January 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Reminder: Call for nominations for GNSO Council Vice chair closes 23 January 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 17 Jan '08

17 Jan '08

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Reminder that the call for nominations for GNSO Council Vice chair for the period running concurrently with GNSO Council chair, from 1 February 2008 until 31 January 2009, is open and closes on 23 January at 12:00 UTC. All nominations should be seconded within the nomination period. Only GNSO Council members are eligible to make nominations and second nominations. Please send all nominations and seconds to: gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org and/or the Council mailing list: <council[at]gnso.icann.org> Nominations and seconds will be acknowledged and posted to the council list. B. VOTING PROCEDURE The voting will be by a roll call vote at the GNSO Council meeting on 31 January 2008. The winning candidate must receive at least 14 affirmative votes. In case of a tie, there will be a second round of voting. C. 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 the GNSO Council meeting on 31 January 2008 at 22:00 UTC as an important date because there must be quorum for the vote. Thank you Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Possible ‘Next Steps’ in Dispute Resolution
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 17 Jan '08

17 Jan '08

[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] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-11jan08.htm Possible ‘Next Steps’ in Dispute Resolution Document released by ICANN for Public Notice 11 January 2008 MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: Following the posting of the Frameworks and Principles for Accountability and Transparency, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers today published a document that countenances some possible additional improvements in dispute resolution mechanisms. In response to feedback on accountability and transparency issues during the consultation process — especially feedback received during a workshop at ICANN’s Los Angeles meeting held in November 2007 — the ‘Next Steps’ document contains two ideas: First, that the Board Governance Committee schedule a review of existing dispute resolution mechanisms to identify ways in which they may might provide even higher levels of accountability. This approach is inline with ICANN’s commitment to regularly review its structures. Second, that in the context of the upcoming Board review, the possibility of a mechanism for the community to ask the Board to reconsider a decision be investigated, along with a mechanism to dissolve and reconstitute the Board should it engage in unethical or other misbehavior. The document [PDF, 89K] is posted for public notice prior to final consideration by the Board. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Reference links for GNSO Council meeting 17 January 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 17 Jan '08

17 Jan '08

ITEM 2: Review/amend agenda (5) http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-17jan08.shtml ITEM 3: Approve GNSO minutes of 20 December 2007 (5) http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04385.html ITEM 4: Confirm voting from GNSO Council chair Election (5) Please check your confidential code and the vote registered http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04408.html ITEM 6: IDNC update - Edmon Chung (10) Draft Initial Report and consolidated comments on Topics List. see: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04453.html attached: Topic list consolidated comments.pdf attached: Draft Initial Report for WG comment.doc ITEM 7: Status on Reserved Names – Single and two-character names at the 2nd level (15) Summary of Comments submitted during the comment period (http://forum.icann.org/lists/allocationmethods/pdfyUMoT7lX49.pdf) ITEM 9: First discussion - Domain Tasting Initial Report (10) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-initial-report-domain-tast… ITEM 10: First Discussion Inter-Registrar Transfers Working Group Recommendations (20) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/irdx-policy-priorities-20dec07.pdf Item 11: Action Item Review (5) http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Draft minutes for the GNSO Council teleconference 3 January 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 16 Jan '08

