- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

GNSO Shelves New gTLD Work Due to Lack of Staff Support
by Phil Corwin Jan. 15, 2011

Jan. 15, 2011

FYI--Would appreciate any additional insights from BC members who participated in or observed the GNSO Council meeting -- http://domainincite.com/icann-staff-swamped/ ICANN<http://domainincite.com/icann-staff-swamped/> staff swamped<http://domainincite.com/icann-staff-swamped/> Kevin Murphy<http://domainincite.com/about>, January 14, 2011, 16:13:16 (UTC), Domain Policy<http://domainincite.com/category/domain-policy/> ICANN’s board of directors is giving its staff and policy-making bodies more work than they can handle. The GNSO Council yesterday voted to shelve board-requested work on the new top level domains program because no ICANN staffers have the time to help coordinate the project. Last month, the board asked<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6> the GNSO and other constituencies to come up with ideas, before mid-March, about how to measure the consumer benefits of new TLDs after they launch. But the Council yesterday was faced with having to suspend other policy development, in order to get the required staff support, so decided instead to defer the new work. A senior ICANN executive at the meeting said that ICANN staff is “not an unlimited resource” and has “no bandwidth to keep taking these projects”. This has apparently been an issue for over a year. In this particular instance, the problem project comprised part of ICANN’s obligations under its Affirmation of Commitments with the US government, so it’s not trivial stuff. As others have noted<http://domainnamewire.com/2010/08/13/icann-community-faces-policy-overload/>, sometimes the amount of policy development going on in ICANN can appear overwhelming to outsiders, but it seems that this problem also extends to ICANN internally. 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

1 0

FW: Supplementary Comments of the Internet Commerce Association
by Phil Corwin Jan. 15, 2011

Jan. 15, 2011

Fellow BC members: FYI, ICA just filed the attached supplementary comments on the proposed Final Applicant Guidebook. If any of you have questions or comments please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: Phil Corwin Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:25 PM To: 5gtld-guide(a)icann.org Subject: Supplementary Comments of the Internet Commerce Association The supplementary comments of the Internet Commerce Association are attached. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this submission. 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

1 0

Reminder: Updated agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 13 January 2011
by Marilyn Cade Jan. 13, 2011

