June 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO working room is Karam 1
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

[To: pdp-pcceg-feb06[at]gnso.icann.org; gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please note that the GNSO working room is Karam 1 and not Karam 2 as previously announced. Both rooms are next to each other in the conference center and above the passage archway, there is a bold sign Salle KARAM 1 & 2. See you there! Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

[Fwd: Election Results and list of ballots]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

Dear Council Members Please find the voting results forwarded from Kent Crispin. Each council member will be sent the list individually to check his or her vote and these will be confirmed at the GNSO Council meeting in Marrakech at 10:00 local time. Council members who will not be physically present at the meeting have been sent the dial in number. Thank you, Kind regards, Glen Here are the results from the election. I've listed the ballot id and the vote for that ballot id, so each voter can verify that their vote has been correctly recorded. Note that some of the ballots were worth two votes; in the interests of anonymity I didn't show which ones. Note that this note is being sent to the council list, and hence archived on the web. Round 1 results B0572e82ffD:20060611151843:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard B1f400cebeD:20060613125029:[X] B1 - Michael Geist B24ba6b0b1D:20060614200921:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard (*) B2d50444baD:20060615075003:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard B32973d298D:20060608222417:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B37a9f2be1D:20060611214015:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard B52e3e098cD:20060608083753:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B74923e867D:20060613122026:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard (*) B7bbb9e143D:20060613113258:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B7e34ad516D:20060612222259:[x] B1 - Philip Sheppard B816b87f77D:20060612063350:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B87354a987D:20060608104302:[X] B1 - Michael Geist B92dccb779D:20060608204209:[x] B1 - Philip Sheppard B9cda7d84fD:20060612222910:[x] B1 - Rita Rodin Baf2f7fc59D:20060608084128:[x] B1 - Michael Geist Bc34abd143D:20060609125627:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard Bc3ac3edc3D:20060608082754:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard Bc5543485dD:20060613030142:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard Beb3e5745aD:20060608084441:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin Beefcfa04eD:20060612154557:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard Bf278ff9a4D:20060608083726:[X] B1 - Michael Geist (*) required hand verification Everyone voted. Totals (counting those who got 2 votes): Rita Rodin: 12 Philip Sheppard: 11 Michael Geist: 4 ================================================================ Round 2 results Votes cast: B019ad5a68D:20060615100115:[x] B1 - Philip Sheppard (*) B02dd2c346D:20060615220757:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B14f511e95D:20060621060727:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B19ec5c2e0D:20060615102827:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard B377dcee24D:20060619022200:[x] B1 - Philip Sheppard B3a829a592D:20060615162709:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B47fc48f15D:20060615135555:[x] B1 - Philip Sheppard (*) B5263da004D:20060615131637:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard B5ca392747D:20060615102707:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B63664fbecD:20060616091740:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard B7d83acb40D:20060620005636:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B7df6511cfD:20060615180222:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard B8dc830639D:20060620231637:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B97c7053aeD:20060615145646:[x] B1 - Rita Rodin Ba0c86fb26D:20060619111657:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard Bb0f88bc09D:20060618114007:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard Bbb64e0fbbD:20060615100357:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin Bbfe98ca3eD:20060621070404:[x] B1 - Philip Sheppard Bd269bcc95D:20060621030033:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin Bdbae3f122D:20060621052714:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard (*) required hand verification There was one missing ballot. Totals (counting those who got 2 votes): Rita Rodin: 15 Philip Sheppard: 11 ================================================================ Best Regards Kent -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association
by Ute Decker June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

