December 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council draft minutes November 20, 2003
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 8, 2003

Dec. 8, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] Dear Council members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on November 20, 2003 in text and html version. Please let me know whether you would like any changes made. Thank you very much, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat 21 November 2003. Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C. absent, apologies Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Tony Harris Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD Cary Karp - gTLD - absent, apologies, proxy to Jordyn Buchanan Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. absent, apologies, proxy to Niklas Lagergren Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C. Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Marc Schneiders Carlos Afonso- Non Commercial users C. - absent Alick Wilson - absent, apologies Demi Getschko Amadeu Abril I Abril 12 Council Members John Jeffrey - ICANN General Counsel and Secretary Kurt Pritz - ICANN Vice President of Business Operations Barbara Roseman - ICANN Consultant, Issues Report author Christopher Wilkinson - Acting GAC Liaison Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison Young-Eum Lee - ccTLD liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat MP3 recording Quorum present at 19 :10 UTC Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Confirmation of current members - report from GNSO Secretariat The GNSO Secretariat confirmed that all 6 constituencies had held elections and appointed 3 representatives each to the GNSO Council. Two constituencies, Non Commercial and Commercial and Business Users constituencies had not yet specified the terms of office for the appointed representatives. Item 2: Election of GNSO Chair Bruce Tonkin handed the chair to Philip Sheppard as he was a candidate for the GNSO Chair elections. Philip Sheppard called upon the GNSO Secretary for the list of nominations who reported that Bruce Tonkin was the only person nominated. Philip Sheppard, seconded by Jordyn Buchanan and Ken Stubbs, proposed the motion: to elect Bruce Tonkin as Chair of the GNSO Council for the next one year. The motion carried. All members present with proxies in favour , one abstention, Bruce Tonkin Decision 1: Bruce Tonkin is elected GNSO Council chair for one year, November 20, 2003 to November 20, 2004. Philip Sheppard on behalf of the GNSO Council congratulated Bruce Tonkin on his splendid work and handed the chair back to him. Item 3: Approval of minutes of last meeting Ken Stubbs proposed deferring the minutes to the next meeting as they had only been published recently. Decision 2: Defer approval of minutes to next meeting. Item 4: Update on appointment of representatives to the 3 WHOIS task forces - discuss next steps Bruce Tonkin drew the attention to a request by Niklas Lagergren, the Intellectual Property Interests constituency representative, "The IP constituency is currently looking at appropriate ways to contribute to the work of the 3 Whois task forces in an efficient manner. In this context, it is our view that nominating only one representative to each task force (TF) would result in excessive work-load for each chosen person. Therefore, I would like to invoke the last sentence in the policy development process (PDP) sec. 5(1) (i.e. "The Council may increase the number of Representatives per constituency that may sit on a task force in its discretion in circumstances that it deems necessary or appropriate.")" Bruce stated that there were two options open: - Council could formally request that there be more than one representative per constituency on each task force, or - Council could decide on one representative at any one time as spokesman for the constituency on the task force, but the constituency could appoint other people as members of the mailing list and who could listen in to teleconferences. Addressing the issue, Niklas Lagergren said that the Intellectual Property Interests constituency had selected more than one representative, the key issue being flexibility. Jordyn Buchanan was supportive of no formal change to the task force structure, but supported appointing additional members without changing the voting structure. Philip Sheppard proposed that the WHOIS task forces serve as a testbed for multiple representatives and that each task force chair report back on problems experienced. Marc Schneiders reported that the Non Commercial Users constituency was opposed to the proposal as extra people on the task force would have an influence on the outcome. The NCUC, who could only send one representative, felt they were most affected and would be marginalized if other constituencies could have multiple representation. Thomas Roessler argued that the workload would be more evenly spread with more than one person. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Philip Sheppard, proposed: That for the purpose of the WHOIS task forces, constituencies be allowed to appoint more than one person to listen in on teleconferences and to participate in the mailing list, but in any single teleconference or physical meeting, there is only one person from the constituency to represent the constituency's views. All Council members present with proxies voted in favour (22 votes) The motion was carried. Decision 3: That for the purpose of the WHOIS task forces, constituencies be allowed to appoint more than one person to listen in on teleconferences and to participate in the mailing list, but in any single teleconference or physical meeting, there is only one person from the constituency to represent the constituency's views. Bruce Tonkin continued with the next issues: - Holding of the first meeting and for each task force to select a chair - At the GNSO Council meeting in Tunisia it was decided that each task force should identify a timeline for the work and if more than the prescribed 90 days was required, the task force should come back to Council for an extension. - The ICANN bylaws state that a staff manager will assist the policy development in each area. Kurt Pritz informed Council that Barbara Roseman would fill the role of ICANN staff manager. Action: The GNSO Secretariat would set up mailing lists, archives, call for nominations for task force chairs and set up first meeting. It was clarified that a task force chair did not necessarily have to be a member of a constituency. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Thomas Keller, proposed that: Amadeu Abril I Abril, as an independent Council member, be appointed to task force 2, on WHOIS Review of Data Collected and Displayed. The motion was carried unanimously Decision 4: Amadeu Abril I Abril, as an independent Council member, be appointed to task force 2, on WHOIS Review of Data Collected and Displayed. Philip Sheppard's concern about scheduling time conflicts that may arise with ICANN staff support was addressed by Kurt Pritz who stated that the Staff Manager would bring in other forms of ICANN support as skill and expertise were needed. As a point of clarification addressing a concern expressed by Niklas Lagergren, Bruce Tonkin stated that task force voting was not the formal voting required by the GNSO Council procedure and that with multiple representation on the task force, if the primary representative of a constituency was absent, the constituency could identify a person to fill that role. Item 5: Issues report on Registry services Bruce Tonkin proposed the following procedural process: That Council accept the Staff Manager summarizing the report, and a teleconference be scheduled in 7 days to vote on the initiation of a policy development process. Procedural proposal accepted unanimously by Council. Decision 5: That Council accept the Staff Manager summarizing the report, and a teleconference be scheduled in 7 days to vote on the initiation of a policy development process. Barbara Roseman summarized saying that the Issues report provided an overview of the issue raised by Council, how approving changes worked in the past and inconsistencies in the current process that could be addressed by elaborating a process, creating documentation, allowing for transparency, examining technical and competition harm and building in timelines to make a predictable