Jan. 13, 2011

A BC member just asked me to reforward the notice of the Council call, with the audio cast information. See below. Updated agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 13 January 2011 The meeting will be audio cast.http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Proposed Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 13 January 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-13jan11-en.htmWiki agenda https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_13_january_2011… motions before Council can be viewed here: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?13_january_motions This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 5 August 2010 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdfFor convenience:* An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.Meeting Time 20:00 UTCSee the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 12:00 PST; 14:00 CST; 15:00 EST; 17:00 Buenos Aires; 17:00 Brazil; 21:00 CET; 23:00 MoscowFriday,14 January 2011 01:00 Pakistan; 04:00 Beijing; 05:00 Tokyo, 07:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3uItem 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest • Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding “any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party’s judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion” in this meeting. Here is the definition provided in the procedures:“Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue.”The main issues for this meeting are Election Procedures for Council Chair & Vice ChairsGNSO recommendation 6 on new gTLDs.JOBS reconsideration requestGNSO ImprovementsThe Registrar Accreditation AgreementRegistration Abuse PoliciesJoint Applicant Support Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation 1.2 Update any statements of interestNote that a revised SoI was received from:Stéphane van Gelder Jonathan Robinson has submitted a Satement of Interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 8 December 2010 – Approved on 7 January 2011. Item 2: Joint Applicant Support Working Group (15 minutes) Refer to motion deferred from previous meeting (motion 1) https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?13_january_motions Action item from previous meeting: It was suggested that a group of volunteers, not necessarily Councillors, work on the motion and deal with the issues and submit a revised motion eight days in advance of the next Council meeting. Jeff NeumanWolf-Ulrich KnobenTim RuizAvri DoriaKen StubbsEric Brunner-WilliamsAndrew Mack Richard Tindal2.1: Report from volunteer group - Rafik Dammak 2.2: Discussion 2.3: Vote (note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this motion) 2.4: If motion 1 fails, refer to motion 2 https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?13_january_motions 2.5 Discussion 2.6: Vote (note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this motion)Item 3: Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (15 minutes)Refer to motion deferred from previous meeting (motion 3) https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?13_january_motions3.1 Reading of the motion (Kristina Rosette) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Vote (note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this motion)Item 4: Recommendations re. Fast-Flux working Group (FFWG) (10 minutes) Motion to end fast flux pending project and integrate into Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) where applicable. 4.1 Refer to motion on the implementation of the Fast Flux recommendations that were adopted by the GNSO Council on 3 September 2009 (motion 4) https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?13_january_motions4.2 Discussion4.3 Vote (note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this motion)4.4 Recommendations re. RAP Refer to letter from RAP team http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf 4.5 Refer to motion in response to the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP WG) final report.(motion 5) https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?13_january_motions4.6 Discussion4.7 Vote (Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House) Item 5: Status of Stakeholder Group and Constituency statements on Recommendation 6 (15 minutes) Refer to motion passed in previous meeting http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201012 Especially resolve clause: the Council recommends that each Stakeholder Group and constituency provide feedback as soon as possible to the Council, on the CWG recommendations. 5.1 Update on Rec6 CWG (Margie Milam) 5.2 Discussion and feedback from Stakeholder Groups and constituencies 5.3 Next steps? Item 6: Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (20 minutes) Refer to Board resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#66.1 Briefing from Bruce Tonkin 6.2 Set up drafting team to provide requested advice • Rosemary Sinclair has volunteered to lead • Debbie Hughes has volunteered to participate • Other volunteers 6.3 Discussion 6.4 Next steps? Item 7: Board Response to reconsideration request 10-2 (.jobs reconsideration request) (20 minutes) Refer to Board resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#87.1 Update from Staff on briefing paper (Kurt Pritz) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps? Item 8: Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and new Standing Committee (15 Minutes) 8.1 Discussion and vote on PPSC Working Group work team motion (motion 6). 8.2 Refer to motion passed in previous meeting (Motion 6 Motion to extend the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and the Operations Steering Committee (OSC)charters). http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201012Especially resolve clauses. RESOLVED, The Council extends the terms of the Operations Steering Committee and the Policy Process Steering Committee and their respective work teams as necessary through the ICANN public meeting in June 2011.RESOLVED, the Council acknowledges and thanks the OSC, the PPSC and the five community work teams for their hard work; and directs each steering committee and applicable work team chair to identify for the Council any remaining targets and benchmarks for their respective work by no later than 19 January 2011, including expected deadlines for final delivery.RESOLVED FURTHER, a drafting team shall be established no later than 19 January 2011, to draft a charter for a Standing Committee to track and coordinate implementation of those OSC, PPSC and work team recommendations already approved by the Council and adopted, as recommended by the Communications and Coordination Work Team in its final report of 9 April 20108.3 Establish Drafting Team (DT) for new Standing Committee• Volunteers? • DT Chair?8.4 Updating OSC Recommendation for Proxies in the GNSO Operating Procedures• Bill Drake has volunteered to lead • Update • Next stepsItem 9: Other Business (10 Minutes) 9.1 Status of Vice Chair elections in the Non Contracted Party House. (Olga Cavalli) 9.2 San Francisco planning (Olga Cavalli) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)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 October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ________________________________________ Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 20:00UTC ________________________________________ California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 12:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+0DST 14:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 15:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+1DST 18:00 London (GMT) UTC+0DST 20:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 21:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 21:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+0DST 23:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 07:00 next day ________________________________________ The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan 13 - Motion #5 RAP
by Berry Cobb Jan. 11, 2011