Forwarding the second letter sent by AIPLA today for further clarification: == From: Michael K. Kirk [mailto:mkirk@aipla.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:20 PM To: 'Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au' Cc: 'vint(a)google.com'; 'sharil(a)cmc.gov.my' Subject: FW: [gnso-dow123] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association Dear Mr. Tonkin, Thank you for your observations regarding the comments of the American Intellectual Property Law Association on the GNSO Council vote on the Formulation 1 definition of the purpose of the WHOIS service. Please find attached our reply to your observations. Regards, Mike Kirk -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 21 June 2006 03:33 To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association Hello All, I have read the letter from the American Intellectual Property Law Association. I don't understand how the letter relates to the formulations 1 or 2. It seems that members of the community have made pre-mature judgements on the eventual outcomes of the WHOIS work. The letter raises issues about the importance of the data, and the need for access to that data by law enforcement and other legitimate parties. This seems entirely consistent with the current terms of reference of the WHOIS task force. I have sent the following reply to clarify that there are no changes in collected data, nor in the requirement for that data to be accurate. The more important work has yet to be done, which is developing better access controls. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Dear Mr Kirk, I will pass on your letter to the GNSO Council and the WHOIS task force. I will note however that the GNSO Council does believe that its decision is consistent with your requirements below. The decision makes no change to the requirement to collect the data or the requirement that the data must be accurate. Thus the data will still be available to prove any IP infringement. In fact one of the objectives of improving controls on access to data is that it will lead to higher data accuracy as registrants will be more comfortable in providing their true contact information. 1. A pattern of behavior that can lead to an inference of bad faith which, under the UDRP, can result in the transfer of a domain name from a bad faith registrant is frequently only provable through WHOIS; 2. Unchecked IP infringement undermines business viability and technical stability and could result in Internet fragmentation; 3. Accurate and available information is essential for law enforcement in crimes including spamming, denial of service attacks, identity theft and account fraud, hate literature, terrorism and child pornography; 4. The requirement to provide accurate contact and identity information acts as a deterrent to trademark infringement, copyright infringement, cybersquatting, phishing, typosquatting and other IP cyber infringements and facilitates enforcement of IP rights. The objective to make up-to-date and accurate WHOIS information available to all who have a legitimate need to obtain such information is consistent with the aims of the GNSO. The current work is focussed on considering methods for access control that ensure that only those with a legitimate need have access. This work has not yet reached any recommendations. Your letter does not seem to explain why the American Intellectual Property Law Association thinks formulation 1 is inconsistent with those aims. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

5 11

new string/re diversity
by Marilyn Cade June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

I know that sometimes it is tempting to think that "we" have a unique view of the world, and that the world resolves [no pun intended] around ICANN. In fact, the Internet is much more complicated and complex, as is the WWW, and the evolving world of the NGN and other forms of IP applications that have nothing to do with ICANN, other than that they are reliant upon the unique indicators and the reliability of the small percentage of the Internet's infrastructure that ICANN influences. For instance, certainly, the role of ICANN in its limited but critical role is a foundational aspect of the Internet. However, it is the Internet industry that builds and operates the Internet itself -- and of course, DNS registries and registrars are part and a critical part of the make up of the larger world. It concerned me when I attended the recent U.S. Congressional hearing on the dot com agreement that some were portraying ICANN as in charge of security of the Internet, or equating DNS with the entirety of the Internet. I saw a little too much "enthusiasm" on several parties parts to portray how important "their role" was. I think we all need to maintain perspective on the need for all of us to understand that we co-exist in a larger Internet world and that ICANN has a limited, albeit critical set of roles and activities. Of course, we need to always encourage more companies and entities who have relevant interest in what ICANN does to become engaged, while not seeking to expand ICANN's scope or mission. That is a challenge, isn't it? To date, it has been hard, given the lack of early agenda and programme information. However, I'm pleased to see the very recent approach that the ICANN staff has used in their last edit of the programme for this meeting. While the agenda and the programme are very disappointingly late -- [and that is a topic for improvement if companies are to get information early enough to approve travel and participation] still the new approach with some bits of information about who a workshop is designed for, etc. can help us to outreach to the parts of companies who are indeed interested and engaged in areas where ICANN is relevant to them. Let me address one of the points below regarding who a web hoster is/may be: I might suggest that it is easy to get baffled by terminology. Or if you are more technical in nature or expertise, it may be easy, accidentally to overlook the need to speak in laymanese. Just so we aren't arguing past each other, let me suggest a flexible "general" resource that I find works well in international settings as well -- wikipedia. Let me use it as a reference document for a minute. A quick glance through the range of kinds of "hosting" and the different kinds of providers, and the examples of different kinds of companies/businesses engaged in web hosting that can be found in that easy to find resource may be informative. Web hosters come in many sizes. The BC does have some members who offer web hosting. I am aware that there are web hosters who are members of the ISPCP. What I see in the "hosting" industry/sector is quite diverse, and that seems to be what you are suggesting, Tom: no single model, no single kind of company, large, gigantic, and micro-enterprises. I'd suggest that web hosters are welcome to join the BC, and if they meet the ISPCP criteria, undoubtedly they might pursue membership/activity there; I leave that in the able hands of Mr. Holmes to comment on as chair of the constituency. And, Tom, you are suggesting, aren't you, that also web hosters who are registrars are already members of the Registrar constituency? Or that you would welcome them? As to the quite different kinds of industries -- I'm sitting in SG3, and have been discussing this topic with some service providers from Asian island countries -- and they are describing the diversity to me as well, including some very large, but distributed providers, and then some very small local/regional providers that are new entrants in some cases. Must be the global Internet and open standards and innovation at work. :-) -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:45 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association Tony Am 21.06.2006 schrieb Anthony Harris: > And thus am rather surprised at your conclusion that: > "The definition also seems to meet the needs > of web host and ISP operators," > > If it does, I have yet to meet one... With 1&1 and Godaddy as very large international webhosts supporting formulation 1 I would think that this conclusion can be drawn. Which brings me to another point. Apparantly webhosting companies are not represented in the current constituency setup and hence not much is known about their interessts. Since hosting is one of the real crucial services of the net we might be advised well to think about incoperating them somehow into our structure. Best, tom

