ICANN Dakar
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 23, 2011

Oct. 23, 2011

my early draft was pretty positive, but I turned more pessimistic after today's GAC – GNSO fiasco. See post here<http://www.circleid.com/posts/a_month_in_africa_charts_the_promise_and_peri…> and below A Month in Africa Charts the Promise and Perils of Internet Governance<http://www.circleid.com/posts/a_month_in_africa_charts_the_promise_and_peri…> * Oct 23, 2011 6:18 PM PDT By Steve DelBianco<http://www.circleid.com/members/3698/> [Steve DelBianco] [http://www.circleid.com/images/uploads/6081.gif]There may be no better illustration of how far we've come in Internet governance, than this: twice in the past 30 days, the global Internet community has gathered in sub-Saharan Africa to plot a path to bring the Internet to its next billion users. Just weeks after wrapping up the sixth annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Kenya, Internet stakeholders from around the world traveled back to Africa for ICANN's 42nd meeting in Dakar, Senegal. Fifteen years ago, nearly every important decision about the Internet was made in the United States. But in less than thirty days, the African continent will have hosted two of the most important global Internet policy events of the year. In less than a decade, we have witnessed the emergence of something truly unprecedented. The model represented by ICANN and the IGF is the first to put the management of a critical global resource in the hands of the very people who use it. The multi-stakeholder experiment begun in the late 1990s has scored enough successes to become a blueprint for other global initiatives. Successes like ICANN's scheduled expansion of top-level domains, growing crowds at each IGF global meeting, and the spontaneous appearance of regional and national IGFs. As with any progressive change, this revolutionary governance model is not without its critics. Some of us naively hoped that as the multi-stakeholder model racked up successes and built its track record for ensuring the stability and functionality of the Internet, it might rise above reproach. But as I say, that was a naive hope. Attacks on the multi-stakeholder model are coming fast and from multiple quarters. Traditional power brokers in some governments seek to squelch an emerging model that asks them to participate as equals rather than rulers. Two proposals surfaced over those eventful past 30 days: one from Russia, China, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan; and another by India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA). These proposals would consolidate power for global Internet oversight in the hands of state actors, and by extension reduce the role of nongovernmental stakeholders in industry and civil society. The IBSA proposal is particularly insidious. Without mentioning ICANN or the IGF directly, it calls for creating a new body within the United Nations to oversee Internet policy. What the proposal does not say, but what is clearly inferred, is that existing, multi-stakeholder bodies like the IGF and ICANN would either be marginalized and/or subjugated by this new UN entity. If I can offer one observation to my fellow travelers in the multi-stakeholder community, it is this: we've become dangerously complacent about the inevitability of an Internet management model where we have a significant say about policies. In reality, our individual efforts and earnestness are not enough to defend us from those who would replace our model with the top-down tradition favored by governments. If we cannot deliver enforceable policies to maintain security and integrity of the Internet, we will be replaced. At the IGF In Nairobi, I cited<http://www.circleid.com/posts/multi_stakeholder_debate_at_the_igf_lessons_f…> the multi-species cooperation at a watering hole on the African savannah as a lesson for our own multi-stakeholder community to follow. If there's one thing you notice about the apparent calm at the watering hole, it's how the animals are persistently watchful for external threats. Animals that fail to cooperate in collective vigilance and defense endanger themselves and at most a few other unlucky victims in the herd. But when it comes to defending the multi-stakeholder model, a lack of attention and cooperation puts the whole species at permanent risk of extinction.

1 0

SUNDAY meeting Reminder of two SSR related sessions today:
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 23, 2011

Oct. 23, 2011

Remember that the SSR-RT, with Jeff Brueggeman, as the CSG rep, will present today, and that the DSSR, chaired by Mikey O'Connor, [a BC member] and Scott McCormick, as our designated BC rep, will present Sunday afternoon. The dial information to participate remotely will be on the schedule on the ICANN website. If you are in Dakar physically, the sessions are in the Salon Verte, where the GNSO Working sessions/Council have been Sat/Sunday. Important issues to the BC -- I hope you will be able to join our colleagues. And, of course, the BC drinks for members, separately announced will take place after the meetings close. Check email from Secretariat on where to find all of your BC colleagues for a round of drinks. Marilyn Cade,BC Chair

1 0

ATRT Implementation Updates & Monday Forum‏
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 23, 2011