process. Christopher Wilkinson, standing in for the GAC liaison, asked how the intellectual property sensitivity of commercial services would be handled? Barbara Roseman stated that confidentiality had been raised and there were ways to assure it up to a certain point. In addition, the party appling for a change would have the option of not going further with the evaluation which would also cover competition issues. Christopher Wilkinson noted that these were not new problems; there were standardization fora that existed and proposed reviewing how organizations like the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) dealt with the problem of intellectual property issues Philip Sheppard asked why the report recommended the second mechanism for the policy development process, proceeding without a task force, in which case each constituency appointed a representative to gather constituency views and provided them to the Staff Manager for inclusion, along with other information, in a report, which would be submitted to the Council. Barbara Roseman stated that there was no strong thinking on the point, however it was felt it would facilitate meeting the time line and be easier to coordinate outside input. Bruce Tonkin drew attention to the fact that under the second model it was incumbent on Council to set terms of reference and be in charge of the process. Jordyn Buchanan expressed some of the gTLD Registry constituency concerns. Instead of raising issues, the Issues report appeared to be prescriptive, setting down a blueprint how Council ought to be proceeding rather than opening the door to look at what the process should be. A number of issues considered important in the first report have been left out in the second report, such as the concept of whether it was better, to consider registry services on their merits or to alter the registry service contracts and assure that certain services were not offered that did not meet the community interests. The assumption that ICANN was a regulatory body rather than an equal participant in the gTLD contractual relationship was disturbing. It was felt that the report did not make a distinction between unsponsored registries which need price approval from ICANN for services they wished to offer and sponsored registries that have a community they serve. The report implied that ICANN should be the arbiter regardless of the impact on the community. It was considered that the definition of a registry service and how it was determined was missing. In addition it appeared that non registry services a registry operator might offer, might be subject to this process. The registry constituency expressed that they would not support moving forward on the report. Jordyn Buchanan asked specifically what had happened to the question raised by the GNSO Council regarding an appropriate process to look at modifying registry contracts so as to exclude undesirable registry behaviour, as opposed to having what now appeared to be a convoluted approval process before introducing a service. John Jeffrey commented that in the approach taken, it was considered that a Registry could take actions that could have a contractual, security and stability impact that may not constitute Registry service changes. Thus the specific issue up front was whether the scope of the proposed policy development process only concerned Registry services under contract or whether it addressed, in a broader sense, significant changes. Bruce Tonkin clarified Jordyn Buchanan's concern that a Registry could take two courses of action as an organization with an approval process for change. If the change was seen as minor there was a fast track process, but if the change was seen as having an impact on other parties, further work would be required. John Jeffrey replied that the intent was to create a decision stream that allowed different issues to be treated and separated in different ways depending on how the impact might be seen. Bruce Tonkin said that the alternative was to have a code of conduct model, so that an issue could be dealt with as a breach of rule. Barbara Roseman added that feedback on the report indicated it was preferable to evaluate the harm before introducing the service than take actions after the fact which could lead to instability in the system. The intent was to facilitate new service introduction and create a predictable process for the Registry to reach quick conclusions. Thomas Roessler drew attention to recommendations to the GNSO Council: "A Policy development process should be initiated to develop a policy to guide the establishment of a predictable procedure for ICANN's consideration of proposals by registry operators and sponsors for changes in the architecture and operation of a gTLD registry." The latter statement and the letter from Paul Twomey would imply a process to review any changes. The report further mentions new proposals from registries to change contracts. He specifically asked: - what was meant by policy? - was the proposal to focus on a process for whenever ICANN was in the position to make an agreement on a change? Barbara Roseman replied that the intent was aimed at certain types of registry operation changes to the Domain Name System (DNS) functions, not changes in any internal registry management functions. The emerging process was focussed on what concerns the process had to address, while the detailed process itself should be left to the ICANN President to establish. Thus the GNSO should develop policy describing the essential characteristics of the process, rather than the detailed administrative process. Bruce Tonkin clarified the core issue quoting from the Issues report: "a. The issue raised for consideration is the development of a policy to guide the establishment of a predictable procedure for ICANN's consideration of proposals by registry operators and sponsors for contractual approvals or amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a TLD registry. Sub-issues to be considered are discussed under "Issues to be addressed by the PDP" above." Given that ICANN does require approval for changes in the registry contracts, a predictable procedure was needed and the policy would be more binding on ICANN than the registry operators. Marc Schneiders expressed concern about the over bureaucratic structure of the report. Ken Stubbs proposed further consultation with constituencies and a FAQ format on the ICANN/GNSO website to assure interaction with the ICANN staff. Christopher Wilkinson encouraged the GNSO to avoid ideological terminology. A substantial number of governments needed to know where the regulatory authority in the Internet lay. Currently it lay in the ICANN /Government Advisory Committee (GAC) public private partnership and it was not productive to deny that ICANN held any regulatory role. Ross Rader asked where the constituency comments and submissions could be found. Barbara Roseman would check with constituencies whether these could be published and make them available. Amadeu Abril I Abril noted that registries were managing resources on behalf of the community and the core issue was if and whether registry services that arose were needed and how the services demanded by the community through ICANN would be accommodated in the registry contracts. Christopher Wilkinson leaves the teleconference. Philip Sheppard proposed that the GNSO Council as a whole should proceed with the policy development process. Philip Sheppard, seconded by Antonio Harris proposed: that the GNSO Council as a whole go ahead with the policy development process. Bruce Tonkin proposed that the motion be voted on at the next GNSO Council meeting Bruce Tonkin proposed using a similar procedure to the WHOIS task forces: - identifying terms of reference from the Issues report - determining how to conduct the policy development (task force or otherwise). Bruce Tonkin noted that both a task force or the GNSO Council as a whole group proceeding on the issue were within the ICANN bylaws. Barbara Roseman asked for questions to be sent as early as possible. Bruce Tonkin proposed scheduling the next GNSO Council meeting within 7 days Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO teleconference closed, and thanked everybody for attending. The meeting ended: 20 :45 UTC Next GNSO Council teleconference: Tuesday December 2, 2003 at 19:00 UTC see: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