1 0

Second reply to the American Intellectual Property Law Association
by Bruce Tonkin June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2006 8:00 AM Subject: RE: Regarding response from American Intellectual Property Law Association Hello Mike, Thanks for your quick reply. YOU STATE: In the Final task force report on the purpose of WHOIS and of the WHOIS contacts dated March 15, 2006, it is stated that "Task 1 of the task force terms of reference requires the WHOIS Task Force to define the purpose of WHOIS. Defining the purpose is important as it will guide work on the other work items in the terms of reference. RESPONSE: Agreed. Defining a purpose is always a good start when studying a system. However given that the formulations are very similar, and that not all members of the task force or the Council could agree on a single definition, it seems sensible to proceed to see where formulation 1 will take us with respect to the further work. The impact of formulation 1 can then be seen in the context of any recommendations with respect to changing access to data. If the recommendations do not get broad support, then that would seem the best time to revisit whether the definition of purpose is wrong. I recommend that the work product be viewed as a whole, rather than focussing further energy on the topic of purpose (many months have already been spent on this debate). With respect to the formulations, lets consider the actual differences. They only differ in the last few words, ie Formulation 1: "issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver. Formulation 2: "can resolve, technical, legal or other issues related to the registration or use of a domain name." With respect to "issues" the two formulations are equivalent. Formulation 2 explicitly lists technical and legal as categories of issues, but by comparison formulation 1 has no limitations on the types of issues. In some ways formulation 1 could be seen as a wider definition, as it makes not attempt to name any particular issues. Taking the next point of difference: Formulation 1: "related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver" Formulation 2: "related to the registration or use of a domain name" The difference here is far more subtle. For a domain name to be actively used for intellectual property infringement - by that I mean that using the domain name as an identifier to reach an Internet location that may have offending content, or using a domain name in an email address for the purposes of receiving responses to some sort of fraud etc - requires a particular configuration of the records in a DNS nameserver. Formulation 2 is in some ways narrower, as it refers to registration, but does not refer to subsequent configuration of DNS records. Note these DNS records are typically configured via an NS (nameserver) record in the gTLD zonefile, as well as DNS records in the nameserver computer (which can be operated by individuals , organisations, ISPs, etc). Thus formulation 1 would seem to cover all the possible scenarios where a domain name is actively involved in any intellectual property issues, and is perhaps the more general of the two definitions. Formulation 2 uses the term "use of a domain name". This is a less precise term than used in formulation 1. In this context who is the "user"? - the registrant or other Internet users. I have seen domain names used by Internet users in the same way as any other word, symbol, or trademark to deliberately confuse an Internet user. This is commonly done in two ways: (1) the domain name is part of a faked "From" address in an email (the domain name is not intended to be used for return email, it is purely a word intended to mislead) usually without any involvement of the domain name registrant or the operators of the nameservers for that domain name. (2) as part of the content of an email or the contents of a website, where the domain name appears again as a word or image as part of a hyperlink. An Internet user clicks on the hyperlink (effectively just a symbol) and gets directed to an Internet location completed unrelated to the domain name. In the cases above the domain name itself is misused in the same way as any trademark may be misused. In this case the domain name registrant along with the operators of the related DNS nameservers is the victim. So the term "use of a domain name" can have meanings outside of the mission of ICANN. I think the reason for such debate over the two formulation is more related to different language used in the technical versus the intellectual property community. If we focus on the more complex problem of improving WHOIS, it may well be that the differences in the two formulations are not material. Ultimately the wording of the purpose could certainly be improved to use language that everyone clearly understands. YOU STATE: While it is technically correct to state as you do that "that there are no changes in collected data, nor in the requirement for that data to be accurate," basing the further work of the task force on the narrow definition of the purpose of WHOIS in Formulation 1 will almost inevitably lead to recommendations that the data collected and the access provided to that data be more limited than is currently the case. RESPONSE: Any changes to data collected is out of scope for this particular policy development. There seems to be a mis-conception that the data is only collected so it can be displayed publicly by the WHOIS service. This is not the case, there are a range of operational reasons why the data will continue to be collected along with other data (such as credit cards, incoming IP addresses etc). Stating a purpose of the WHOIS service does not directly impact what data is collected. I do agree that access may be more limited than is currently the case, however this could result from either of the two formulations. It is important to distinguish access to data by the general public, from access to data by entities that have a specific need. For example registrars collect credit card information from registrants which is not made public, and provide this to law enforcement agencies for legitimate purposes through well established processes. The terms of reference of the task force note that if any data is removed from general public access, that the task force must also specify how that data will be accessed by those with a legitimate need. I hope that your association will continue to be involved in the more challenging work ahead. Regards Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Reply from American Intellectual Property Law Association
by Bruce Tonkin June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