Oct. 23, 2011

Dear BC Members, The Accountability & Transparency Forum's time and location has changed: *Mon, Oct.24, 10:00-11:15 in the Chapiteau (tent). * Participants will be briefed on how ICANN is implementing the Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT) Recommendations, and will have an opportunity to discuss with the Board and GAC representatives the key deliverables and end-goals. These include: ·Providing better access to, and insight into, Board decisions; ·Improving the process for selecting ICANN Directors; ·Improving access to, and understanding of, the review mechanisms for Board decisions; ·Helping advance the effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board; and ·Increasing the transparency and accountability of the processes ICANN uses to gain public input and develop policy. Summaries <http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/atrt-implementation-summary-22oct11-…> of ATRT implementation can be found on the Accountability & Transparency webpage <http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/overview-en.htm>. Remote participation <http://dakar42.icann.org/node/26849> is available. The draft forum agenda includes: Draft Agenda 1. Opening Remarks - Steve Crocker 2. Presentation - Implementation Status Overview - ICANN Staff 3. Discussion/Q&A - Board Operations, Composition & Review of Decisions - Bruce Tonkin, Bill Graham, Ray Plzak, Cherine Chalaby 4. Discussion/Q&A - GAC Operations, Engagement, Interaction with Board - Heather Dryden, Manal Ismail 5. Discussion/Q&A - Public Input & Multilingual Access - Mike Silber 6. Discussion/Q&A - Miscellaneous & Measuring Success - Steve Crocker. -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] Update regarding Dakar Travel
by martinsutton＠hsbc.com Oct. 22, 2011

Oct. 22, 2011

For those of you who may be staying at the Hotel des Almadies, keep your expectations very low to avoid disappointment. For those of you not staying there - good choice. All other hotels are fully booked (I tried them all last night when I arrived). Regards, Mar(should have done my research)tin Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* ----- Original Message ----- From: Benedetta Rossi [bc-secretariat(a)icann.org] Sent: 19/10/2011 15:07 ZE2 To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Update regarding Dakar Travel Dear BC Members, Just an announcement directed at members who are traveling to Dakar this week: I have just received confirmation from ICANN staff that the complimentary shuttle service operating from the airport is already active, and will be running 24 hours per day. All participants can use this service when they arrive at the airport by following the person who has the ICANN 42 Sign. I have also been informed that a shuttle service to the venue hotel will be available for members who are staying at the Hotel Des Almadies from Saturday at 7am local time, running all day long. Members who are arriving before that will need to take a taxi from the Hotel des Almadies to the Meridien. It is apparently very hot in Dakar, so be prepared! I hope this helps! -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.

2 1

for consideration, as an alternative way to amend the RAA
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 22, 2011