1 0

Constituency statements by 12 Jan 2003
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 7, 2003

Dec. 7, 2003

Hello All, An extension until 12 Jan 2003 seems sensible for the constituency statements given the time of year. Regards, Bruce > -----Original Message----- > From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com] > Sent: Saturday, 6 December 2003 12:38 AM > To: Marc Schneiders; Bruce Tonkin > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] Constituency representatives required > by 15 Dec 2003 > > > As I understand the role, the representative mentioned is > responsible for the interface into the constituency itself > and helping the constituency to better understand the issues. > I do think that we need to try to move this topic ahead, and > so do support the need to begin the development of the > constituency statements even over the holiday period. I am > sympathetic to the challenge that Marc notes. It might be > feasible to support a one week extension to the submission of > the constituency reports -- to Jan 12. > > > > > > Marilyn S. Cade > 202-255-7348c > mcade(a)att.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:marc@schneiders.org] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 7:33 AM > To: Bruce Tonkin > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: Re: [council] Constituency representatives required > by 15 Dec 2003 > > > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, at 17:08 [=GMT+1100], Bruce Tonkin wrote: > > > I recommend that each constituency endeavour to appoint their > > representative by Monday 15 Dec 2003, and provide the constituency > > statement to the ICANN staff manager by 5 January 2004. Given the > > proximity to the holiday period around end of > December/early January > > in many countries, the sooner this work can commence the better. > > Given the importance of the topic, I propose to add a week to > the final date of January 5. Many people will be off email at > the end of this month. When they come back there will be > other things to take care of first. If we want good input > from the constituencies we need to give them a fair chance to > make up their mind and respond. > > Marc Schneiders > >

