December 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Revamped Whois Inaccuracy Reporting System Goes Live
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 19, 2008

Dec. 19, 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] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19dec08-en.htm Revamped Whois Inaccuracy Reporting System Goes Live 19 December 2008 A redesigned system for receiving reports of inaccurate domain name registration data has gone live today. The Whois Data Problem Report System (WDPRS) has a number of advantages over the previous system, which was first introduced in 2002. Among them are: More detailed information is captured from complainants to assist registrars in investigating Whois inaccuracies Duplicate reports regarding the same domain name are not accepted by the system Reports concerning domains already on hold are removed Greater capacity has been introduced to allow for bulk submissions of reports Processes have been put in place to assess registrar compliance with RAA Whois inaccuracy investigation requirements The revamped WDRPS can be found at http://wdprs.internic.net/. Background: The WDPRS allows the public to file reports of Whois inaccuracy regarding active domain names. The WDPRS transmits Whois inaccuracy reports, via email, to the sponsoring registrars for investigation as required by Section 3.7.8 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm. In 2002, ICANN developed the WDPRS to improve Whois data accuracy and to assist registrars in carrying out their responsibility to take reasonable steps to investigate Whois inaccuracy claims. Although significant system enhancements were made over the past six years to address community needs, a more comprehensive system redesign was determined necessary to realise the system objectives. This new software system also allows ICANN to make future enhancements quickly to respond to community needs. Since its implementation in 2002, ICANN has seen a significant rise in the number of Whois inaccuracy reports filed through this system. In 2002, approximately 24,000 Whois inaccuracy reports were filed using the WDPRS. In 2008, over 200,000 reports have been filed since 1 March 2008 In an effort to improve Whois accuracy, registrar compliance with RAA investigation requirements, operational effectiveness, data processing, data recovery, and increase data capacity, ICANN commenced WDPRS redesign plans earlier this year. In consultation with the Intellectual Property Constituency, the Registrar Constituency and other community members, ICANN redesigned the system. Through the redesigned WDPRS, ICANN seeks to address concerns raised by the Internet community regarding system irregularities, the filing of irrelevant claims and insufficient data capacity. ICANN conducted beta testing with external constituencies to ensure operational functionality and usability of the system prior to launching the redesigned WDPRS. ICANN encourages the Internet community to provide comments to ensure the continual improvement of the WDPRS. Please submit comments at wdprs-comments(a)icann.org Comments may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/wdprs-comments/. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Latest .uk Domain Name Report
by Olga Cavalli Dec. 19, 2008

Dec. 19, 2008

Hi, in this link you can find the latest Domain Name Industry report: http://www.nominet.org.uk/intelligence/industryreport/ It was sent by Nominet to the ccnso list. Have a nice weekend! Olga

1 0

RE: [council] Alternative RAA Motions
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 19, 2008

Dec. 19, 2008

Kristina, I for one have not that far ahead in that much detail, and have not specifically covered those questions with the RrC in general. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Alternative RAA Motions From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Wed, December 17, 2008 2:42 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, Thanks. As for the deadline, I was curious about "not sooner than" dates, but that doesn't seem to be an issue. Correct? As for the second motion, I have some clarifying questions: 1. Does "superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present set of amendments" include those issues and amendments that were not addressed to the satisfaction of the community even if the relevant theme/topic is encompassed in the RAA amendments? To give you some concrete examples, it is the view of the IPC that the amendments do not go far enough w/r/t affiliated entities and graduated sanctions. Under your motion, would those be issues included in the "superset"? 2. The motion deals only with the procedure for proposing additional amendments. What happens then? Assuming that amendments are proposed once the procedure is developed, is the Registrar Constituency committing to beginning a new round of negotiations promptly after any additional amendments are proposed? I acknowledge I'm being super-literal. Occupational hazard after spending the last two weeks drafting Asset Purchase Agreements and comments on the DAG. Nonetheless, the precision would be helpful. Thanks. K -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 5:28 PM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Alternative RAA Motions Kristina, We tried to capture that in the resolve of the second motion: The GNSO Council calls on ICANN to establish a consultative process by which to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present set of amendments and to work with Registrars to develop a procedure for proposing additional amendments in the future. I am sure that sooner would be better than later, but no deadline that I am aware of. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Alternative RAA Motions From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Tue, December 16, 2008 2:31 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, It would be helpful if the Registrar Constituency would clarify what "open to continuing the dialogue" does and does not mean. To the extent that there are temporal qualifications, it would be helpful to know those, too. Would you please advise? Thanks. K -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 1:46 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Alternative RAA Motions We are anxious to get these amendments approved and in place as quickly as possible. Registrars are also generally open to further discussions. We should we keep this as simple as possible so I propose the following alternative motions: Whereas: - ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); - The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. Second motion: Whereas: - The GNSO Council has recommended that the RAA amendments developed by the ICANN community be adopted; - There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA may be required; - The Registrar Constituency is open to continuing the dialogue about future changes to the RAA; Resolve: The GNSO Council calls on ICANN to establish a consultative process by which to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present set of amendments and to work with Registrars to develop a procedure for proposing additional amendments in the future. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 3:46 pm To: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>, Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> All, Staff would like to suggest the following draft language for the two motions being discussed: Whereas: - ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); - The community has arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; - It is the opinion of ICANN legal counsel and the ICANN Board that implementation of RAA amendments requires a consensus policy level vote (>66%) of the GNSO Council. Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. Second motion: Whereas: - The GNSO Counsel has recommended that the RAA amendments developed by the ICANN community be adopted; - There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA may be required; - The Registrar Constituency is open to continuing the dialogue about future changes to the RAA; Resolve: The GNSO Council will form a Working Group to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present Consensus Policy and work with the Registrar Constituency to develop a procedure for proposing additional amendments in the future. Thanks, Liz

