January 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council draft minutes teleconf 21 December 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 8, 2006

Jan. 8, 2006

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 21 December 2005 below in plain text. Please let me know whether you would like me to make any changes. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen 21 December 2005 Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC - proxy to Tony Harris/Greg Ruth (if necessary) Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries - absent - apologies - Cary Karp June Seo - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - proxy to Lucy Nichols Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - proxy to Lucy Nichols (if necessary) Robin Gross - NCUC. Norbert Klein - NCUC.- absent - apologies - proxy to Mawaki Chango Mawaki Chango - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies - proxy to Ross Rader Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 17 Council Members ICANN Staff Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination - absent - apologies Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Diane Schroeder - General Manager, Conferences, Administration & Finance Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison Bret Fausett - ALAC Liaison Michael Palage - ICANN Board member Quorum present at 19 : 07 UTC. MP3 recording Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard chaired this teleconference. Approval of agenda Bruce Tonkin welcomed the new councillors, Sophia Bekele Nominating Committee Appointee, Mawaki Chango - NCUC representative and June Seo - gTLD registries representative. Bruce Tonkin handed the chair to Philip Sheppard. Item 2: Election of GNSO Council chair for period 4 Jan 06 to 3 Dec 2006 - nominations close on Friday 16 Dec 2005 - election to be held during the meeting Philip Sheppard stated that Bruce Tonkin, the only nominee at close of nominations on Friday 16 December 2005, accepted his nomination by Lucy Nichols, seconded Ken Stubbs, to be the GNSO Council chair for the period 4 January 2006 to 3 December 2006. Philip Sheppard proposed a roll call vote of affirmation to elect Bruce Tonkin as GNSO Council chair for the period 4 January 2006 to 3 December 2006. The motion carried. Unanimous vote of acclamation 25 votes in favour, one abstention Bruce Tonkin (2 votes) Ross Rader's vote and proxy held for Maureen Cubberley were votes recorded on line due to telephonic connectivity issues. Decision 1: Bruce Tonkin elected as GNSO Council chair for the period 4 January 2006 to 3 December 2006. Philip Sheppard handed the chair back to Bruce Tonkin. Item 3: Next steps on new TLD policy development process - public comment period opened on 6 December 2005 Bruce Tonkin stated that each constituency needed to identify a person to collect input to the policy development process on new gTLDs and notify the GNSO Secretariat accordingly. In addition Council members should reflect on proactive means of obtaining input from members of the communities not directly involved in the GNSO and input from the Council. It was important to gather input on the terms of reference to open questions and then seek the commonalities. Marilyn Cade referred to her proposal on the Council mailing list setting out a process, previously used in task forces and public meetings, where a request was posted for interested individuals, organizations, (could be a constituency) to submit an outline, sign up for a specific time to address their responses to a particular set of questions, take clarifying questions, and have the material transcribed and posted on the website. This allowed for input from people with expertise in particular areas in contrast to the input from the public comment process. The proposal further suggested 2 such events before the end of January 2006 and an extension of the current public comment period to the end of January 2006. <Finally, I offer the following proposal for fellow Councilors to consider regarding the gTLDS policy process: The Council should invite all constituencies to prepare their statements for contribution, BUT in ADDITION, and in parallel, other mechanism should be used to inform the policy development process. I describe a recommendation below that I've previously mentioned in less detail. 1) Given that we are losing about two weeks due to holiday, I propose that Council formally announce an extension in the initial comment process to extend it to the end of January. This would give more time to the Constituency statements, and also allow the following process to take place for more input into the policy development process. 2) I propose that Council direct the staff director, Olof Nordling, to manage a process on behalf of Council that would be structured consultation and input into the process. All of our constituencies and the broader community could undoubtedly benefit from the opportunity to hear from experts, rather than just gather opinions or make statements. Thus, I would suggest that the following guidelines be followed [or some modified version developed] 3) The Council should host two phone conferences with the following structure/format. a) Organizations, individuals, and interested parties should be invited to make presentations related to the questions that are contained in the ToR, and provide any other statements that they consider relevant. 20 minute slots would be reserved for anyone who submits a "white paper/PowerPoint" to the Staff Director. NOTE: This would NOT be a place for the Constituency Statements, since those will come into the process anyway, but offers a way to get unique contributions. For instance, outreach to the SSAC, to OECD, etc. might be useful to suggest that they may want to make a "presentation". b) the calls should be transcribed via a conference call transcription service and the transcripts would be posted c) all white papers or PowerPoint presentations would be made available and posted d) Do others think that there should also be 3 - 4 three minute slots at the end of each of the conference calls for "open mike" statements from those who don't bother to submit a white paper/PowerPoint? I would suggest that the presentations be limited to 15 minutes and a 5 minute clarification q and a be allowed. Given the time between here and Wellington, I would suggest that two calls be held, broken into two segments of 2 hours each. It is important to remember the constituencies and the ALAC will have their own consultation process to undertake as well, and thus, if we can do these calls in the early part of January, that would be most helpful. Again, I am proposing that we also recognize that the PDP time frames do not work, especially taking into account the holiday period and we formally extend the time frame now for the preparation of the initial submission of information to the Staff Manager. I also think that Council needs to be very realistic about the need to take extensive