January 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

The IDN Glossary is now available in different langauges
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 23, 2008

Jan. 23, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] The IDN Glossary is now available in Spanish, Portuguese, French, Russian, Arabic, and Simplified Chinese - all from http://www.icann.org/topics/idn/idn-glossary.htm -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Proposed GNSO Council teleconference Agenda 31 January 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 23, 2008

Jan. 23, 2008

Dear Council members, Please find the proposed GNSO Council teleconference agenda for 31 January 2008, attached and in plain text below. Please note that quorum is very important as there will be the vote for the GNSO Council vice chair. Please let me know if you have any questions and comments. Thank you. Kind regards Glen ............................................................................ Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 31 January 2008 http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-31jan08.shtml This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the GNSO Council Coordinated Universal Time UTC 21:00 - see below for local times (13:00 Los Angeles, 16:00 Washington DC, 21:00 London, 22:00 Brussels, 08:00 Melbourne, next day) Avri Doria will be chairing the GNSO Council meeting Scheduled time for meeting 120 mins. Dial-in numbers sent individually to Council members. Item 0: Roll call of Council members (5 min) Item 1: Update any statements of interest (5 mins) Item 2: Review/amend agenda (5 mins) Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes of 3 January 2008 (5 mins) http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04457.html Item 4: Vote for GNSO Council vice chair (5 mins) http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04507.html Item 5: Update from Denise Michel on Board activities (15 mins) Item 6: IDNC update - Edmon Chung (10 mins) Item 7: Report of draft of Council response to Board resolution on IDN ccTLDs rework team (30 mins) Item 8: Discuss feedback from Board relating to GNSO message (15 mins) http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04406.html Item 9: Decision on absentee voting (20 mins) Item 10: Final plans for New Delhi meetings (10 mins) Item 11: Action Item Review (5 mins) http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf Item 12: AOB (13:00 Los Angeles, 16:00 Washington DC, 21:00 London, 22:00 Brussels, 08:00 Melbourne, next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 21:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8-0DST 13:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 16:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-2+1DST 19:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-2+1DST 19:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 21:00 Brussels, Belgium (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Karlsruhe, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Barcelona, Spain (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Oslo, Norway (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Amman, Jordan UTC+2+0DST 23:00 Phnom Penh, Cambodia UTC+7+0DST 04:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 05:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 05:00 Melbourne, Australia (EST) UTC+10+1DST 08:00 (next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2008, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Proposed GNSO Council meeting dates after the New Delhi meetings
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 23, 2008

Jan. 23, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council members, The following are proposed dates for the GNSO Council meetings after New Delhi. Thursday 28 February 2008 Thursday 13 March 2008 Thursday 17 April 2008 Thursday 15 May 2008 Thursday 12 June 2008 Saturday 21 Sunday 22 June GNSO Council Face to face meetings in Paris 22 - 27 June 2008 ICANN Paris meetings Please comment and let me know of any unavoidable conflicts there could be with these dates. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Vice Chair elections
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 23, 2008

Jan. 23, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, The formal nomination period, for the election of the GNSO Council vice chair for the period running concurrently with GNSO Council chair from 1 february 2008 until 31 January 2009, open for two weeks from Wednesday 9 January 2008 to Wednesday 23 January 2008 at 12:00 noon UTC has now closed. There was 1 nomination: Chuck Gomes, nominated by Avri Doria, seconded by Olga Cavalli, accepted his nomination, http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04468.html seconded by Olga http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04485.html Chuck has accepted his nomination. VOTING PROCEDURE The voting will be by a roll call vote at the GNSO Council meeting on 31 January 2008 at 21:00 UTC. The winning candidate must receive at least 14 affirmative votes. GNSO COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC), Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee appointees. Liaisons from the ALAC and the GAC do not vote. Please note this as an important date because there MUST be quorum for the vote. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Enfranchising absent voters
by Philip Sheppard Jan. 23, 2008