16 Jan '08

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 3 January 2008 Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen ............................................................................ 3 January 2008 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C. Bilal Beiram - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent Tim Ruiz - Registrars - absent Adrian Kinderis - Registrars Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries Edmon Chung - gTLD registries Jordi Iparraguirre - gTLD registries - absent Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent, apologies Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent, apologies Robin Gross - NCUC Norbert Klein - NCUC - absent apologies Carlos Souza - NCUC Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee appointee Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 15 Council Members ( 18 Votes - quorum) ICANN Staff Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Officer Tina Dam - IDN Director Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager Karen Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent, apologies Bruce Tonkin - ICANN Board member MP3 Recording Avri Doria chaired the meeting. Approval of the agenda Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest No updates noted. Item 2: Review/amend agenda. No comments, agenda approved as posted. Item 3: Approval of the draft GNSO Council minutes 31 October 2007 6 December 2007 Chuck Gomes, seconded by Jon Bing moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes 31 October 2007 Motion unanimously approved. Robin Gross, seconded by Chuck Gomes moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes 6 December 2007 Motion unanimously approved Decision 1: The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 31 October 2007 and the GNSO Council minutes of 6 December 2007. Item 4: Update from Denise Michel on Board activities Denise Michel reported that the ICANN Board met on 11 December 2007 and an update of that meeting had been presented to the Council at its meeting on 20 December 2007 ICANN Chairman's report referring to new gTLDs was posted on the ICANN website. Kurt Pritz confirmed that consultants had been retained to write the RFP and the Board had been provided with additional information to help them with their deliberations on the new gTLD policy recommendations. Draft standards for objections based on public morality and on infringement of rights are in preparation for the new gTLD implementation process. Denise further drew Council's attention to the new budget cycle that would be followed up with reports and requests for input from the Council and the ICANN community at the New Delhi meetings. There will also be two opportunities for public comment before the final iteration of the Budget which will run in parallel with the Operational plan. It was agreed to keep the Update on Board activities as a standing agenda item. Item 5: Review/Extend timeline for Whois study suggestions An online form would be posted for the public to submit Whois study suggestions and comments. Mike Rodenbaugh was in agreement with community concerns about 'excessive delay' in resolving any new WHOIS policy, but felt strongly that 18 days (January 7 to January 25, 2008) was not enough time for Constituencies to have proper discussion and scoping proposals for study and requested that the dates after January 7 2008, be moved forward 12 days. The Council discussion indicated broad agreement for extending the timeline for Whois study suggestions Avri Doria proposed submitting a revised time schedule to the Council mailing list, allowing for the extension of the deadline to the end of the ICANN meetings in New Delhi, thereafter a week for collation and summary, followed by a Council teleconference to discuss the submissions and outcomes. Item 6: Decision on appeals note on IDNC WG Avri Doria noted that the Chuck Gomes put forward a counter-proposal, for the Council to consider sending to the ICANN Board (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04378.html) in place of the message to the Board relating to resolution 07.89 (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/repsonse-to-resolution-07-89-20dec07.pdf) Chuck Gomes commented that the response of the ccNSO Chair regarding the involvement of alternates, as well as allowing the GNSO Chair to observe on the Internationalized Domain Names ccTLD Working Group (referred to by the Board as IDNC Working Group) accommodated Council's concerns and it was no longer necessary to push for equal membership on that group. The critical issue, which names would fall into the ccNSO or GNSO space, should be handled separately from the IDNC by a community-wide group and should not become a ccNSO vs. GNSO issue. The counter-proposal states: Therefore, the GNSO Council recommends the following: * A new ICANN working group should be formed independent of groups already working on fast track IDN TLDs for countries or new gTLDs. * The ccNSO, GNSO, GAC and ALAC should jointly develop the statement of work of this group along with any participants from other ICANN bodies as desired. * This group should operate concurrently with present efforts such as the IDNC and the implementation efforts regarding new gTLDs with a goal of completing final recommendations within 120 days, thereby avoiding any unnecessary time delays that might impact fast track names or the new gTLD process. In addition, the proposal was not intended as a response to provide input to the Issues Report on Introduction of IDN ccTLDs (http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19dec07.htm). Denise Michel clarified that the IDNC working group had a limited scope, with no decision making authority, to develop feasible methods that could be used for the introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLD’s associated with ISO 3166 -1 two letter codes. The community, the GNSO, ccNSO, GAC and other interested groups would vet the proposals and have the opportunity to comment before they were forwarded to the board. As a separate, long term endeavour, the ccNSO was launching a full policy development process to develop an overall policy for the introduction of IDN ccTTLD’s. A third, ongoing endeavor was the GNSO’s work in responding to the Issue Report on Introduction of IDN ccTLDs (http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19dec07.htm). Avri Doria commented that while the IDNC charter may be limited, essentially, there were several implicit details about the treatment of the name space and the intent of the charter was problematic without proper full representation. Chuck Gomes further commented that the implementation of the fast-track recommendations would depend on where the names would fit in the policy development space, whether in the ccNSO or the GNSO. Chuck Gomes's counter-proposal was generally considered a better approach to the first message because the division of the general name space between the country codes and the generics did not belong in the IDNC, and a new group would be more appropriate to handle the issue. For the message to reach the Board in time for consideration at its next meeting on 23 January 2008, Avri Doria proposed the following resolution: Whereas a GNSO drafting team proposed a message relating to Board Resolution 07.89 regarding a fast-track for IDN ccTLDs (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/message-to-board-resolution-07-89-20dec07.pdf) Whereas Chuck Gomes proposed an alternate Message to Draft 0.3 distributed by Avri Doria relating to Board Resolution 07.89 regarding a fast-track for IDN ccTLDs (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04378.html) Council resolved that: Chuck Gomes will spend 2 days processing any editorial changes suggested on the Council mailing list. On 6 January 2008 a final version will be posted on the mailing list. If there are no substantive objections to the wording, the message will then be forwarded to the Board by the Chair. