Dear Councillors, Just FYI - Annebeth just added this (long) question to the list of questions for Peter, Mike & Rod and obviously wanted you to see this, as she cc'd the Council email list (but which she can't post to). The other questions are: * What are the current senior staff turnover statistics? * What measures do ICANN use to ensure staff retention, motivation and engagement? * Do different CEOS have statistics of staff turnover, un particular of the first year of their tenure? * What is ICANN¹s stand on the upcoming IGF renewal debate? * ICANN¹s Strategic Plan Process * Geographic names in new gTLDs They have all been forwarded to Diane, who will ensure that Peter, Mike & Rod receive them in time for the meeting. If you have any additional questions you wish to add, please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks! Gabi ------ Forwarded Message From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 06:01:36 -0800 To: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek@icann.org> Cc: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-members] Topics for session with Peter, Mike, Rod Hi Gabi, I know that this is late, but if possible,l I would like to flag an issue I discovered after the Application Guidebook was posted. In DAG 4 it was established at post-delegation process in the "support or non-objection" situations for geographical names. This has been a very important issue for the GAC. The wording in the GAC has been considerably weakened, and I would like to know why. This appears in the AG as follows: In footnote 12, page 2-20 in the redlined version; "It is also possible that a government may withdraw its support for an application at a later time, including after the new gTLD has been delegated, if a registry operator has deviated from the conditions of original support or non-objection". In the Attachment to Module 2, Sample Letter of Government Support, the text has been changed substantially from DAG 4 to AG. DAG 4: "(Government/public authority) further understands that the Registry Agreement provides that ICANN _will comply with_ (my underlining)a legally binding decision in the relevant jurisdiction where there has been a dispute between the (government/public authority) and the applicant". AG: ""(Government/public authority) further understands that the Registry Agreement provides that in the event of a dispute between (government/public authority) and the applicant,l ICANN _may implement_ (my underlining)the order of any court sitting in such jurisdiction in favor of such governmental entity related to the TLD." This text is repeated in the "New gTLD Agreement", Article 7, clause 7.13, which reads: "Government Support. In the event that the TLD was delegated to the Registry Operator pursuant to the consent of a governmental entity to use a geographic name related to the jurisdiction of such governmental entity, the parties agree that, notwithstanding any provision contained in this Agreement, in the event of a dispute between such governmental entity and Registry Operator, ICANN _may implement_ (my underlining again) the order of any court sitting in such jurisdiction in favor of such governmental entity related to the TLD." Of course, English is not my mother tongue, as you know, but in my mind - and what I have always been taught, "will" is much stronger than "may". For me it seems that this change of the text is changing the post-delegation to an issues which ICANN can obey at their discretion. I would like to have an explanation on why this has been done, and which implications will follow. Best regards, Annebeth Annebeth B. Lange Senior Adviser Legal and Policy UNINETT Norid AS NO-7465 Trondheim Mobile phone: + 47 95911559 annebeth.lange@uninett.no On 17.11.2010 16:03, Gabriella Schittek wrote:

Dear all,

As always, a session with Peter Dengate-Thrush, Mike Silber and Rod Beckstrom is planned to take place during the ccNSO members meeting in Cartagena (Tuesday, 7th December).

If you have any specific topics you wish to be discussed during this session, please, let me know as soon as possible, so that we can prepare accordingly.

Kind regards,

Gabi

------ End of Forwarded Message