Works for me.. From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gabriella Schittek Sent: donderdag 31 oktober 2013 14:05 To: 'ccnso-council@icann.org' Subject: [ccnso-council] Items for discussion with ICANN Board Buenos Aires * PGP - S/MIME Signed by an unverified key: 31-10-2013 at 14:05:17 Dear Councillors, We have been asked by the ICANN Board Support to provide a list of items to be discussed with the Board at the Buenos Aires meeting. Some of the items could be: * Conclusion finacial contribution discussions * Letter from SOP WG to the chair of the Board and CEO, on planning processes ( Strat and Ops plan) * Montevideo Statement and what is expected from the ccTLD ( bearing in mind we do have it as an item on our own agenda) * Extension of the current rule in Applicant Guidebook re country and territory names in all languages to be excluded from second an consecutive rounds until ccWG concludes its work Please, let me know if you wish to add any items by Friday, 8 November at the latest. Kind regards, Gabi * Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek@icann.org<mailto:gabriella.schittek@icann.org>> * Issuer: DigiCert Inc - Unverified

Gabi, all I would like to ask the following new gTLD questions: * The extent to which new geoTLDs will be given space to strike a balance between complying with ICANN's registry agreement and ICANN policies, while also complying with local laws. So far the Applicant Guidebook doesn't seem to appreciate this in the case of geoTLDs. * Is the Board willing to allow additional national intellectual property protection measures to complement the Trade Mark Clearing House (TMCH) mechanism? There are geoTLD operators that have additional IP protection measures that are meant to protect regional and national IP rights, which IP rights are not sufficiently catered for in the TMCH because the TMCH has really only been advertised in some regions while other regions are totally ignored. * The Applicant Guidebook has a positive measure that allows national governments, in the case of geoTLDs, to use the Reserved Names List (RNL) process to reserve names belonging (or attributable) to governments (and their entities). Recently, it has now transpired that ICANN wants (or is proposing) to subject certain portions of the RNL process to some approval by the Intellectual Property Constituency (in some way) - more a case of the private sector having to approve what governments submit to the RNL process. Does the Board support this approach? These questions are overtly new gTLD focussed & probably only of interest to those ccTLDs that are involved in the new gTLD process (such as .ZA, .UK and .FR). If the council feels they should be addressed outside the Council meeting with the Board, I will accept that decision. Regards, Vika From: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek@icann.org> Date: Thursday 31 October 2013 3:05 PM To: "'ccnso-council@icann.org'" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Items for discussion with ICANN Board Buenos Aires Dear Councillors, We have been asked by the ICANN Board Support to provide a list of items to be discussed with the Board at the Buenos Aires meeting. Some of the items could be: * Conclusion finacial contribution discussions * Letter from SOP WG to the chair of the Board and CEO, on planning processes ( Strat and Ops plan) * Montevideo Statement and what is expected from the ccTLD ( bearing in mind we do have it as an item on our own agenda) * Extension of the current rule in Applicant Guidebook re country and territory names in all languages to be excluded from second an consecutive rounds until ccWG concludes its work Please, let me know if you wish to add any items by Friday, 8 November at the latest. Kind regards, Gabi

Hi Gabi, all, I would like to add an item for the joint board ccNSO session, to update the board on the work of the FOIWG - there are some new members on the ICANN board, and as the FOIWG work comes to an end, it would be good to get some knowledge of the topic amongst the board. Cheers Keith On 1/11/2013 2:05 a.m., Gabriella Schittek wrote:

Dear Councillors,

We have been asked by the ICANN Board Support to provide a list of items to be discussed with the Board at the Buenos Aires meeting. Some of the items could be:

* Conclusion finacial contribution discussions * Letter from SOP WG to the chair of the Board and CEO, on planning processes ( Strat and Ops plan) * Montevideo Statement and what is expected from the ccTLD ( bearing in mind we do have it as an item on our own agenda) * Extension of the current rule in Applicant Guidebook re country and territory names in all languages to be excluded from second an consecutive rounds until ccWG concludes its work

Please, let me know if you wish to add any items by Friday, 8 November at the latest.

Kind regards,

Gabi