Oct. 22, 2011

In Saturday's GNSO Work Session, we debated how to proceed amending<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/r%20aa-improvements-proposal-final-%20repo…> the RAA. Contract parties are not willing to accept the process motion <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+October+…> offered by Kristina Rosette and supported by the BC. Jeff Neuman (RySG) then suggested that Council adopt an amendment process that matches the Registry Agreement amendment process, as described in new gTLD Guidebook, Module 5<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agreement-specs-clean-19sep11-en.p…>, section 7.6 (below). Jeff basically suggested copying this section and changing Registry to Registrar. 7.6 Amendments and Waivers. (a) If ICANN determines that an amendment to this Agreement (including to the Specifications referred to herein) and all other registry agreements between ICANN and the Applicable Registry Operators (the “Applicable Registry Agreements”) is desirable (each, a “Special Amendment”), ICANN may submit a Special Amendment for approval by the Applicable Registry Operators pursuant to the process set forth in this Section 7.6, provided that a Special Amendment is not a Restricted Amendment (as defined below). Prior to submitting a Special Amendment for such approval, ICANN shall first consult in good faith with the Working Group (as defined below) regarding the form and substance of a Special Amendment. The duration of such consultation shall be reasonably determined by ICANN based on the substance of the Special Amendment. Following such consultation, ICANN may propose the adoption of a Special Amendment by publicly posting such amendment on its website for no less than thirty (30) calendar days (the “Posting Period”) and providing notice of such amendment by ICANN to the Applicable Registry Operators in accordance with Section 7.8. ICANN will consider the public comments submitted on a Special Amendment during the Posting Period (including comments submitted by the Applicable Registry Operators). (b) If, within two (2) calendar years of the expiration of the Posting Period (the “Approval Period”), (i) the ICANN Board of Directors approves a Special Amendment (which may be in a form different than submitted for public comment) and (ii) such Special Amendment receives Registry Operator Approval (as defined below), such Special Amendment shall be deemed approved (an “Approved Amendment”) by the Applicable Registry Operators (the last date on which such approvals are obtained is herein referred to as the “Amendment Approval Date”) and shall be effective and deemed an amendment to this Agreement upon sixty (60) calendar days notice from ICANN to Registry Operator (the “Amendment Effective Date”). In the event that a Special Amendment is not approved by the ICANN Board of Directors or does not receive Registry Operator Approval within the Approval Period, the Special Amendment will have no effect. The procedure used by ICANN to obtain Registry Operator Approval shall be designed to document the written approval of the Applicable Registry Operators, which may be in electronic form. (c) During the thirty (30) calendar day period following the Amendment Approval Date, Registry Operator (so long as it did not vote in favor of the Approved Amendment) may apply in writing to ICANN for an exemption from the Approved Amendment (each such request submitted by Registry Operator hereunder, an “Exemption Request”). Each Exemption Request will set forth the basis for such request and provide detailed support for an exemption from the Approved Amendment. An Exemption Request may also include a detailed description and support for any alternatives to, or a variation of, the Approved Amendment proposed by such Registry Operator. An Exemption Request may only be granted upon a clear and convincing showing by Registry Operator that compliance with the Approved Amendment conflicts with applicable laws or would have a material adverse effect on the long- term financial condition or results of operations of Registry Operator. No Exemption Request will be granted if ICANN determines, in its reasonable discretion, that granting such Exemption Request would be materially harmful to registrants or result in the denial of a direct benefit to registrants. Within ninety (90) calendar days of ICANN’s receipt of an Exemption Request, ICANN shall either approve (which approval may be conditioned or consist of alternatives to or a variation of the Approved Amendment) or deny the Exemption Request in writing, during which time the Approved Amendment will not amend this Agreement; provided, that any such conditions, alternatives or variations shall be effective and, to the extent applicable, will amend this Agreement as of the Amendment Effective Date. If the Exemption Request is approved by ICANN, the Approved Amendment will not amend this Agreement. If such Exemption Request is denied by ICANN, the Approved Amendment will amend this Agreement as of the Amendment Effective Date (or, if such date has passed, such Approved Amendment shall be deemed effective immediately on the date of such denial), provided that Registry Operator may, within thirty (30) calendar days following receipt of ICANN’s determination, appeal ICANN’s decision to deny the Exemption Request pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Article 5. The Approved Amendment will be deemed not to have amended this Agreement during the pendency of the dispute resolution process. For avoidance of doubt, only Exemption Requests submitted by Registry Operator that are approved by ICANN pursuant to this Section 7.6(c) or through an arbitration decision pursuant to Article 5 shall exempt Registry Operator from any Approved Amendment, and no exemption request granted to any other Applicable Registry Operator (whether by ICANN or through arbitration) shall have any effect under this Agreement or exempt Registry Operator from any Approved Amendment. (d) Except as set forth in this Section 7.6, no amendment, supplement or modification of this Agreement or any provision hereof shall be binding unless executed in writing by both parties, and nothing in this Section 7.6 shall restrict ICANN and Registry Operator from entering into bilateral amendments and modifications to this Agreement negotiated solely between the two parties. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be binding unless evidenced by a writing signed by the party waiving compliance with such provision. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement or failure to enforce any of the provisions hereof shall be deemed or shall constitute a waiver of any other provision hereof, nor shall any such waiver constitute a continuing waiver unless otherwise expressly provided. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Section 7.6 shall be deemed to limit Registry Operator’s obligation to comply with Section 2.2. meanings: (e) For purposes of this Section 7.6, the following terms shall have the following (i) “Applicable Registry Operators” means, collectively, the registry operators of the top-level domains party to a registry agreement that contains a provision similar to this Section 7.6, including Registry Operator. (ii) “Registry Operator Approval” means the receipt of each of the following: (A) the affirmative approval of the Applicable Registry Operators whose payments to ICANN accounted for two-thirds of the total amount of fees (converted to U.S. dollars, if applicable) paid to ICANN by all the Applicable Registry Operators during the immediately previous calendar year pursuant to the Applicable Registry Agreements, and (B) the affirmative approval of a majority of the Applicable Registry Operators at the time such approval is obtained. For avoidance of doubt, with respect to clause (B), each Applicable Registry Operator shall have one vote for each top-level domain operated by such Registry Operator pursuant to an Applicable Registry Agreement. (iii) “Restricted Amendment” means the following: (i) an amendment of Specification 1, (ii) except to the extent addressed in Section 2.10 hereof, an amendment that specifies the price charged by Registry Operator to registrars for domain name registrations, (iii) an amendment to the definition of Registry Services as set forth in the first paragraph of Section 2.1 of Specification 6, or (iv) an amendment to the length of the Term. (iv) “Working Group” means representatives of the Applicable Registry Operators and other members of the community that ICANN appoints, from time to time, to serve as a working group to consult on amendments to the Applicable Registry Agreements (excluding bilateral amendments pursuant to Section 7.6(d)).