input; we may find that we need to have more than one round of input and discussion of the inputs to the questions, for instance. Finally, we need to discuss how best to establish a mechanism to have consultation with the other SOs, and with the GAC and SSAC. As I recall, that is part of our responsibility. We may want to schedule discussion sessions of 1-2 hours in Wellington, for instance. > There was general agreement among the Councillors for a call for papers with clearly formulated expectations, moderated conference calls with a web based forum, allowing people to identify, if they wished, to address their responses, an acknowledgement that all requests for presentation may not be possible to accommodate, but that all material would be posted on the website for the public, read by the Councillors and summarised by the staff who would produce a Staff Manager's report. The Council as whole would undertake the work and would benefit from all the input during the proposed face to face March meeting in Wellington. Ross Rader proposed that agreement on details should be referred to the planning committee. Proposed time line: 31 January 2006 - extension for public comments on the Terms of Reference for new gTLDs - constituency statements due and conference call 1st week February - conference call The Initial report should be considered as an evolving draft until Wellington. Suzanne Sene remarked that it would be difficult to produce a document by a government organization even by the end of January 2006. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Philip Sheppard proposed a procedural motion: Council agrees to extend the time for public comments on the Terms of Reference for new gTLDs until 31 January 2006 in order to receive substantive papers addressing the terms of reference on the policy development process. Council will also formally issue a "Call for Papers" and the potential presentation of the papers as soon as a text for that call for papers has been developed in the days following. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Decision 2: Council agrees to extend the time for public comments on the Terms of Reference for new gTLDs until 31 January 2006 in order to receive substantive papers addressing the terms of reference on the policy development process. Council will also formally issue a "Call for Papers" and the potential presentation of the papers as soon as a text for that call for papers has been developed in the days following. Bruce Tonkin noted that each constituency should be thinking about what process the constituency should use to inform the constituency statements such as, teleconferences and different ways within the constituencies to get broad coverage. The constituencies were encouraged to try methods that they have not used in the past to make sure the statements were as broad and representative of all views as possible and focused on substantive and reasoned comments on the issue areas in the Terms of Reference on new gTLDs. .Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Philip Sheppard proposed a procedural motion: The due date for constituency statements be extended until 31 January 2006. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Decision 3: The due date for constituency statements be extended until 31 January 2006. Action Item: Each constituency needs to identify a person to collect input to the policy development process on new gTLDs and notify the GNSO Secretariat accordingly. Item 4: Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) issues report Olof Nordling stated that Maria Farrell was the person identified to focus on developing the IDN Issues Report. Tina Dam reported that the version 2.0 of the IDN Guidelines approved in November 2005, were discussed in Vancouver and the working group would reconvene to consider the Vancouver input and whether there should be further revisions to the IDN Guidelines. In parallel, the Best Current Practice track for the IDN Guidelines would move forward and there would be opportunity for public input. The working group and the President's Advisory Committee would provide feedback and updates to the ICANN Board. The community had made enquiries about the functionality of the IANA registry. Based on the previous IDN committee consultations, a briefing paper had been developed for the President's Advisory Committee where positive changes had been recommended. Initial discussions have taken place amongst technical experts regarding IDNs at the top level and the relation to the Issues Report requested by the GNSO council in Vancouver. The plan is to move forward the experiment on IDNs at the top level, but a framework is needed around how it would happen and what issues should be solved. The experiment could possibly show whether d name or a records in the root, or neither would be a good technical solution. The evaluation of the report was as important as the initial framework and the result would feed back into the ccNSO, GNSO and the GAC policy processes. There was no current timeline for the Issues Report as it was to some extent dependent on the experiment. In the mean time, while waiting for the technical results, Tina suggested identifying initial issues and start work on process. Cary Karp commented that currently, before the policy development process started the suitability of candidate technologies for that purpose were being tested and referred to the recent Internet Architectural Board (IAB) report "Review and Recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names". Bruce Tonkin, supported by most of the councillors, proposed that staff should be encouraged to start identifying and documenting policy questions and issues related to IDNs. Bruce Tonkin proposed further discussion on IDNs as an agenda item on the next council call, 17 January 2006, and suggested inviting the authors, John Klensin and Patrick Falstrom, of the "Review and Recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names" to participate in the discussion. Item 5: Update on initial planning for Wellington meeting The Secretariat read out the email from Diane Schroeder with the broad outline of the meeting schedule for Wellington New Zealand. 31 March, Friday Board Meeting 30 March, Thursday Public Forum (am) 29 March, Wednesday GNSO & CCNSO Council meetings & Public Forum (pm) 28 March, Tuesday Workshops, GAC, GNSO Public Forum - potential Board/GNSO Council dinner 27 March, Monday Constituency Day, CCNSO & GAC 26 March, Sunday GAC, GNSO Council Prep 25 March, Saturday GAC, GNSO Council Prep Item 6 Any other business a. Follow up on .com settlement GNSO resolution Bruce Tonkin commented that as GNSO Council chair he would formally send the resolution of 2 December 2005 to Dr. Vint Cerf, ICANN Board chair. Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 20:40 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference 17 January 2005 at 19:00 UTC see: Calendar -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