Jan. 23, 2008

Fellow Council members, The small group drafting a proposal to enfranchise absent Council members has completed its work. Attached is a proposal for electronic voting by absent Council members. The group believes this process is sufficient to enfranchise the votes of absent Council members and thus no duplication with a system of proxy voting is needed. In short one or the other are workable and both achieve the same goal: we opted to recommend electronic voting. Note: 1) In discussion the group raised the issue of conflicts of interest. The electronic voting proposal contains a sufficient reference on conflicts. However, the group recommends that Council separately address this issue of conflicts as there are a number of aspects that could be usefully explored with respect to ordinary in person voting and conflicts.This discussion on conflicts need not delay a Council decision on electronic voting. 2) One group member also raised the issue of an option for a Council member present at a meeting to instead vote later by electronic vote. As this need went beyond the enfranchisement of absent voters and introduces additionally complexity it is not included in the attached proposal and may again be considered separately if Council so desire. Philip Sheppard Chuck Gomes Robin Gross ----------------------------------------

7 10

Fwd: Joint Council meeting - Delhi
by Avri Doria Jan. 23, 2008

Jan. 23, 2008

Hi, I have responded to Chris that I would reply with a formal response shortly, but noted that in general I thought there was agreement in the council for such a meeting. I did ask him whether this was to be an open or closed meeting, noting that all of our meetings were generally open but as this was his invitation, I wanted to check. I will pass on his response once I get it. I suggest a 48 hour call on this decision: i.e would anyone who objects to my sending a response formally accepting this invitation with a suggestion of a meeting time of 1230 please respond to the list. Thanks a. Begin forwarded message: > From: "Chris Disspain" <ceo(a)auda.org.au> > Date: 22 January 2008 09:00:21 GMT+01:00 > To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri(a)acm.org> > Cc: "ccNSO Council" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> > Subject: Joint Council meeting - Delhi > > Hi Avri, > > Further to the ccNSO letter to the ICANN Board of yesterday, I write > to formally invite the full GNSO council to a meeting with the full > ccNSO Council to discuss the GNSO resolution of 3 January and our > response, the ccPDP and the fast track. > > I hope that GNSO Council is willing to have this meeting, which, we > have suggested in our letter should be independently moderated. If > so, I suspect that it is timing that will be challenging. As you > know it is intended that the IDNC Working Group will ‘host’ an open > session on Monday afternoon in Delhi to discuss where the WG is up > to and to get as much input as possible. I think that we can run > that workshop from, latest, 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm. On that basis, would > the GNSO Council be prepared to meet with the ccNSO Council > commencing at some time between Noon and 1.00 pm? > > Cheers, > > Chris Disspain > CEO - auDA > Australia's Domain Name Administrator > ceo(a)auda.org.au > www.auda.org.au > > Important Notice - This email may contain information which is > confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for > the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this > email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the > sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the > environment before printing this email. > >

2 1

Clarification of a point in ccNSO letter to the Board
by Avri Doria Jan. 23, 2008

Jan. 23, 2008

Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> When the ccNSO says: >> >>> c) During the process the delegation of new TLDs would need to be >>> suspended to ensure >>> that TLDs are not created in circumstances that would be a breach of >>> the policy being >>> developed. >>> >> >> Is the ccNSO referring to all TLDs or just to IDN TLDs? There has >> been some question about this on the GNSO council list. And while I >> have stated that I believe the ccNSO meant all TLDs including non-IDN >> gTLDs, I have not been able to say so with any authority. > > [Chris Disspain] It's a step by step scenario. If 'policy' setting > were > limited to what is a ccTLD IDN and what is a gTLD IDN then, > presumably one > would argue that only IDNs would need to be suspended. However, the > argument is that it cannot be done that way and that one would have > to go > to the basic question what is a ccTLD and what is a gTLD and on that > basis > then all new TLDs would need to be suspended. > >

1 0

Fwd: [ccnso-members] Extension of comment period on Issues Report
by Avri Doria Jan. 23, 2008