1 0

New ICANN website launched
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 5, 2003

Dec. 5, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org; ga(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: announce(a)gnso.icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org] Take a look at the new ICANN website, http://www.icann.org launched some minutes ago! GNSO Secretariat

1 0

RE: [council] Constituency representatives required by 15 Dec 2003
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Dec. 5, 2003

Dec. 5, 2003

As I understand the role, the representative mentioned is responsible for the interface into the constituency itself and helping the constituency to better understand the issues. I do think that we need to try to move this topic ahead, and so do support the need to begin the development of the constituency statements even over the holiday period. I am sympathetic to the challenge that Marc notes. It might be feasible to support a one week extension to the submission of the constituency reports -- to Jan 12. Marilyn S. Cade 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:marc@schneiders.org] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 7:33 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Constituency representatives required by 15 Dec 2003 On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, at 17:08 [=GMT+1100], Bruce Tonkin wrote: > I recommend that each constituency endeavour to appoint their > representative by Monday 15 Dec 2003, and provide the constituency > statement to the ICANN staff manager by 5 January 2004. Given the > proximity to the holiday period around end of December/early January in > many countries, the sooner this work can commence the better. Given the importance of the topic, I propose to add a week to the final date of January 5. Many people will be off email at the end of this month. When they come back there will be other things to take care of first. If we want good input from the constituencies we need to give them a fair chance to make up their mind and respond. Marc Schneiders

1 0

Constituency representatives required by 15 Dec 2003
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 5, 2003

Dec. 5, 2003

Hello All, As an outcome of the decisions made at the Council meeting today, under section 8(a) of the Policy Development Process (see http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA) "a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP." Thus each constituency must select a representative to gather the constituency's views on the procedure for use by ICANN when ICANN is required to give consent or a contractual amendment is required to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry into a constituency statement, and provide this to the ICANN staff manager. I recommend that each constituency endeavour to appoint their representative by Monday 15 Dec 2003, and provide the constituency statement to the ICANN staff manager by 5 January 2004. Given the proximity to the holiday period around end of December/early January in many countries, the sooner this work can commence the better. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Re: REMINDER GNSO Teleconference dial in #
by Amadeu Abril i Abril Dec. 4, 2003

Dec. 4, 2003

Bruce, Glen, and all, I won't be able to attend the teleconf. I've already sent my proxy to Demi, and in case he couold not attend, to Alick. Regarding the issues on the table, I am still unconfortable with the fact that the whole issue is drafted in a way that seems mostly if not only concrned about "how to make it easy to introduce new services" in case a registry asks for it. The "whether" and not just the "how" should have more echo. In any case, I favour the creation of the task force. And I would also like to have a further distinction (besides "quick look/full track; sponsored/unsponsored; services that once provided at the central level cannot be done so at the distributed level/services where this distinction does not apply). Namely I'd like the task force considering the issue of whether there is a difference bewtween ser5vices that, if offeredm only affect the registrants in that TLD (for instance, free web pages) and services that affect all users of the DNS (as sitefinder) or at least go beyond current resgitrants/customers (WLS or RGP). This shoulb be considered as for the list of checklist questions, or even when defining the stakeholders to be consulted in each case. Best regards, and sincere apologies for missing my (first!) Councilo teleconf. Amadeu

2 1

Updated terms of reference for issue
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 4, 2003