1 0

ccNSO Observer to GNSO Council
by Avri Doria Dec. 19, 2008

Dec. 19, 2008

Hi, I am happy to welcome Pierre Bonis from the French registry AfNIC pierre.bonis(a)afnic.fr as the GNSO council Observer from the ccNSO. He has been added to the GNSO Council mailing list. a.

1 0

GNSO Council Resolutions 18 December 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 18, 2008

Dec. 18, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the motions that were passed by the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday 18 December 2008. Kind regards, Glen Motion 1 ============== Two GNSO representatives to the Community-Wide Working Group on Geographical Regions. The Council confirmed the election results of the two GNSO representatives, Olga Cavalli and Zahid Jamil to the Community-Wide Working Group on Geographical Regions. Motion passed by voice vote Motion 2 ============ Motion - GNSO Council Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf Avri Doria, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed: Whereas: On 20 November 2008, the ALAC requested an Issues Report on Post- Expiration Domain Name Recovery (see Annex I of the Issues Report cited below or go to: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf On 5 December 2008, in response to the above referenced request for an Issues Report, ICANN Staff delivered the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery to the GNSO Council (see email from Marika Konings dated 5 Dec 08) (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05812.html) Additional clarification is needed on several items discussed in the above referenced Issues Report, Resolve: The decision on whether to initiate a PDP will be delayed until 29 January 2009 to allow for the needed clarification is obtained about Issues Report items defined below; ICANN Staff is asked to provide clarification no later than 15 January 2009 on the following from the Issues Report: - In Section 4.2, in reference to the last bullet on page 15 regarding "how best to enable the transfer of a domain name in RGP", the continuation of the same paragraph on page 16 reads, "On the latter point, the GNSO Council might want to consider whether this should be investigated in the context of the upcoming Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP C, 'IRTP Operational Rules Enhancements'." * Is it recommended that this would be added to the requirements for IRTP PDP C? * What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation? * What changes would need to be made to IRTP PDP C? - In the last paragraph of Section 4.2 on page 16, Staff recommends ". . . the GNSO Council could consider enhancements, which would highlight more clearly and visibly the provisions of the contract in relation to auto-renew and expiration policies. It should be noted that ICANN staff does not recommend that this be included in a PDP . . ." * How is it envisioned that this would happen if not via a PDP? * What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation? - Section 3.7.5 of ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement, as quoted on page 28, says, "At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the registration be renewed within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period (although Registrar may choose to cancel the name earlier)." * Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? * Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder does not consent to renewal? If not, why not? -Section 3.7.5.3 on page 29 reads, "In the absence of extenuating circumstances (as defined in Section 3.7.5.1 above), a domain name must be deleted within 45 days of either the registrar or the registrant terminating a registration agreement." * Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? * Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder or the Registrar terminates a registration agreement? If not, why not? Motion passed by voice vote Resolution 3 ============ Motion on GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies Avri Doria, seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh with a friendly amendment by Chuck Gomes, proposed Whereas: The GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies indicated that further review, evaluation and study be done before a PDP is initiated, Resolved: That a drafting team be formed to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations Abuse Policy. Specifically: - 9.1 Review and Evaluate Findings A first step would be for the GNSO Council to review and evaluate the findings, taking into account that this report provides an overview of registration abuse provisions, but does not analyse how these provisions are implemented in practice and whether they are deemed effective in addressing registration abuse. - 9.2 Identify specific policy issues Following the review and evaluation of the findings, the GNSO Council would need to determine whether there are specific policy issues regarding registration abuse. As part of this determination it would be helpful to define the specific type(s) of abuse of concern, especially distinguishing between registration abuse and other types of abuse if relevant. - 9.3 Need for further research As part of the previous two steps, ICANN Staff would recommend that the GNSO Council determines where further research may be needed - e.g. is lack of uniformity a substantial problem, how effective are current registration abuse provisions in addressing abuse in practice, is an initial review or analysis of the UDRP required? The WG charter should be ready for review by the council on or before 15 January 2009 and will be voted on at the council meeting of 29 January 2009 at which time the council will take the by-laws required PDP vote. Motion passed by voice vote. 1 Abstention: Stéphane van Gelder - "its going too fast for me" 1 nay Resolution 4. ============== Motion on GNSO Travel Process Philip Sheppard, seconded by Stephane Van Gelder, proposed: Whereas: Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO travel. 1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available. 2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum for fiscal year 2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should exclude any budget to cover the costs of nom com delegates or GNSO chair travel. 3. Council requests Constituencies to publish the names of all those who receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the support was given and which were attended by the support recipient. The motion unanimously passed by voice vote Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Volunteers needed for drafting team on Registrations Abuse Policy
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 18, 2008