Jan. 23, 2008

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Chris Disspain" <ceo(a)auda.org.au> > Date: 23 January 2008 00:30:24 GMT+01:00 > To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri(a)acm.org> > Subject: FW: [ccnso-members] Extension of comment period on Issues > Report > > Avri, > > For your and the GNSO's information. > > Cheers, > > Chris Disspain > CEO - auDA > Australia's Domain Name Administrator > ceo(a)auda.org.au > www.auda.org.au > > > Important Notice - This email may contain information which is > confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for > the > use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended > recipient, > you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have > received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete > this > message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing > this > email. > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ccnso-members(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel >> Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2008 23:06 >> To: ccNSO Members; ccNSO Council; cctld-discuss(a)wwtld.org >> Subject: [ccnso-members] Extension request for input preparation >> Issues > Report >> >> >> Dear all, >> At its meeting on 2 October 2007 the ccNSO Council requested the >> creation of an Issue Report as a first step in launching a ccPDP. To >> identify matters that are potentially relevant to the Issues >> Report, a >> comment period was opened on 19 December 2007 and would remain open >> until 25 January 2008. >> >> In the Issue Report the following needs to be considered: >> 1. Whether Article IX of the ICANN bylaws applies to IDN ccTLDs >> associated with the ISO 3166-1 two letter codes, and if it does not >> then >> to establish if Article IX should apply. >> 2. Whether the ccNSO should launch a PDP to develop the policy for > the >> selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 >> two-letter codes. >> >> As you may have noted both the GNSO Council and ccNSO Council have >> send >> a letter to the ICANN Board relating to core elements of the IDN >> ccPDP. >> It is anticipated the ccNSO and GNSO Council will meet during the >> ICANN >> meeting in New Delhi to explain and discuss the background of the >> views >> expressed in the letters. It is my view as Issue Manager of the ccPDP >> that the outcome of such a meeting, if it will be convened, is >> significant as input for the Issues Report. Therefore the period to >> provide input into the Issues Report is extended from 25 Janaury >> until >> 22 February 2008. >> >> According to the ICANN by laws the creation of the Issue Report is >> the >> second step in launching the IDN ccPDP. The first step was the >> request >> of the ccNSO Council on 2 October 2007 to create an Issue Report. The >> final step is the decision of the ccNSO Council to initiate the >> ccPDP >> (see ICANN by laws Annex B, section 2). >> >> Kind regards, >> Bart Boswinkel >> Issue Manager IDN ccPDP > >

1 0

Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution
by Avri Doria Jan. 22, 2008

Jan. 22, 2008

Forwarded with permission a. Begin forwarded message: > From: "Chris Disspain" > Date: 21 January 2008 12:11:37 GMT+01:00 > > Subject: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution > > Peter and Paul, > > Attached is the ccNSO response to the GNSO resolution of 3 January > 2008. Please forward this letter to the ICANN Board list at your > earliest convenience. > > Pursuant to the letter I shall be formally writing to Avri Doria > tomorrow to invite the GNSO to a joint meeting in New Delhi. > > Kind Regards, > > Chris Disspain > CEO - auDA > Australia's Domain Name Administrator > ceo(a)auda.org.au > www.auda.org.au > > Important Notice - This email may contain information which is > confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for > the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this > email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the > sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the > environment before printing this email. > >