Hello All, I received a reply from Michael Kirk on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, which was copied to the chair of the ICANN Board, and the chair of the GAC. Mr Kirk attached a document in Microsoft Word format, but I have put it in plain text format below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ======================================================================== ================== Dear Mr. Tonkin, Thank you for your observations regarding the comments of the American Intellectual Property Law Association on the GNSO Council vote on the Formulation 1 definition of the purpose of the WHOIS service. Please find attached our reply to your observations. Regards, Mike Kirk ======================================================================== ================== June 21, 2006 Mr. Bruce Tonkin Chair, GNSO Council Dear Mr. Tonkin, Thank you for your reply to the comments submitted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association regarding the GNSO Council vote favoring the Formulation 1 definition of the purpose of the WHOIS service and for your reassurances about the "aims of the GNSO." We understand that no final decisions have been made, however, we must respectfully say that we are perplexed by your statements that you "don't understand how the letter relates to formulations 1 or 2" and that "members of the community have made pre-mature judgements on the eventual outcomes of the WHOIS work." In the Final task force report on the purpose of WHOIS and of the WHOIS contacts dated March 15, 2006, it is stated that "Task 1 of the task force terms of reference requires the WHOIS Task Force to define the purpose of WHOIS. Defining the purpose is important as it will guide work on the other work items in the terms of reference. [BEGIN emphasis] The purpose of WHOIS - when defined - will have a significant impact in determining the operation of WHOIS." [END emphasis] Looking at the two formulations, Formulation 1: "The purpose of the gTLD WHOIS service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver." Formulation 2: "The purpose of the WHOIS service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party or parties for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, technical, legal or other issues related to the registration or use of a domain name." We simply cannot see how using the narrower definition of WHOIS in Formulation 1 will not affect the outcome, or "have a significant impact in determining the operation of WHOIS" as stated in the final task force report. The future work of the task force, if it follows Formulation 1, will focus on providing information "...sufficient to...reliably pass on data [for resolving]... issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver." This is considerably narrower and more limited than the Formulation 2 definition "...to provide information sufficient to...pass on data...to resolve, technical, legal or other issues related to the registration or use of a domain name." While it is technically correct to state as you do that "that there are no changes in collected data, nor in the requirement for that data to be accurate," basing the further work of the task force on the narrow definition of the purpose of WHOIS in Formulation 1 will almost inevitably lead to recommendations that the data collected and the access provided to that data be more limited than is currently the case. AIPLA therefore maintains its request that the GNSO adopt a definition meeting the needs of all Internet users and that the ICANN Board closely monitor the policy development process, bearing in mind the importance of preserving the existing requirements to make up-to-date and accurate WHOIS information available to all who have a legitimate need to obtain such information. Thank you for consideration of the views of AIPLA. Sincerely Michael Kirk Executive Director