Dec. 18, 2008

Dear All, Volunteers are needed for the drafting team approved in the following resolution that the Council passed at its 18 December 2008 meeting. You are invited to send names and email addresses to the GNSO Secretariat <GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG> as soon as possible and a meeting will be scheduled early in January 2009. Resolution on the GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies Whereas: The GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies indicated that further review, evaluation and study be done before a PDP is initiated, Resolved: That a drafting team be formed to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations Abuse Policy. Specifically: 9.1 Review and Evaluate Findings A first step would be for the GNSO Council to review and evaluate the findings, taking into account that this report provides an overview of registration abuse provisions, but does not analyse how these provisions are implemented in practice and whether they are deemed effective in addressing registration abuse. 9.2 Identify specific policy issues Following the review and evaluation of the findings, the GNSO Council would need to determine whether there are specific policy issues regarding registration abuse. As part of this determination it would be helpful to define the specific type(s) of abuse of concern, especially distinguishing between registration abuse and other types of abuse if relevant. 9.3 Need for further research As part of the previous two steps, ICANN Staff would recommend that the GNSO Council determines where further research may be needed - e.g. is lack of uniformity a substantial problem, how effective are current registration abuse provisions in addressing abuse in practice, is an initial review or analysis of the UDRP required? The WG charter should be ready for review by the council on or before 15 January 2009 and will be voted on at the council meeting of 29 January 2009 at which time the councl will take the by-laws required PDP vote. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council teleconference 18 December 2008 MP3 recording
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 18, 2008

Dec. 18, 2008

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 18 December, 2008 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20081218.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Plethora of motions
by Avri Doria Dec. 18, 2008

Dec. 18, 2008

Hi, I have added the recent rash of motions to the list - I think/hope I got them all in their latest versions. 1. not all of them have seconds, some have not even actually been moved. 2. I am hoping that some of them, can be combined or even dropped in consideration of some of the other motions. Talk to you all in an hour. thanks a.

2 1

Two Motions relating to the Motion on New gTLD Implementation
by Rosette, Kristina Dec. 18, 2008