7 14

RE: AW: [council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 22, 2008

Jan. 22, 2008

Seems unlikely that they would make such an oversight given the topic and their involvement in it. I took it exactly as Avri describes. Either way, this is why the joint meeting is necessary. Also, not sure if I agree that the their brief desciption of the string criteria is acceptable. As always, the devil is in the details. We shouldn't assume anything and buy off on it without an opportunity to influence the details. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AW: [council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution From: "Thomas Keller" <tom(a)1und1.de> Date: Tue, January 22, 2008 7:17 am To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri(a)psg.com>, "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, before we get into guessing what they might have meant we should wait until we meet them in Delhi. Best, tom -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Januar 2008 07:22 An: Council GNSO Betreff: Re: [council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution Hi, I am not sure that it applies to IDN gTDS only. As some of the questions ask in the ccNSO/GAC questions list related t LDH ASCII TLDs, e.g. a) Should all IDN ccTLD strings be of a fixed length, for example by retaining the two-character limitation that applies to ASCII ccTLD labels, or can they be of variable length? If a variable string length is introduced for IDN ccTLDs, should it also be introduced for ASCII ccTLDs? As the last sentence indicates, there is interest in variable length LDH ASCII ccTLDs, I believe the meaning of the statement is that if the issue of apportionment is opened and the group the GNSO council is approved, then everything, include the LDG restriction to 2 letter codes, should be on the table. In that case, I believe they are arguing that no new gTLDs of any sort should go forward until all issues were resolved. I think the reference to TLD as opposed to IDN TLD is deliberate and not accidental: the rest f the note carefully discusses IDN TLDs. Only in this section is the reference to IDN dropped and the scope of the issue escalated. That, at least is my understanding of their position. a. On 22 Jan 2008, at 02:49, Rosette, Kristina wrote: > I also support your proposal, Chuck, and agree with both you and Robin > w/r/t IDN ccTLD string criteria. I did read the "delegation > suspension" bullet to apply to IDN gTLDs. > > K > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org > ] On Behalf Of Robin Gross > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 7:41 PM > To: Chuck Gomes; Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution > > Thanks for giving this so much thought, Chuck. I support your > proposal for moving forward. And I agree that if the IDN ccTLD string > selection criteria ends up being the one quoted below, we shouldn't > have too much disagreement. > > Robin > > > On Jan 21, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >> Here a some of my thoughts in response to this letter as well as some >> suggested action items that I think should be done in the next few >> days. >> >> First of all, I compliment the ccNSO on a well articulated letter >> with what seems to me to be a constructive tone. Second, I suggest >> that Avri officially support the recommendation for a joint ccNSO/ >> GNSO meeting in New Delhi, an idea that I believe she has already >> indicated support for. Third, I recommend that we use the time we >> have between now and New Delhi to carefully prepare for the proposed >> joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting in New Delhi. Regarding the >> latter: >> � >> I believe that completion of the GNSO response to the ccNSO/GAC >> Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs is a key step. Ideally it would have been >> good to accomplish that before the end of the ccNSO public comment >> period on their IDN ccTLD PDP (25 January). Because that is not >> feasible before the New Delhi meetings, I suggest that, before 25 >> January, Avri send a letter to the ccNSO and to their comment site >> informing them that our response (as requested by the >> Board) will not be completed until New Delhi and we respectfully >> request that our input be considered in the PDP. [Note that we would >> need to act on this before the end of this current week so we will >> have to decide whether or not to do this via our list.] >> � >> I do not think that it will be effective to engage in discussion with >> the ccNSO regarding the issues we are concerned about prior to the >> joint meeting in New Delhi. In my opinion, the chances are too high >> that there will be misunderstanding and even miscommunication until >> both Councils are face to face and that can cause more harm to the >> success of the joint meeting than good. >> � >> As a means of getting our preparation for the joint meeting started, >> I identify the following points from the ccNSO letter to the Board >> for which I believe we need to prepare: 1) The ccNSO clearly believes >> that the issues we raised will take much longer than 120 days; 2) >> they appear to assume that it is possible to introduce fast tract IDN >> ccTLDs before any resolution of the issues we raised; 3) they state >> that as far as the issues relate to IDN ccTLDs, they should be the >> responsibility of the ccNSO; 4) they also believe that they must be >> dealt with in a PDP. I provide my preliminary thinking about each of >> these below. >> 1) The ccNSO clearly believes that the issues we raised will take >> much longer than 120 days. >> � >> The original intent of the 120 day target was to attempt to avoid any >> further delays in the implementation of IDN TLDs (gTLDs or cc fast >> track IDN TLDs). >> � >> I believe that the goal of avoiding further delays remains valid and >> if the 120 day target is unrealistic, then it is important to begin >> work on the issues we raised as soon as possible with the goal of at >> least agreeing to some interim approach until full resolution of the >> issues can be completed. >> 2) They appear to assume that it is possible to introduce fast tract >> IDN ccTLDs before any resolution of the issues we raised. >> � >> I believe that this may be a fundamental difference of opinion >> between the GNSO and ccNSO but