For information: Hiro Hotta email to ccNSO on IDNs
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 6, 2006

Jan. 6, 2006

For information: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ccnso-council] IDN related activities Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 16:37:21 +0900 To: ccNSO Council Dear ccNSO Council, I wish you a happy new year! Following the previous ccNSO conference call on December 14, here I drafted a preliminary IDN-related issues list for our further discussion. A. Your comments/additions/modification are very welcome. B. Discussion on Section 4 (How ccTLDs behave as a group) is expected. Hiro ============================================================== IDN-related activities 1. Resources (1) IETF RFCs - RFC3454 (TRINGPREP) http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3454.txt - RFC3490 (IDNA) http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3490.txt - RFC3491 (NAMEPREP) http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3491.txt - RFC3492 (Punycode) http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3492.txt (2) ICANN guidelines for IDN implementation - Version2.0 http://www.icann.org/general/idn-guidelines-14nov05.htm (3) Unicode Technical Documents - UTR#36 (Unicode Security Considerations) http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr36/ - UTS#39 (Unicode Security Mechanisms) http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/tr39-1.html (4) ICANN President's Advisory Committee for IDNs - no documents so far 2. Current main topics (1) IDN TLD introduction - ready or not - steps of introduction (2) IDN technical issues - revision of guidelines - BCP development (in the IETF field) - security (e.g., phishing) (3) IDN policy issues - language table development - reserved domain names (e.g., geographical names) - trademarks protection (considering transliteration and translation) (4) applications - readiness of + browsers + e-mails + others 3. How ccTLDs are related wrt. these issues (1) IDN registration services for the same languages as other TLDs (2) IDN TLDs equivalent to ccTLDs (3) demand for IDN-aware applications 4. How ccTLDs behave as a group (1) level of activities (a) information sharing - among ccTLDs - with gTLDs (b) discussion - publicize consensus among ccTLDs - just a discussion (2) structure (a) Working Group? (b) no specific structure (= just a topic in meetings)? ==============================================================

1 0

RE: [council] PDP timelines
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 5, 2006

Jan. 5, 2006

Hello Avri, > > > > I think in most cases, in my experience at least, projects that do > not complete on time are reviewed and extended only if warranted. Agreed. > Automatic sunset that disregards complexity or issues does > not seem the best alternative to me. It seems that any > notion of concluding a PDP must require a definitive action, > e.g. a vote, as opposed to some automatic mechanism. > I would have thought that should be the other way around. Any extension of a deadline/project requires a definitive vote. Regards, Bruce

2 1

Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP
by olof nordling Jan. 5, 2006

Jan. 5, 2006

Dear all, As you may recall we have a Call for Papers regarding the new gTLD PDP to write for announcement in early January. I have attached a very first draft to this effect and I would sincerely appreciate comments on the draft from those of you who happen to be on-line during these largely holiday-dominated days. The objective would be to have it distributed and posted on 3 January. The draft includes the ToR in extenso (the announcement on the ICANN front page will have to be shorter, cutting the ToR part). Would this be enough or should we specify another layer of questions - if so, which questions? I'm looking forward to receiving your views on any aspects of the draft. Very best regards from Brussels (just lightly covered in snow, to mark the season) Olof