Jan. 11, 2011

I guess I was a sleep at the wheel this morning for the call. I had not seen the GNSO motions prior to our call, and after hearing the discussion this AM, I knew something seemed suspicious. The early morning fog prevented me from responding. Thanks to Mike for posting this to the list. As this motion #5 on RAP stands, I support a vote of "NO". At the very least, this motion does not consider all the recommendations of the RAP and it does not make any reference to all the other RAP recommendations. Why would the remainder of the RAP recommendations be omitted? I am not familiar with how the Council reviews, submits motions, and votes on WG recommendations, but I find this current motion creating a gap and perhaps jeopardizing the WG process. Being a member of the RAP-IDT, helping to create a priority list, I guess I never expected a motion resulting in a "hunt & peck" exercise. Lastly, I do not want to speculate on the motivation of the Contracted Parties, who are the ones that submitted and seconded this motion, but I do think Mike touches on a fair question of why the current motion bypasses higher ranked RAP recommendations, like the Best Practices effort on Malicious Use (which received unanimous consensus by the RAP WG). Swiss cheese with lots of holes is my is my gut feel. WRT to the Fast Flux motion & recommendations, I cannot comment as I did not participate and this was before my time at ICANN. However, one result of that WG also contains a "best practices" recommendation. While I do not want to delay the FF efforts, I believe there to be more momentum for the RAP Best Practices Recommendation to act as the pilot for Best Practices Efforts within the ICANN\GNSO span of control. WRT to the UDRP recommendation from RAP...I agree with Mike that this will be fight, although that was not prevalent when the WG developed Unanimous Consensus on this recommendation. The UDRP recommendation priority created a lot of friction within the RAP-IDT. And if I recall correctly from our BC session this morning, a few of our members support delaying this PDP on UDRP. I will remind that the BC did submit a position on the RAP Interim Report supporting this recommendation, although no formal position was established on the RAP Final Report. Personally, I see fractures of the UDRP on both sides (brand holders vs domain investors). It is time to review, update, and improve the UDRP. I support its current prioritization as defined by the RAP IDT. In same breath, if this will put us at odds with the IPC, I can also support saving this battle for another day. To add clarification to Mike's comments about the RAP Uniformity of Contracts recommendation... The conundrum about this recommendation is that it only received "strong support but significant opposition" during the Pre-PDP WG efforts. However, within the RAP-IDT efforts to prioritize all the recommendations, it received a third or fourth place priority over "unanimous consensus" RAP recommendations. The RAP-IDT deliberated this issue some, and the conclusion is that the GNSO council should address this by first voting the UofC recommendation up or down first and then figure out if and how to move forward. Bottom line, I recommend the BC & our Councilors support the priority assignment recommendations from the RAP IDT team and any motion presented to the GNSO Council about RAP efforts should be all encompassing. Vote each RAP recommendation Up or Down, then assign the "UP" recommendations to the Prioritization Queue for WGs, and build a sense of urgency to get things moving along. Thanks, B Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://infinityportals.com 720.839.5735 From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 7:31 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan 13 Thanks Marilyn for forwarding, I guess I've been deleted from the Council list. so will ask to be added again. I have some concern about the resolutions re Fast Flux and especially re Registration Abuse Policies. I think folding the FF recos into the RAP recos is ok in concept, but we can see that the contract parties are trying to bury that portion of the work re 'best practices'. It was identified as the top priority after the two 'low hanging fruit' items identified by the RAP-Implementation Drafting Team. Yet, the motion addresses only those two items and the UDRP review, which was identified as 3d priority. I know the IPC will vehemently fight against UDRP review now. My strong view is it is not time for that fight yet either, it will be a big fight. and that the non-controversial yet difficult Best Practices work should be done first as recommended by the Implementation Team, and indeed that work might help to inform the UDRP review effort. Also Item IV of the RAP-IDT recos, Uniformity of Contracts, is a key issue for all non-contracting party stakeholders. By mass in RAP-IDT, the contracting parties got a low priority, but from our perspective it should be a bigger priority that UDRP review. At minimum, there should be a plan to start that work, as well as the Best Practices work, before any agreement on UDRP review is made. Curious how other members, particularly those that have been active in the RAP group, thing about these motions pending before Council. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 6:47 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan 13 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-13jan11-en.htm

5 4

Cloning Marilyn Cade
by Phil Corwin Jan. 11, 2011

Jan. 11, 2011

Madame Chairwoman Cade: If you have indeed found a way to clone yourself can you please share it with members of the BC? That way, we could send our clones to ICANN meetings while we stay home and get our other work done ;-) (PS-The post is a guest article by Kieren McCarthy touting his .nxt Conference next month in San Francisco.) http://domainincite.com/ready-to-apply-for-a-gtld-no-you%E2%80%99re-not-not… So, yes, it's been a long, drawn-out and dispiriting exercise to get to the point where the structure of the internet will be radically changed forever. But even if the US government invades ICANN's offices in Los Angeles, trademark lawyers kidnap Rod Beckstrom, and Marilyn Cade clones herself 100 times, nothing can stop the raw reality that 2011 is the year of the gTLD. It's happening. So stop sulking and start getting excited about it. 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

