Hi Phil, Re the transfer option for the URS, why has ICA's position changed since the BC's Seoul meeting? Zahid and I do not know why the IPC and others are caving in to a compromise that is likely to do very little to alleviate the problem of cybersquatting in new gTLDs, particularly when we (Zahid especially) worked so hard to get important concessions from so many parties along the way. To see them discarded at the end for no reason has been a tremendous disappointment for us, and we believe should be very disappointing for all members, including the ICA. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:11 PM To: zahid@dndrc.com; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review I very much appreciate the fact that the BC designated me in Seoul to serve as an alternate delegate to the STI-RT, despite the well known ICA differences with the IRT, and with the BC position on its work methodology and product. That said, and for the record, the ICA does not agree with the BC position as regards the work of the STI-RT. We have no specific disagreement with the BC minority position regarding the Trademark Clearinghouse. But we would note that the BC has registered 13 separate minority positions in regard to a proposal that the IPC has not registered a single objection to -- and wonder how it has come about that a constituency that is supposed to represent the broad interests of businesses conducted via the Internet has arrived at harder line positions on trademark issues than those of the constituency devoted to IP interests. (In comparison, only one other minority position was filed, on a single issue, by the RySG.) We strongly dissent in regard to the BC position that the URS should provide a means to transfer a domain. The IRT proposed the URS as a supplement to the UDRP which, in exchange for a less expensive and expedited process, would lead to suspension of a domain rather than a transfer. Again, the BC is seeking to expand upon a proposal that the IPC has accepted. The ICA is not opposed to the consideration of an expedited, fast track UDRP -- so long as it that occurs within the context of a comprehensive UDRP reform PDP, rather than through a perversion of the limited scope of Supplemental Rules as has been proposed by the CAC and is anticipated from WIPO. Thank you for consideration of our views. 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: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil [zahid@dndrc.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:48 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review 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. 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 *** _____ 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 _____________

May further post on this but quick clarification: Transfer was a position discussed and agreed at the Seoul BC meeting. IPC have been supportive of the transfer option in their written comments, on STI calls and in off line discussions with Mike and me. 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 *** -----Original Message----- From: Phil Corwin <pcorwin@butera-andrews.com> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:13:25 To: icann@rodenbaugh.com<icann@rodenbaugh.com>; bc-gnso@icann.org<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review Mike: I don't recall taking a position in Seoul in favor of transfer being available in the URS. I do recall saying that ICA might be open to making it mandatory again if the final package had adequate balance and registrant protections, and we now have no objections on that front. We didn't know in Seoul about the WIPO and CAC expedited UDRP efforts, and those developments have crystallized the issue and led to ICA's decision that the issue of transfer under an expedited UDRP should await comprehensive UDRP reform. Of course, the STI-RT recommendation that the URS be subjected to regular review and possible revision gives everyone a chance to see how it works in practice, with the possibility of a transfer option being made available down the line. I do appreciate the hard work that you and Zahid put into this. However, the IPC representatives on the STI-RT are very vigorous proponents of trademark rights and I do not believe that they would agree with your characterization that they have caved in. 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: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh [icann@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:21 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review Hi Phil, Re the transfer option for the URS, why has ICA’s position changed since the BC’s Seoul meeting? Zahid and I do not know why the IPC and others are caving in to a compromise that is likely to do very little to alleviate the problem of cybersquatting in new gTLDs, particularly when we (Zahid especially) worked so hard to get important concessions from so many parties along the way. To see them discarded at the end for no reason has been a tremendous disappointment for us, and we believe should be very disappointing for all members, including the ICA. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer=...> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:11 PM To: zahid@dndrc.com; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review I very much appreciate the fact that the BC designated me in Seoul to serve as an alternate delegate to the STI-RT, despite the well known ICA differences with the IRT, and with the BC position on its work methodology and product. That said, and for the record, the ICA does not agree with the BC position as regards the work of the STI-RT. We have no specific disagreement with the BC minority position regarding the Trademark Clearinghouse. But we would note that the BC has registered 13 separate minority positions in regard to a proposal that the IPC has not registered a single objection to -- and wonder how it has come about that a constituency that is supposed to represent the broad interests of businesses conducted via the Internet has arrived at harder line positions on trademark issues than those of the constituency devoted to IP interests. (In comparison, only one other minority position was filed, on a single issue, by the RySG.) We strongly dissent in regard to the BC position that the URS should provide a means to transfer a domain. The IRT proposed the URS as a supplement to the UDRP which, in exchange for a less expensive and expedited process, would lead to suspension of a domain rather than a transfer. Again, the BC is seeking to expand upon a proposal that the IPC has accepted. The ICA is not opposed to the consideration of an expedited, fast track UDRP -- so long as it that occurs within the context of a comprehensive UDRP reform PDP, rather than through a perversion of the limited scope of Supplemental Rules as has been proposed by the CAC and is anticipated from WIPO. Thank you for consideration of our views. 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: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil [zahid@dndrc.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:48 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review 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. 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 *** ________________________________ 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 _____________