11 35

RE: [council] PDP timelines
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 4, 2006

Jan. 4, 2006

Hello Marilyn, > > As to whether a drop dead date is the right answer, one has > to be very mature in consideration of policy development. > Sometimes, the right answer is 'not now, but perhaps in the > future", and schedule a "next assessment". > > Perhaps that is what you are recommending -- I wasn't sure. > A PDP ties up significant staff and community resources. I am proposing that a particular PDP conclude after a certain drop dead date if agreement can't be reached. To start again would require the full process for initiating a PDP - formal vote and prioritisation. It would certainly be appropriate to consider putting a matter on hold, and reviewing it again at some future date (perhaps after public policy/laws become clearer on a matter for example, or when further technical developments arise). It is a similar process for companies doing development or R&D. They allocate resources for a particular project for a particular period (and cost). Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

PDP timelines
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 4, 2006

Jan. 4, 2006

Hello Ken, > I am becoming a firm believer in the concept of a "drop dead" date for PDP's. > I believe that we need to insure against "perpetuity" by providing in the process > a "reasonable" time period for completion.. If the time period is not met then > that specific PDP would expire and an entirely new PDP would have to be initiated. I agree witht eh concept above. I still believe that the Council does need some flexibility to manage a process and timelines - taking into account the complexity of an issue, holiday periods, natural disasters etc. I think the current PDP timelines are unrealistic with the requirement for wide consultation. I would however be fine with a time limit (e.g 6 months for any given PDP). I also agree with Ross and Tom that we need to have done much of the background information seeking etc before we start the formal PDP. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

RE: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com Jan. 4, 2006

Jan. 4, 2006

Whilst agreeing with Ken in principle, the reality is that some (a few) PDPs are likely to become challenging as the process evolves, no matter what timelines are initially set. However if we are doing our jobs properly the number should be few to start with, and also decrease with time as we gain expertise in setting reasonable timeframes. Therefore I'm reluctant to take way the ability of council to vote for time extensions, as it appears an easier process than initiating an entirely new PDP. If over the course of time, the number of time extensions proves to be unacceptably high, then I would support a move remove the time extension capability. Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ken Stubbs Sent: 04 January 2006 18:09 To: Marilyn Cade Cc: 'Thomas Keller'; 'Ross Rader'; 'Mawaki Chango'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP I am becoming a firm believer in the concept of a "drop dead" date for PDP's. I believe that we need to insure against "perpetuity" by providing in the process a "reasonable" time period for completion.. If the time period is not met then that specific PDP would expire and an entirely new PDP would have to be initiated. I do not think it is a good idea to allow for council votes for "time extensions" for a specific PDP as this would circumvent the concept of a "timely " process.. your thoughts ? Ken Stubbs Marilyn Cade wrote: Tom, my thinking is somewhat aligned with yours, but with some slight variations, but I think that this is very worthwhile to develop as a "straw proposal". As I used to manage policy development, and it involved both internal and external policy, there were timelines "we" could control, and some we could not -- e.g. when a policy was going to morph into a public policy issue, such as "data retention", where governments became involved. However, still, there were stages that were within control that could be defined and time frames established and adhered to. Thanks for your example. Helpful. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:52 AM To: Ross Rader Cc: Mawaki Chango; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP Ross, I'm very sympathetic of the idea of moving the PDP out to a seperate document which can be amended more easily as well as I'm sympathethic of the thought of keeping the PDP as narrow in purpose as possible. Having said the latter I have to note that if we start to really focus the PDP on policy making only we need to deal with the information gathering and understanding part in a different manner. A manner which does not loose the benefit of the offical character of a formal PDP (it is my experience that a issue only gets "real" attention if there is a decision made at the end) but with more freedom for the council to define timelines for the research part for each issue independently. This could be done by a more project based approach with an PDP at its end. Let me give you a short example: 1. The council recognises that IDNs are an important issue 2. The council officially announces a timeline and events to take place in this time for research and "understanding" the IDN issue. 3. 2. can be repeated if needed 4. The staff manager produces an issues report on IDNs 5. The PDP is invoked 6. The PDP must be finished in time with an result I guess the main sense of the last point is to have an defined end point for each discussion. To be able to reach a result the TOR of the PDP must be very minimal and defined very precisely. It would therefore be very likely that we and up with more than one PDP for each issue. Thats my 2 cents worth on this. Best, tom Am 03.01.2006 schrieb Ross Rader: Mawaki Chango wrote: OK, now that this is clarified and we seem to agree that we need all those processes, the next question I'm attempted to ask is how do we do that, to "redefine" how we should look at the PDP? My recommendation is two-fold. First, the amendment to the bylaws should be to move the GNSO PDP to a separate document. This would allow us to modify it in the future without having to amend ICANN's bylaws. The amendment should be constructed so that a majority of the board of directors would have to vote in favor of the amendment (as opposed to the 2/3s required now). Second, we should only be looking to modify the timelines in the PDP right now. There might be additional changes required in the future to streamline or otherwise make the process more efficient, but my preference would be to avoid a wholesale reconstruction of the PDP - we have work that we need to undertake immediately that would benefit from having clarified timelines. Let's make sure that we stay focused on the practical goal of getting better at what we do. I have another question, Ross. What do you mean by "our getting our technology acts together process"? As enumerated in your ealier email, I suspect this is something the GNSO Council might be doing as well (maybe as part of the sausage-like PDP), so I guess I need to be able to identify what piece is this one, thanks. I was referring to instances where the technical environment wasn't quite ready for the policy work going on in the GNSO and vice versa, where the policy environment wasn't ready for new technical developments being implemented. For me, this comes down to making sure that we are appropriately informed regarding the capabilities of differing technologies (and often, identifying areas where new technology might be required) prior to conducting a PDP. For instance, the GNSO has very little understanding of the policy implications and new policy requirements presented by the IRIS protocol - or whether or not the protocol is even appropriate for the applications that some would like to embed in ICANN policy. In a perfect world, we would have a clear understanding of these implications before we conducted a PDP. In this world, we need to make sure that this lack of understanding doesn't stand in the way of the PDP and that we rise to a proper level of understanding of the relevant issues in a timely manner. Regards, -ross Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w