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Item 7: Discuss memo on proxy voting and formation of Drafting Team Liz Gasster reported that the memo on proxy voting drafted in collaboration with Dan Halloran considered the implementation issues associated with proxy voting with the focus on addressing the concerns that John Jeffrey had previously raised related to its implementation. One such concern was that no other organization within ICANN used proxy voting so it would be a change to the bylaws and the structural changes within ICANN. In addition, Councils, like Boards of Directors, require active participation from the members. Proxy voting could possibly be applied to the GNSO Council, but not to task forces or working groups. Electronic voting was considered in lieu of proxy voting so a vote could take place over a period of time following a discussion, to give absentees the chance to both review the discussions and have their vote considered. Several councillors expressed their support for the idea of extending votes and felt that it made the process more flexible. Roll call votes, rather than votes by acclamation should be considered for proxy votes. Avri Doria suggested forming a drafting team to report back at the next Council meeting on 17 January 2008. Philip Sheppard volunteered to lead the drafting team consisting of Chuck Gomes and Robin Gross with Liz Gasster as staff support. Item 8: Long term Travel funding plan for Council members - Vote on letter to CEO/COO Avri Doria noted that there were two separate issues: 1. In terms of New Delhi, ICANN's response was that they would provide, through their travel desk, only coach fares, and no lodging. Council members should work individually with the ICANN travel desk and/ or Denise Michel on their airfare arrangements. 2. Sending a letter to either the CEO, Dr Paul Twomey or the COO, Doug Brent, or both regarding the long term issue of travel funding for Council members to ICANN meetings. Denise Michel clarified that the CEO was developing a long term policy proposal and practice for funding ICANN volunteers' travel as part of the next fiscal year's budget and this would be actively discussed at the New Delhi meetings. Since the letter involved both a political and operational decision, it was agreed to address it to both the CEO and the COO. The letter would include the Council vote by which it was approved. Jon Bing mentioned that although all his expenses were paid as a Nominating Committee representative, he would still vote. This also applied to the two other Nominating Committee representatives, Avri Doria and Olga Cavalli who were voting as Council members. Avri Doria proposed Whereas the GNSO council remains concerned about funding the council members to attend future ICANN meetings Resolved that the letter drafted in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04353.html To: Paul Twomey CC: Doug Brent Dear Sirs, I am writing on behalf to the GNSO council with a request for travel funding for all GNSO council members for all future ICANN meetings. While this issue originally came up in regard to an urgent need for the New Delhi meeting which has been resolved, it remains an issue of concern in the GNSO council. A [strong] majority of those in the council has requested that all GNSO council members receive the same consideration for their travel expenses as is received by Members of the ICANN Board. The GSNO council appreciates your prompt consideration of this request. We look forward to receiving a response to the request as soon as possible. Thank you, Avri Doria Chair, GNSO Council be sent to the CEO of ICANN and to the COO of ICANN. The motion carried 12 votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Bilal Beiram, Mike Rodenbaugh, Kristina Rosette, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Robin Gross, Carlos Souza, Olga Cavalli, Jon Bing, Avri Doria (one vote each). 6 votes against: Adrian Kinderis, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung (2 votes each). Absent Council members: Ute Decker, Cyril Chua, Norbert Klein, Tim Ruiz, Tom Keller, Jordi Iparraguirre. Item 9: Discuss New Delhi meeting organisation The GNSO Council has scheduled two working days, Saturday 9 and Sunday 10 February 2008 before the official meetings start. Among the topics to be discussed at the face to face meetings are: - GNSO Improvements - Inter-Registrar Transfer working group recommendations - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Development Process (PDP) Initial Report discussion - IDN issues related to the Board Resolutions 07.57 and 07.89 - Domain Name Tasting The Open Council meeting formula will again be used, where an overview of the topics will be presented, followed by open discussion and then concluded by Council discussion. In addition there will be an open comment period at the end. Council input would be collated by the chair and the staff, and further proposals would be presented to the Council for discussion later. Item 10: Action Items Only two constituency statements had been received for the Inter-Registrar Transfer PDP by the deadline on 25 December 2007 and the time line was extended to 20 January 2008 for the Initial Report. The Domain Name Tasting PDP still has one constituency statement pending which will be incorporated into the Final report along with a summary of public comments if possible. Preparation of the Final Report will not be delayed any longer. Item 10: AOB Kristina Rosette mentioned the difficulties of not being able to edit Google documents during meeting hours from 9:00am to 9:00pm as a result of proprietary restrictions at her workplace. A resolution was mentioned that included the fact that in addition to the ability to edit on Google documents, it was also possible to just view using Google. Additionally, any edits someone wanted to make could be sent to the mailing list and they would be entered onto the Google documents on the person's behalf. Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting ended at 22:48 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 17 January 2008 at 15:00 UTC. see: Calendar -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: ICANN GNSO - Group 3356 - PAX NAME: Klein ***Response is Required ASAP***Attn Annie
by Norbert Klein 16 Jan '08