Excellent points, Philip.I am just trying to recall, though, what the current practice on minority reports has been on Council reports. You (Philip) will be the expert on this point -- I was just recalling that many years ago,when I charied the TF on WHOIS, the Minority report was noted in the introduction, but was attached so that it could be read in its entirety. We did make reference in the body that there was a minority report.... What has been the current practice within the Council's prepared reports on minority reports? It looked to me like the STI group wasn't sympathetic to incorporating the detailed objections into the body of the report. I also join Philip and others in thanking Zahid and Mike and Phil Corwin for their work on this group. It was a LOT of hard work. I am disappointed that we aren't getting some of the key elements that the BC had asked for and I think provided rational support for. This working group had a very tough assignment. My appreciation to the BC members on their work, and contributions. Marilyn Cade From: philip.sheppard@aim.be To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft STI Report - V4 for your review Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:09:14 +0100 Zahid, Mike once again many thanks for your work on this. It is absolutely essential that we do not let go of this opportunity to right a major flaw in the current proposals for new TLDs. So AIM supports the position you are taking. Minority reports from constituencies Personally I believe the shifting of minority report detail from constituencies to an annex is a bad idea. It compromises the essential communication and provides a false perception of unanimity. Footnotes and annexes are not expected to contain substantive material relevant to a decision maker. When they do it is typically a result of an intent to mislead. If we have lost this argument on the STI group so be it. But it is worth making this higher level point and perhaps raising the principle to Council or one of the admin groups to establish a general policy about the construct of Council reports. On minority opinion WITHIN the BC We do try to work by consensus and have a system in place to solve disputes by debate or ultimately by vote. When time does not allow for that it may be appropriate to provide decision makers with relevant information on disagreement and so mention specifically the organisations objecting. That way the rationale of the objection can be understood in context. Hope this helps. Philip

Hi Susan, Thanks for your thoughts. I think we are on the same page, naturally, as we have had much the same experience with many prior sunrise processes. To clarify, we are not opposing the Clearinghouse as framed. Something is better than nothing. We are suggesting it should have much broader applicability, and thus usefulness, both as to the scope of marks allowed into the database, and the further use of the database throughout the life of new gTLD registries. We are suggesting that a feasibility study be done, based on the TMC as framed, as compared to also requiring broader applicability, before a final decision is made. We are suggesting the costs should be borne by ICANN and its registries and registrars, who benefit by far the most from the TMC as framed, and not borne by TM owners and other registrants, except for a minimal registration fee to submit their public records into the database. Zahid and I hope we have consensus within the BC for these positions, based on our written consensus statements of a month or so ago. Please advise if you do not support any of this. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:41 PM To: zahid@dndrc.com; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review Importance: High 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. 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 *** _____ 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 _____________

Dear Sarah, In day before's last STI call I managed get the following language negotiated in:'failure to file should not be perceived to be lack of vigilance by Trademark holders.' 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 *** -----Original Message----- From: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:40:00 To: <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; Susan Kawaguchi<skawaguchi@facebook.com>; <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review I agree with this approach. We should also make clear that the Clearinghouse is not a true "remedy," but as a specific tool, which can be used for the purpose of applying for multiple sunrise registrations. Many businesses, however, still don't want to be forced to use this process at all and there should no negative implication from not using the tool or the sunrise process. The STI also does not discuss the difference between the use of the Clearinghouse for an "IP Claims" service (which could be a TM remedy) vs. the sunrise option. Because registries have a choice between the two, most registries would choose the more lucrative sunrise option. I also did not see any discussions of the minimum standards that should be included in any sunrise process as the IRT recommended in its report. The "something is better than nothing" nature of the Clearinghouse shifts focus to the limited remedy of the URS . Because the URS has no transfer option, it's important to highlight that trademark owners will inevitably bear increased costs from filing multiple URS actions against different cybersquatters, monitoring and docketing suspensions, trying to win back expiring names or filing more UDRPs to actually win valuable names back into their portfolios . Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 4:04 PM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review Hi Susan, Thanks for your thoughts. I think we are on the same page, naturally, as we have had much the same experience with many prior sunrise processes. To clarify, we are not opposing the Clearinghouse as framed. Something is better than nothing. We are suggesting it should have much broader applicability, and thus usefulness, both as to the scope of marks allowed into the database, and the further use of the database throughout the life of new gTLD registries. We are suggesting that a feasibility study be done, based on the TMC as framed, as compared to also requiring broader applicability, before a final decision is made. We are suggesting the costs should be borne by ICANN and its registries and registrars, who benefit by far the most from the TMC as framed, and not borne by TM owners and other registrants, except for a minimal registration fee to submit their public records into the database. Zahid and I hope we have consensus within the BC for these positions, based on our written consensus statements of a month or so ago. Please advise if you do not support any of this. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&ref erer=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:41 PM To: zahid@dndrc.com; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review Importance: High 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. 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 *** ________________________________ 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 _____________