1 0

RE: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 4, 2006

Jan. 4, 2006

Hello Olof, > Thanks for the reminder - Maria and I have talked about it > and she will produce the report, aiming for the February > Board meeting. We have also considered whether we should > launch an additional public comment period on it. In view of > the Bylaws, Art 6.3.1, we don't see that as necessary in this > case and we're keen to hear your view on it. >From a Board transparency (Article III of the bylaws) point of view I think it is good practice that the topic be published in a Board agenda well before the February Board meeting, and that a copy of the "Board Report" (as required in section 11 of Annex A of the ICANN bylaws) be available on the public ICANN website at least 21 days prior to the Board meeting. With respect to formally seeking further public comment - I think that decision is up to the Board. It is not a requirement of the PDP process managed by the GNSO Council. The relevant section of the bylaws from Article III relating to a Board decision is: "Section 6. NOTICE AND COMMENT ON POLICY ACTIONS 1. With respect to any policies that are being considered by the Board for adoption that substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third parties, including the imposition of any fees or charges, ICANN shall: a. provide public notice on the Website explaining what policies are being considered for adoption and why, at least twenty-one days (and if practical, earlier) prior to any action by the Board; b. provide a reasonable opportunity for parties to comment on the adoption of the proposed policies, to see the comments of others, and to reply to those comments, prior to any action by the Board; and c. in those cases where the policy action affects public policy concerns, to request the opinion of the Governmental Advisory Committee and take duly into account any advice timely presented by the Governmental Advisory Committee on its own initiative or at the Board's request. 2. Where both practically feasible and consistent with the relevant policy development process, an in-person public forum shall also be held for discussion of any proposed policies as described in Section 6(1)(b) of this Article, prior to any final Board action. 3. After taking action on any policy subject to this Section, the Board shall publish in the meeting minutes the reasons for any action taken, the vote of each Director voting on the action, and the separate statement of any Director desiring publication of such a statement." As other Council members have already noted, this particular issue has already been subject to public comment processes, and opportunity for comment has also been made available at in-person public forums (e.g GNSO public forum in Luxembourg). Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Call for Papers on Policy Development for the Introduction of New gTLDs.
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 4, 2006

Jan. 4, 2006

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please note the Call for Papers on the Policy Development for the Introduction of New gTLDs. http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-03jan06.htm In order to inform the recently launched Policy Development Process on new gTLDs, the GNSO is inviting organizations and individuals to submit substantive papers on the issue areas identified in the Terms of Reference for New gTLDs. Submitters of papers should address the topics or sub-topics related to the above areas and should provide reasoned background analysis and references for statements expressed. Contributions are due by 31 January 2006 as text documents at <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> Received papers will be considered for oral presentations to the GNSO Council during February 2006, via scheduled conference calls with the GNSO Council. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0