16 Jan '08

I address this response mail to "Sabregrpair" <sabregrpair(a)aexp.com> but I copy it also to several other persons, because it shows that the present discussion about a fair sharing of travel and hotel expenses for GNSO Council members needs obviously to be carried to a different level, first of all also to Ms. Stacy Hoffberg, in charge of ICANN travel arrangements. Dear Stacy, I just found the following mail this morning in my inbox, requiring a response within 72 hours: = = = Hello, fare is now USD 2577.70 no lower fares available Please review the tentative itinerary below for changes or approval to ticket. You have 72 hours from the time of receipt of this email to respond, otherwise your tentative flight reservation will automatically gets canceled... . . . PENALTY FARE REMARKS THIS IS AN ADVANCED PURCHASE NONRFUNDABLE FARE. ANY CHANGES MAY RESULT IN A HIGHER FARE AND CHANGE FEE... = = = I am utterly surprised. When I started to inquire about flights to the New Delhi ICANN meetings and made a tentative reservation a long time ago, I could have bought the ticket for US$535. Then, in the meantime, it went up to US$590 – and I had mentioned this also in my earlier mails, always adding that the airfare prices I quote are subject to possible change. So this morning, after receiving the mail above, I contacted immediately my normal agent again: the ticket is now $695, changeable and refundable – and still available, if I would purchase it early in the week. And it is exactly for the same airline and for the same flights for which the ICANN agent would charge 3.7 times more than my agent here. I remember some comments in the discussions of the Council that ICANN should not too easily accept to pay for the expenses which the GNSO Council members incur for travel and face-to-face meetings. Especially, there was hesitation expressed about paying hotel costs for GNSO Council members. In the meantime we had the GNSO information about the prices for the suggested hotels – the hotel rates for one night are in the general range of the GNP per person for one year in Cambodia. As I am working as a volunteer without salary since the last 18 months, I would appreciate: 1) to be authorized to buy my ticket here for US$695.00 (for later re-imbursement), and 2) to receive the difference between the two prices quoted ($2,577.70 minus $695.00), that is $1,882.70, towards covering hotel costs in New Delhi. Naturally, I need an answer within less than 72 hours, as that is the deadline that was given in the mail to me this morning. I am aware that this may raise some difficult questions, but I think the price difference is so outrageous that I cannot but put this up for wider discussion for a quick decision now, and towards future policy discussions. Sincerely, Norbert Klein Member of the GNSO Council cc: Ms. Denise Michel Dr. Paul Twomey GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council

4 3

Schedule for weekend of 9 February
by Rosette, Kristina 16 Jan '08

16 Jan '08

Do we know when the schedule for the weekend meetings will be available? Are we even having any? Thanks. Kristina

3 3

Some personal thoughts after listening to the ccNSO recording.
by Avri Doria 16 Jan '08

