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 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com

*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

Hello Zahid,

I have briefly reviewed the latest draft of the STI report and I am concerned about the level of consensus that the BC is supporting on the IP Clearinghouse in general. In Section 1.1 and 5.1 you have noted a “Rough Consensus” for each principle. We should change the designation of our support of the IP Clearinghouse to Unanimous Consensus. I am concerned that if we do not support the IP Clearinghouse as it is designed for the Sunrise period we will end up with no standard process in the new gTld rollout. A standard process across all gTld’s is vital to a company like Facebook. In my experience in previous gTld rollouts and ccTld rollouts numerous hours and outside counsel fees were expended to understand and participate in the Sunrise periods. I firmly believe that the IP Clearinghouse will ease this burden going forward for Facebook.

In the BC meeting in Seoul I argued strenuously to extend the use of the IP Clearinghouse to post sunrise period but did not realize that this would bring the BC to this Rough Consensus opinion.

I will still argue for the use of the IP Clearinghouse in the post Sunrise period but if we lose the battle to have it implemented at all we have nothing to build upon in the future.

The IP Clearinghouse is vital to the Sunrise process and would I urge others on the list to rethink the BC’s stance on it a Unanimous Consensus is our best protection at this point in the process.

Best regards,

Susan Kawaguchi

Domain Name Manager

Facebook Inc.

1601 S. California Avenue

Palo Alto, CA

Phone - 650 485-6064

Cell - 650 387 3904

NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents."

From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:48 AM
To: bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
Importance: High

FYI.

Mike and me are drafting a minority report based upon existing BC positions culminating in the consensus at the Seoul meetings and comments from the list.

Unfortunately it seems we will probably have one day to submit this. We will be able to post the draft by tomorrow morning and look forward to comments tomorrow and will at day end submit to the STI.

Comments today so we can use them in our draft would be appreciated and would help speed matters up.

From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@icann.org>

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:30:23 -0800

To: 'GNSO STI'<gnso-sti@icann.org>

Subject: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review

Dear All,

Thank you for a very productive call today. Attached for your review is the fourth draft of the STI Report, which attempts to pick up our discussions today.

I believe we are very close to a final version of this the report and would appreciate your comments or revisions by the close of business today, so that I can prepare the final report tomorrow morning. Also, please send your minority reports by tomorrow morning to ensure inclusion in the version that will be circulated to the GNSO Council. As discussed, if you need more time to draft a minority report, you would need to send to me next week, so that it can be forwarded to the Board after the GNSO Council vote (if successful) next Thursday.

Best Regards,

Margie

_____________

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

_____________