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] IRTP-B -- heads up
by Mike O'Connor Oct. 21, 2011

Oct. 21, 2011

thanks Mike! that connection across to the IPC folks would be especially helpful. mikey On Oct 21, 2011, at 7:38 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: > Thanks Mikey for raising these issues, and maintaining a voice of “non-registrar” reason in that WG. > > I agree with you on both points, and particularly think the second one is fairly huge. So I will echo your comments to the WG list, fwiw. I also will raise these issues in the IPC and see if any of them will speak up too. > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 6:29 AM > To: bc - GNSO list > Subject: [bc-gnso] IRTP-B -- heads up > > hi all, > > and especially those of you who participated in the IRTP working group. > > there's a pretty important end-game being played out in IRTP-B. it would be helpful if those who participated in the working group would dial back in and make comments to the list. and those of you who didn't also will have an opportunity to weigh in. > > i'm lobbying for two changes (here's what i posted to the working-group list): > > Rec #8 > > i like the idea of ensuring that the link is preserved within WHOIS output. > > but when we drafted this recommendation, our intent was to deliver the definition of the status code *within* WHOIS, not through a link to a list somewhere else. the link works fine for sophisticated consumers of WHOIS but, in my opinion, does not reach the "clarify WHOIS status codes" goal that we were striving for when we wrote this. i'd like to take up this discussion one more time. this dilution of our recommendation hasn't been sufficiently justified in my view -- certainly "technical complexity" doesn't cut it. even i, a long-dead programmer, could come up with code to do this in an afternoon, complete with lookups that scraped the definitions off the InterNIC page (so that updates would automatically flow through my code to the output). > > Rec #9 > > this one still suffers from the vagueness that we discussed on our last call. the culprit is in this phrase -- "the registrar may still be permitted or required to restrict some registration changes or transfers pursuant to the UDRP or [sic] other ICANN consensus policies or legal requirements." > > the trouble comes in the phrase "or legal requirements." *which* legal requirements? legal requirements imposed by the registrar? or *external* legal requirements? i'd be a bit more cheerful with wording like this -- "the registrar may still be permitted or required to restrict some registration changes or transfers pursuant to the UDRP, ICANN consensus policies or other external legal requirements." > > i'm not keen on allowing registrar-imposed legal requirements into this policy -- that's effectively opening the door for registrars to block just about any transfer, the prevention of which was one of the primary reasons the IRTP was instituted in the first place. > > i'm pretty much the only non-Registrar commenting at this point. we have a working group developing policy constraining Registrar behavior that is: chaired by a Registrar, is dominated by Registrar participants, has a Council-Liaison that's a Registrar and reports to a Council that's chaired by a Registrar. so i'm feeling a little lonely at the moment. :-) > > i'm forwarding a post from the Chair of the WG in which lays out the process. note that the recommendations are reversed and have different designations. Recommendation 8 in the IRTP report corresponds to RESOLVED (E) while Recommendation 9 corresponds to RESOLVED (D). sorry about that -- above my pay-grade. the main point is that we could use a few more comments from non-Registrars (both on and off the WG). > > thanks, > > mikey > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele(a)blacknight.ie> > Date: October 17, 2011 5:26:55 AM CDT > To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org" <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP B .. Proposals etc > > > Dear All > > It's great seeing some healthy discussions on the mailing list, so before jumping ahead and setting up any new calls, I'd like to encourage others to express their views on the mailing list. > > As a reminder, please note that the recommendations as resolved by the GNSO Council in relation to these two issues are as follows: > > RESOLVED (D), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation which states: "denial reason #7 should be replaced by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked", the GNSO Council requests ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for such a new provision, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2). Upon review of the proposal, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation. > > RESOLVED (E), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status, the GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation. > > Also note that Staff is planning to put out these proposals for community input, so even if the WG is not able to reach a common position on the proposals, individual members will have an opportunity to share their views as part of the public comment forum. > > I'm sure Staff is also reviewing these comments and will try to address these in the best way possible. > > I'd also like to remind you that an IRTP Update has been scheduled to take place at the ICANN meeting in Dakar on Thursday from 10.00 – 11.30 (seehttp://dakar42.icann.org/node/27007) during which you will have another opportunity to share your views. > > Regards > > Michele > > > > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions ♞ > Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection > ICANN Accredited Registrar > http://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.biz > http://mneylon.tel > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > US: 213-233-1612 > UK: 0844 484 9361 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > > - - - - - - - - - > phone 651-647-6109 > fax 866-280-2356 > web http://www.haven2.com > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) > - - - - - - - - - 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