1 0

Marrakesh Schedule updates
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

[To: pdp-pcceg-feb06[at]gnso.icann.org; gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please see: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20jun06.htm and http://www.icann.org/meetings/marrakech/gnso-agenda.html for the latest updates on the schedules. Thank you and see some of you there! Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] SECOND ROUND BALLOT
by 'kent crispin' June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 10:58:18AM -0500, Kiyoshi I. Tsuru wrote: > I haven't received my ballot either. Hi Kiyoshi Your ballot was definitely sent to you, and, according to my logs, successfully received by your mail server. Unfortunately, the election is now closed, and there is nothing further that can be done about it. Had I known about your problem earlier it would have been very easy to send you another copy, but unfortunately, I didn't hear anything about a missing ballot until now. Your ballot was sent out at approximately 10 am PDT on June 15; here are the log entries of the ballot being sent, and received by your mail server: Jun 15 10:01:27 greenriver sendmail[28416]: k5FH1Rlt028416: from=<tally(a)icann.org>, size=3438, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<200606151701.k5FH1RbC028415(a)greenriver.icann.org>, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=greenriver [127.0.0.1] Jun 15 10:01:28 greenriver sendmail[28418]: k5FH1Rlt028416: to=<ktsuru(a)bgmt.com.mx>, delay=00:00:01, xdelay=00:00:01, mailer=esmtp, pri=33438, relay=mail.bgmt.com.mx. [72.32.2.231], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (ok 1150390885 qp 5155) Once at your mail server, of course, I can't track it further. The logs record 201 messages that have been successfully delivered to ktsuru(a)bgmt.com.mx over the past month or so. On two occasions, the messages were delayed a couple of hours; neither of these occasions was in the time frame of this election. Best Regards Kent Crispin -- kent(a)icann.org p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649

4 3

Re: [council] SECOND ROUND BALLOT
by 'kent crispin' June 21, 2006

June 21, 2006

Hi Marilyn On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 07:51:11PM +0000, Marilyn Cade wrote: > This response is not directed at technical staff. However, this situation > with voting is a little strange. I have run many elections, and from my perspective there was nothing unusual about this one. It's part of an extended history of email elections in the ICANN environment, and details, including the use and hazards of email to distribute ballots, have hashed out in excruciating detail long beforehand. The procedures for this election were posted at http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-01jun06.htm. The nature of email is well-known to everyone concerned. In particular, it is well-known that, like physical mail, email can be lost or delayed. We handle that contingency by 1) allowing a full week for balloting, 2) providing an alternate web-based interface, and 3) resending ballots whenever there is a request. In extreme cases (documented in the procedures) votes can be collected via personal contact with the Secretariat. Implicit in this arrangement is that people who want to vote are responsible for their mailboxes. We can't control peoples spam filters, or their accidental deletions, or their ISP's servers, or simply not noticing the email message in their box. > Three people did not receive ballots, It was sometimes necessary to resend, but in fact, there was only one person who did not ultimately receive a ballot, and, to my knowledge, that person did not request another until after the election was over. Everyone else not only received a ballot, but voted. > although technical staff validate the sending of ballots and receipt but not > in the mailbox of the intended recipient. Delivery is verified to the extent it is technically possible. Once mail is delivered to the remote server it is out of our hands, and it becomes the responsibility of the recipient. We cannot examine the recipients mailbox (most people would think that was a good thing :-)). > I ask that the election "team" work out a way to allow all councilors to vote. > We have documented complaints about the flow and receipt of ballots. > > This needs to be addressed by the General counsel, and adm staff > responsible for managing the election, and a process addressed for councilors > who did not receive the ballots but stated their intention to vote. > > Let's not have a contested election over technical failures. >From my perspective, there have been no reports of anything remotely resembling either a technical failure or a process failure. > I voted in the first round and have a "sent" message in my email outbox. > Yet when I asked for verification of receipt, my vote was not received. > The second round seems to have worked for me. Recall that email is an imperfect medium. In fact, your first round vote was ultimately received, and your vote was counted. It is up to others to decide, of course, but from my perspective this was a perfectly reasonable election. Best Regards Kent -- Kent Crispin kent(a)icann.org p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649

2 1

Re: [council] SECOND ROUND BALLOT
by kent crispin June 21, 2006

June 21, 2006

On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 10:45:30AM -0300, Anthony Harris wrote: > I have to advise that am unable to vote as have > not received the second round ballot as of yet. Hi Tony -- your ballot has been sent to you 3 times. All mail sent to you from that server has been received by your server. For example, the last ballot, re-sent at Glen's request this morning, shows this log entry: Jun 21 06:58:42 greenriver sendmail[6937]: k5LDwd5h006935: to=<harris(a)cabase.org.ar>, delay=00:00:03, xdelay=00:00:03, mailer=esmtp, pri=33281, relay=mail1.cabase.org.ar. [66.192.185.4], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (OK id=1Ft3E8-0008Cp-KG) Best Regards Kent Crispin -- kent(a)icann.org p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649

3 2