not one that necessarily needs to be a >> show stopper. I think it is less important for the two SO's to come >> to agreement on the assumption than it is to jointly develop an >> interim approach as suggested in the previous item. >> � >> I don't think we should spend a lot of time trying to convince them >> that a final policy for allocating new TLDs into GNSO and ccNSO name >> space has to happen before any IDN TLDs are introduced, but instead >> we should work together to come up with a way that our concerns can >> be addressed in the short term. I Therefore, I recommend that we >> focus our attention on coming up with some ways forward on this that >> satisfy our needs with regard to TLD allocation and still allow the >> ccNSO to deal with the bigger policy issues over a longer period of >> time. >> 3) They state that as far as the issues relate to IDN ccTLDs, they >> should be the responsibility of the ccNSO. >> � >> This is a point where I believe there is gap in understanding between >> the GNSO and ccNSO or at least there does not seem to be an >> recognition of a key point we tried to make: allocation of new TLDs >> into the DNS is an issue that affects both SO's and therefore must be >> worked by both SO's. >> � >> This is an area that I think deserves caution because I think it >> would be counterproductive for us to give the impression that the >> GNSO wants to determine policy for the ccNSO so we should make it >> clear from the outset that that is not our intent. >> � >> This is a place where an example might be helpful. Consider the case >> of .berlin. Should that be a GNSO or a ccNSO. It appears to me at a >> minimum that guidelines need to be in place before .berlin is >> introduce that determine what SO has policy responsibility. And any >> such guidelines need to be developed by both SO's because both SO's >> are impacted. >> >> 4) They believe that the issues the GNSO raised must be dealt with in >> a PDP. >> � >> If this is the case, which PDP process should be used? the GNSO PDP >> or the ccNSO PDP? It may not matter too much provided that the PDP >> used allows for full participation by the other SO with regard to the >> TLD allocation issue. >> � >> At present, there is not a joint PDP process in the ICANN Bylaws; >> maybe this is an idea for further development. >> � >> The idea of a less formal joint working group was made to facilitate >> a timely response to the issues. In my opinion, waiting two years >> for a ccNSO PDP process doesn't work, at least not for the >> development of an interim approach to the broader TLD allocation >> issues. This seems to be a key area where the two SO's need to focus >> attention. >> � >> In the meantime, I am confident that we can work together with the >> ccNSO. From what I have observed so far, the ccNSO is heading in a >> direction that is not far off from what we could support. In the >> draft issues report that the IDNC is considering, one idea under >> consideration for IDN ccTLD string selection is this: "the string >> must be a meaningful representation of the name of the Territory or >> an abbreviation of the name of the Territory in the relevant script". >> Please note that this is not a final position. But if it is adopted >> it provides some defined limitations in terms of IDN ccTLDs and could >> possibly even be used in developing interim guidelines for allocation >> of TLDs into the two policy name spaces.o Finally, I have concerns >> about the following statement in the next to last paragraph of the >> ccNSO letter to the Board: "During the process the delegation of new >> TLDs would need to be suspended to ensure that TLDs are not created >> in circumstances that would be a breach of the policy being >> developed." I think we need to get clarification of this in the >> proposed joint meeting. Considering that the ccNSO PDP is estimated >> to take at least two years, this could easily be a way of delaying >> IDN gTLDs, depending on what it means. I am not suggesting that it >> was intended that way but I definitely think we need to get clarity >> in that regard. >> >> In conclusion, I am proposing the following action times, the first >> two of which need to happen in the next four days (NLT 25 Jan.): >> � >> Avri send a letter to Chris Dispain officially supporting the >> recommendation for a joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting in New Delhi. >> � >> Avri send a letter to the ccNSO and to their comment site informing >> them that our response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs >> (as requested by the Board) will not be completed until New Delhi and >> we respectfully request that our input be considered in the PDP. >> � >> We initiate a planning process for the joint meeting in New Delhi >> ASAP. >> To facilitate moving forward on the above so that we can meet the >> time constraints, please comment on the Council list right away. >> >> Chuck >> >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org >> ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 6:30 AM >> To: Council GNSO >> Subject: [council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution >> Importance: High >> >> Forwarded with permission >> >> a. >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: "Chris Disspain" >>> Date: 21 January 2008 12:11:37 GMT+01:00 >>> >>> Subject: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution >>> >>> Peter and Paul, >>> Attached is the ccNSO response to the GNSO resolution of 3 January >>> 2008. Please forward this letter to the ICANN Board list at your >>> earliest convenience. >>> Pursuant to the letter I shall be formally writing to Avri Doria >>> tomorrow to invite the GNSO to a joint meeting in New Delhi. >>> Kind Regards, >>> Chris Disspain >>> CEO - auDA >>> Australia's Domain Name Administrator ceo(a)auda.org.au >>> www.auda.org.au Important Notice - This email may contain >>> information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, >>> and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are >>> not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any >>> part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, >>> please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please >>> consider the environment before printing this email. > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org > > >

1 0