1 0

ICANN Board - GAC Meeting
by Michael D. Palage Jan. 10, 2011

Jan. 10, 2011

Hello All, As many of you may know the ICANN Board and GAC have scheduled an intercessional meeting in Geneva next month to resolve outstanding issues in connection with the new gTLD implementation process. Unfortunately to date details of whether this meeting will be open/closed to observers has not yet been publicly addressed. As a strong advocate toward openness and transparency I have drafted the following text which calls for the meeting to be open to observers, I did so after talking with several ICANN stakeholders that shared these same concerns. It would be my hope that SOs/ACs/SGs and individuals could make their voice heard on this important issue. I welcome any questions/comments. Best regards, Michael DRAFT TEXT Over the past eighteen months ICANN has had the opportunity to navigate through a number of challenges and achievements: expiration of the Joint Project Agreement and the negotiation and signing of the Affirmation of Commitments; introduction of new internationalized top-level domains in the ccTLD fast track process; preparing for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 address space while advancing the visibility of IPv6; and progress on addressing remaining work on the proposed Applicant Guidebook/process to introduce new gTLDs, including IDNs. As important as these initiatives have been, ICANN is now experiencing a new challenge, an upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee (GAC). This consultation appears to be the first time that ICANN’s Board and the GAC will use provisions set forth in Article XI Section 2 to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject GAC advice. In many ways, the legacy of ICANN’s leadership will be significantly impacted by how the parameters are established for this upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and the GAC, which appears to have been scheduled for the end of February in Geneva. Switzerland. While the undersigned support this meeting as an important step in bringing about the responsible conclusion of the new gTLD implementation process, and other issues as defined in the GAC Communiqué, we call on the Board to provide certain safeguards to protect ICANN’s legitimacy as a bottom up, private sector led consensus driven global organization. We respectfully request that this consultation between the Board and GAC be open to observers, consistent with the practices of GAC – Board interactions at the public meetings which ICANN holds three times a year. Since this is the first meeting of this nature in ICANN’s eleven year history, the precedent for all future such meetings will be established by this meeting. We note that no clear communication on this aspect of the meeting has yet been provided. Therefore, we believe it is timely to express the views of the ICANN community on this topic. Specifically, that ICANN should provide for both onsite and remote observers to this interaction. An examination of the relevant ICANN bylaws, commitments and best practices are provided below: Article I, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws states that “ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness.” Article 3 of the Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) states that ICANN commits to “ensur[ing] that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent.” While the GAC is clearly suited to provide advice to ICANN regarding “public interest”, this advice should be provided in an open meeting accommodating observers. The new gTLD policy development and implementation process has been a multi-year process that has taken place through a series of public consultations, and since the majority of the items that will be discussed in this intercessional meeting are about concerns of the GAC regarding aspects of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, we ask that this meeting provide for both onsite and remote observers. Holding the intercessional meeting in a closed manner will raise questions of legitimacy, and could have a chilling effect on future ICANN policy development processes. We believe it is also not consistent with the form of multi stakeholder model that ICANN embodies. It may even have a negative impact on ICANN’s legitimacy within the broader stakeholder community, which has supported it over the last twelve years. Recently, ICANN was a recent signatory to a collaborative letter raising concerns about the actions taken by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau to exclude non-government actors from full participation in the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. ICANN participated in both the UN Consultation on Enhanced Cooperation, and in the CSTD Panel held on December 17, and actively supported the importance of allowing private sector stakeholders in these meetings. It is hard to reconcile ICANN’s position in this letter if it organizes a closed intercessional meeting with the GAC to resolve outstanding issues in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook/process. We accept that there may be space limitations for observers, as there often are in the face to face ICANN meetings. Given logistics and budgetary restraints, it is unlikely that large numbers of in-person attendees would travel to Geneva. Therefore, ICANN should also provide real time transcription and audio streaming of the proceedings, with an MP3 recording in a timely manner.