CSG /Members discussion on Tuesday with Council Chair Candidate/attached Candidate statement - announcement of V.Chair Candidate from Non Contracted House
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 20, 2011

Oct. 20, 2011

I am pleased to advise BC members that Stephane Van Gelder, who is standing for Council Chair re-election for a one year term, has accepted an invitation to meet with the full CSG membership on Tuesday, 4 p.m., in the CSG meeting room. His Candidate Statement is attached for your convenience. While Stephane is standing unopposed, he must still gain 60% of the votes of both houses to be elected. Vice Chairs are chosen separately, and differently. Each House determines their procedure, and provides one vice chair. The procedure in the Non Contracted Party House is discussed separatly. However, I would like to advise Members that Wolf Ulrich Knoben, ISPCP Councilor, has been nominated by the CSG as a Vice Chair Candidate. I will forward his candidate statement in due course.

1 0

Policy calendar for 19-Oct-2011 BC member call
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 19, 2011

Oct. 19, 2011

Here is the latest BC policy calendar, for use during 19-Oct-2011 BC member call. Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: ICANN Public Comment page is at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ 1. Case studies on TLD variant issues for six IDN scripts (14-Nov) 2. Draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan (17-Nov) 3. Draft final report on Internationalized Registration Data (17-Nov) 4. Framework for consent in delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs (1-Dec) 5. Registries' proposal for Continued Operations Fund in new gTLD program (2-Dec) 6. Final report on Support for gTLD Applicants from developing economies (16-Dec) 7. Recommendations to modify Geographic Regions (19-Dec) Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual / company comments. Based on member interest, the BC selects topics on which to submit official positions. Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council GNSO Project Status available at https://www.icann.org/en/processes/gnso/current-issues.html Agenda<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26oct11-en.htm> and motions<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+October+…> for 26-Oct GNSO Council meeting in Dakar: Item 3: Open Council Meetings – drafting team suggestions Item 4: Motion (1) on process to amend the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Item 5: Motion (2) on PDP improvements Item 6: Cross Community Working Group drafting team delivers its first status report Item 7: Geo Regions Working Group, discussion of draft<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/geo-regions-draft-final-report-30sep…> report (new Council convenes) Item 2: vote for Council chair Channel 3. Supporting discussion and voting on policy matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Sarah Deutsch (stepping down as CSG Liaison since she has been elected to Nominating Committee) Marilyn Cade (alt) Council leadership elections Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) Affirmation review team for Whois (Susan Kawaguchi, Lynn Goodendorf) Affirmation review team for SSR (Security, Stability, & Reslience) (Jeff Brueggeman) Public Forum on Thu 27-Oct

2 1

Update regarding Dakar Travel
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 19, 2011

Oct. 19, 2011

Dear BC Members, Just an announcement directed at members who are traveling to Dakar this week: I have just received confirmation from ICANN staff that the complimentary shuttle service operating from the airport is already active, and will be running 24 hours per day. All participants can use this service when they arrive at the airport by following the person who has the ICANN 42 Sign. I have also been informed that a shuttle service to the venue hotel will be available for members who are staying at the Hotel Des Almadies from Saturday at 7am local time, running all day long. Members who are arriving before that will need to take a taxi from the Hotel des Almadies to the Meridien. It is apparently very hot in Dakar, so be prepared! I hope this helps! -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

U.S. analyst puts form to global Internet trends
by john＠crediblecontext.com Oct. 18, 2011

Oct. 18, 2011

Every year, Kleiner Perkin's (Palo Alto, CA) analyst, Mary Meeker, offers her view of the global technology marketplace at the Web 2.0 conference in San Francisco. This year's presentation (here: http://www.kpcb.com/insights/internet-trends-2011) is as provocative as expected. Global, mobile, social, sure, but she suggests an interdependence that has implications for the new gTLD program. I thought it might help stimulate your own thinking (as it has mine). Cheers, John Berard

1 0