16 Jan '08

Hi I think there has been an essential misunderstanding of the position regarding equality on the Fast Track and in the process of deciding on the apportionment issue of IDN TLDs. And while I have tried to make this point to Chris, I have obviously failed in doing so. The issue was never one of an equality in numbers - though, as evidenced in their call, Chris insists on referring to it that way. The issue was related to the core issue of who is responsible for determining the apportionment of IDN TLDs into i-gTLD and i-ccTLD name spaces. My feeling, and I believe this is supported by many in the council, is that until such time as the community resolves this issue, it remains a community issue and neither a ccNSO nor a gNSO issue. Thus, for a fast track WG on methods for assign a few non contentious i-TLDs, to actually succeed it needed to be done in a group where the ccNSO and gNSO were represented as peers. When Chris and Janis first mentioned this idea to me, I had understood them to be planning just such a WG of equals, though it was clear that the ccNSO was going to take the responsibility of initiating the process. It wasn't until the charter was presented to the board that I realized he had done something other then what I had expected and that he included the gNSO in a lesser capacity. And while I objected to him at the time, before the board voted, it does not seem as if I succeed in conveying that message successfully. While I had originally been in favor of asking the Board to reconsider its decision to charter the IDNC WG according to the ccNSO proposed charter, I certainly accept the alternate proposal as put forward by Chuck as a good way to proceed and in fact have come to believe that, at this point in time, it is the better path to solution. The reason for making sure all stakeholders were represented in the Fast Track working group would have been to allow it to make multi stakeholder recommendations without needing to wait for all issues to be resolved - something which I believe was in the sprit of the Boards resolution. It is of course too late for that now. In listening to the ccNSO call, I believe that the critical difference between the SOs on this issue boils down to: - the ccNSO council believes that the decision regarding the apportionment IDN ccTLD name space is completely and solely within the scope of a ccNSO policy process. There seems to be a belief among those in the ccNSO council that the ccNSO is entitled to territory names and that it is no one's business outside of the GAC and ccNSO how many i-ccTLDs are created. - the GNSO council believes that any decision regarding the apportionment of IDN TLDs is a community wide decision and that the i- ccTLD name space will be within the scope of ccNSO policy process only after the board has approved a recommendation on apportionment that comes from all IDN domain name stakeholders As things stand, I believe that the ccNSO council is interested in a face to face meeting with the GNSO council. In this spirit I also personally welcome the possibility of meeting council to council with the ccNSO in ND. I say this in the hope that in such a face to face meeting we can talk about substantial issues based on a Board resolution that supports our recommendation for a process to resolve this critical difference in views. a.

2 1

FW: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Initial Report and consolidated comments on Topics List.
by Edmon Chung 16 Jan '08

16 Jan '08

From: owner-ccnso-idncctld(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:26 PM To: ccnso-idncctld(a)icann.org Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Initial Report and consolidated comments on Topics List. Importance: High All, Attached are 2 documents. 1. The consolidated comments on topic list. 2. The 1st Draft Initial Report for comment. Bart and I have used the Topics List and the comments to craft the Initial Report draft. The goal is to get an agreed draft of the Initial Report published for community comment in the first week of February which will mean that the various ICANN communities can discuss it in Delhi as well as on lists. The Topics List has now served its purpose and all of the topics have now been re-drafted and moved across to the draft Initial Report. So it is the draft Initial Report upon which the WG should now be working and commenting. Please send your comments to the list by the 28th January. 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.

1 0

FW: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: Working Group Chair for this group
by Edmon Chung 15 Jan '08

15 Jan '08

From: owner-ccnso-idncctld(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:14 AM To: ccnso-idncctld(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: Working Group Chair for this group All, The ccTLD members of the WG have nominate Dr Young Eum Lee from Korea as joint chair of the working group. 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. _____ From: owner-ccnso-idncctld(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2008 13:12 To: ccnso-idncctld(a)icann.org Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: Working Group Chair for this group Thank you Cheryl. This seems like a sensible way to proceed. Janis, perhaps you would ask your GAC colleagues if anyone wishes to volunteer and I will do the same with the cc members. We can then suggest the names to this list and see if people are happy. 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. _____ From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 31 December 2007 13:11 To: ccnso-idncctld(a)icann.org; ceo(a)auda.org.au Subject: Working Group Chair for this group Hello... on Fri 21/12/2007 10:48 AM I sent the following message to this list (but from an alternate email address not the one I am subscribed frrom :-( *sigh* blame it on pre Cgristmas /end of year rush in the close of tender season for my buiness *sigh again* I do apologise for this error, but please note my following suggestion for discussion regarding one of our requirements for WG Chair appointment... CLO *************************************************************** Regarding the required appointment of Chair for this WG… Might I suggest that a pair of Co-Chairs be appointed to provide the best balance and load share possible? To this end, if in agreement, then one should be from ccNSO and the other I assume from GAC. Kindest Regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr Chair ALAC 2007-08 -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

1 0

Reminder about constituency statements on the IRT PDP
by Avri Doria 14 Jan '08

14 Jan '08

Hi, So far we have only received 2 out of 6 constituency statement. The initial report was supposed to go out on 20 January, but with such a low response rate, we will have to postpone publishing the initial report and starting the public comment period. I ask the constituencies to please get their response in as soon as possible. I will be asking for delivery dats at our next meeting so that we can reset the schedule. thanks a.

1 0