Dec. 4, 2003

Hello All, Here is the updated terms of reference following the council call. Significant Changes are: - inserted the term "consent" into the title - added paragraph regarding sponsored gTLDs (extracted from FAQ) - adjusted sentence regarding quick-look procedure in In-scope section to allow possibility of using outside expertise (result will be determined by policy process, but the discussion is in-scope) - adjusted sentence regarding comprehensive procedure in In-scope section to include the possibility of consultation with affected parties, and public consultation (again result to be determined by policy process, but the discussion is in-scope) - added under Out-of-scope section that the procedures for cctlds are out-of-scope (this is implied in use of gtld throughout and also that the GNSO has no responsibility for cctlds, but just to be sure I have made it explicit) - adjusted sentence under task (3) to avoid repeating material in the in-scope and avoid problem raised about implying consultation only with outside experts (ie avoid pre-judging the outcome of the policy development, but the discussion is in-scope as described in the in-scope section). This is consistent with the changes in the In-scope section discussed during the call. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Title ====== Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry Description of Task Force: ========================== ICANN has agreements with registry operators (for unsponsored gTLDs) and sponsors (for sponsored gTLDs). In the agreements, ICANN designates the operator (or sponsor) as the sole operator (or sponsoring organization) for the TLD. In exchange, the operator or sponsor agrees that the gTLD registry will be operated according to various specifications, policies, and other requirements. These agreements constrain the freedom of a gTLD registry or sponsor to make changes in the architecture or operation of the registry that would not conform with those agreements, absent ICANN's prior consent. Under these agreements, ICANN has agreed that it will not unreasonably withhold or delay this consent. Some examples of where operators and sponsors must obtain ICANN's consent include changes to the maximum fees for registry services, changes to the list of domain names registered to the registry operator, and certain changes to the functional or performance specifications included in a registry agreement. Where ICANN is required to give consent to a change, the registry agreements require ICANN to make decisions using a timely, transparent and predictable process. Under the unsponsored registry agreements (e.g .com, .net, .org, .biz, .info, .name) , ICANN is also required to not unreasonably restrain competition and, to the extent feasible, promote and encourage robust competition; and not apply standards, policies, procedures or practices arbitrarily, unjustifiably, or inequitably and not single out a Registry Operator for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause. With respect to sponsored gTLD (sTLD) registry agreements (e.g .aero, .coop, and .museum), although portions of the policy-development authority for each sTLD are delegated to the designated sTLD sponsor, there are some situations in which an sTLD's sponsor will request amendments to, or approvals under, the sponsorship agreement it has with ICANN. Although approval and amendment requests are much more common in the case of unsponsored TLDs than for sTLDs, the overall goals (e.g., predictability, timeliness, transparency) of the procedures for handling gTLD and sTLD requests are similar, even though there are differences in the provisions of the underlying agreements that must be observed. The purpose of this policy development process is to create a policy concerning the essential characteristics of the process by which ICANN considers registry operator or sponsor requests for consent or related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry. Out-of-scope ============ Changes to the nature of the agreements between ICANN and registry operators (e.g removing the requirement to meet functional and performance specifications, and replacing with a more general requirement to ensure security and stability). This will be the subject of further policy development associated with the review of the current proof of concept for new gTLDs, and the development of policies governing the introduction of new gTLDs. Additional obligations on registry operators or gTLD sponsors beyond what is already specified in their existing agreements. The procedure for handling requests for amendments of or approvals under ccTLD sponsorship agreements. This is outside of the scope of the GNSO, and is the responsibility of the country-code names supporting organization (ccNSO). In-scope ======== The development of a "quick-look" procedure for quick approval of changes that do not harm the legitimate interests of third parties, threaten stability or security, nor contravene any existing ICANN policy. This quick-look procedure may include provision to allow the ICANN staff to obtain qualified, impartial, outside expertise. The development of a more comprehensive process for when the "quick-look" process used by ICANN staff results in concerns of ICANN staff. The process may possibly include consultation with impartial competition and technical experts, input from affected parties, and public consultation. Mechanisms to protect the confidentiality of requests for contractual approvals or contractual amendments to prevent unnecessary and premature disclosures of proprietary commercial information to competitors. Tasks/milestones ================ (1) Develop guidelines for when approval is required to make a change based on the existing registry agreements. (for action by ICANN staff in consultation with registry operators and sponsors) (2) Develop a check list of issues to consider when approving a change (3) Develop a process and timeline for responding to a request including "quick-check" phase, and more comprehensive phase. (4) Develop a process and timeline for an appeals procedure for use by registry operators.

1 0

GNSO Teleconference 2/3 December 2003
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 2, 2003

Dec. 2, 2003

[To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org announce(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on December 2/3, 2003 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/20031202GNSO.mp3 Happy listening! GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org

1 0

proxy
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Dec. 2, 2003

Dec. 2, 2003

It is my intent to be on the full call. Should I have to drop off, I give my proxy to Grant and then to Philip. Thanks. Marilyn S. Cade AT&T Law & Government Affairs 1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000N Washington, DC 20036 202-457-2106v 202-457-3051f 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com

1 0

FAQ on PDP regarding Need for Predictable Procedure for Changes in the Operation of a gTLD
by Barbara Roseman Dec. 2, 2003

Dec. 2, 2003

Attached is a FAQ regarding the current PDP. We will post this later today to the ICANN website, but wanted to distribute it to the GNSO Council as early as possible. The bulk of the questions contained were not submitted until this last weekend, so we were unable to post answers any sooner. Regards, Barbara Roseman

1 0