9 11

council agenda for Jan 13
by Marilyn Cade Jan. 10, 2011

Jan. 10, 2011

http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-13jan11-en.htm

2 1

Eat & Drink Tips for San Francisco
by Berry Cobb Jan. 10, 2011

Jan. 10, 2011

Here is a starter list for some of the best places I have eaten and drank at in San Francisco. For restaurants, I recommend you make large party reservations now and adjust according as you get closer to the meeting. For those in the know of SFO, please add to the list. Restaurants: Zuni Cafe - http://www.zunicafe.com/ Tomassos - http://tommasos.com/ Cafe Bar Restaurant (Late night after bar hoping Hot Dog Place) - next to Gold Dust, 1/2 block from hotel Daily Grill - http://www.dailygrill.com/ Burger Bar (top of Macy's)(PBR on Draft) - http://www.fleurdelyssf.com/ Slanted Door - http://www.slanteddoor.com/ Lunch Seafood Bar (far from meeting, but a must eat) - http://www.yelp.com/biz/swan-oyster-depot-san-francisco Oysters - http://www.hogislandoysters.com/bars/san-francisco Dim Sum - http://www.yanksing.com/home.php Drinks: Top of The Mark - http://www.intercontinentalmarkhopkins.com/top_of_the_mark/ Owl Tree - http://www.yelp.com/biz/owl-tree-san-francisco-2#query:owl%20bar Tunnel Top - http://www.yelp.com/biz/tunnel-top-san-francisco Bourbon & Branch - http://www.bourbonandbranch.com/ The Burritt Room - http://www.crescentbh.com/#sanfrancisco-bar Best Fine Cigars - http://www.grantspipeshop.com/ Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://infinityportals.com 720.839.5735

1 0

https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?13_january_motions
by Zahid Jamil Jan. 10, 2011

Jan. 10, 2011

Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] DRAFT: Business Constituency support for Non-profitConstituency Petition
by Marilyn Cade Jan. 8, 2011

Jan. 8, 2011

>From Marilyn as individual member: Clarification re statement: propose statement strike second sentence. That was intended for internal explanation. Making that point externally will garner objection to new constituency from non commercial/civil society and registrars. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 04:23:44 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT: Business Constituency support for Non-profit Constituency Petition On 8-Dec in Cartagena, Philip Sheppard circulated a statement supporting the petition to create a non-profit constituency. The petition is at http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/npoc-charter-redacted-07dec10-en.pdf Philip's original note is shown at the bottom of this note. 14 BC members immediately supported Philip's suggestion and Marilyn Cade suggested an additional point. No objections have been registered. The deadline for comment on this proposal was extended to 30-Jan-2011 after the proponents modified their mission statement. (new mission is "The purpose of the Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency shall be to represent, specifically, the operational concerns related to service delivery of not-for-profit and non- governmental organizations who are domain registrants in the DNS" ) On Monday's BC call, let's discuss points the BC should make in indicating support for the petition. Here's what we have so far from Philip and Marilyn: The Business Constituency supports this petition to form a new non-profit Constituency in the GNSO. We believe this petition is timely, since it follows a GNSO restructuring that enables diversification within the non-contract house. We believe there are common interests between this new constituency and our own, since both represent registrants and users of the DNS. -- Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be <mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be> > Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:24:46 +0100 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Subject: [bc-gnso] Proposed non profit constituency We ran out of time at the Cartagena BC meeting to agree to send a spportive statement to public comments to welcome the formation of the new NPOC. We had a presentation of the new constituency from Debbie Hughes at the CSG meeting earlier in the day. This constituency is the outcome we have been striving for in the composition of the new non conract parties house. I'd like to propose we make the following statement to public comments as the BC. '"The Business Constituency welcomes the proposal to form a new non-profit consituency. We believe this is timely. We believe there will be areas of common interest between this new constituency and our own, both representing as they do users of the DNS.'' Perhaps we could agree to send this on a no objections basis rather than have to put it through our usual policy 14 day window.

1 0