Dec. 18, 2008

All, Please find below two motions dealing with the Motion on New gTLD Implementation proposed by Chuck. Both motions would be voted on before Chuck's motion although the second is conditional upon the first failing. Do I have a second? Motion 1. Whereas, a motion has been proposed to modify Implementation Guideline E by directing ICANN to initiate the four-month Communications Period simultaneously with the publication of the Second Draft Applicant Guidebook and to open the initial application round not earlier than four months after ICANN starts the Communications Period and not earlier than 30 days after ICANN posts the final Request for Proposal (the "Motion on New gTLD Implementation"); Whereas, the overall effect of the Motion on New gTLD Implementation is to hasten the opening of the initial application round; Whereas, one public comment period on the first Draft Application Guidebook closed less than 72 hours ago and generated hundreds of pages of submissions by a large number of individual and entities; Whereas, it appears that many participants in the public comment period expressed opinions regarding the timing of the introduction of new gTLDs; Whereas, the recent closing of the public comment period and the volume of comments have prevented GNSO Councilors who intend to read all of the submitted public comments from doing so; Resolved, a vote on the Motion on New gTLD Implementation is deferred until the GNSO Council's next scheduled meeting so that GNSO Councilors who intend to read all of the public comments submitted on or before the December 15 comment period close may have time to do so. Motion 2 (conditional on Motion 1 failing) Whereas, a motion has been proposed to modify Implementation Guideline E by directing ICANN to initiate the four-month Communications Period simultaneously with the publication of the Second Draft Applicant Guidebook and to open the initial application round not earlier than four months after ICANN starts the Communications Period and not earlier than 30 days after ICANN posts the final Request for Proposal (the "Motion on New gTLD Implementation"); Whereas, one public comment period on the first Draft Application Guidebook closed less than 72 hours ago and generated hundreds of pages of submissions by a large number of individual and entities; Whereas, it appears that many participants in the public comment period expressed opinions regarding the timing of the introduction of new gTLDs; Whereas, participants in that public comment period are entitled to know if the GNSO Councilors read their comments before voting on the Motion on New gTLD Implementation; Resolved, before voting on the Motion on New gTLD Implementation, all GNSO Councilors will be polled as to whether they have read all public comment on the first Draft Application Guidebook that was submitted on or before the December 15 comment period close. -*- Kristina

2 1

RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 18, 2008

Dec. 18, 2008

FWIW, I would support Chuck's second motion if I could be on the call. I would have to abstain on the first one. There are recent factors that I would first want time to discuss with the RrC before voting. Those include the public comment that I am still trying to get through, and some of Staff's answers to the Cairo questions that were just published. Tim Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Thu, December 18, 2008 9:22 am > To: "Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net>, Stéphane Van > Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "Tim Ruiz" > <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Yes Terry, I believe it is. Because of the pent up demand for IDN TLDs, I believe that the first to market will have a huge competitive advantage. Considering the fact that GNSO registrants subsidize the ccNSO and the fast track process, I think it would be wrong to do so to the detriment of GNSO registrants. One example: In the case of IDN ccTLDs, if a global company wants to protect its brand, it would have to register in every IDN ccTLD; it would be much more effective to register an IDN gTLD. > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Terry L Davis, P.E. [mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:43 PM > > To: Gomes, Chuck; 'St�phane Van Gelder'; 'Tim Ruiz' > > Cc: 'GNSO Council' > > Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs > > > > Chuck > > > > Is that really a problem? The TLD intro alone without the > > IDNs seems reasonably daunting from a technical viewpoint. > > > > Take care > > Terry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 12:52 PM > > To: St�phane Van Gelder; Tim Ruiz > > Cc: GNSO Council > > Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs > > > > > > Understand Stephane. But even with that understanding there > > is still the chance that the fast track IDN ccTLD process > > could be ready considerably before the gTLD is process is > > ready and that their process will be much shorter. So the > > risk of a significant gap is there. > > > > Chuck > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: St�phane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:40 PM > > > To: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz > > > Cc: GNSO Council > > > Subject: Re: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs > > > > > > Just a heads-up on the IDN issue. The responses recently > > published by > > > ICANN to the questions asked in the Cairo public forum ( > > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15dec08-en. > > > htm) clearly states that it WILL be possible to request an > > IDN gTLD at > > > start-up, i.e. > > > When the first round of gTLD applications is opened. > > > > > > It's something I hadn't seen stated quite so clearly before > > anywhere > > > else so I thought I'd just point it out. > > > > > > St�phane Van Gelder > > > > > > > > > Le 17/12/08 19:41, ��Gomes, Chuck�� <cgomes(a)verisign.com> a �crit�: > > > > > > > > > > > The communications period recommendation was an Implementation > > > > Guideline, not one of the 19 recommendations. What did the Board > > > > approve, the whole package or just the recommendations? > > > Regardless, > > > > the Board will have to ultimately approve the final > > implementation > > > > plan; I believe that is estimated for May. > > > > > > > > One of the biggest issues of concern from a GNSO > > perspective is the > > > > possible gap between the introduction of fast track IDN > > > ccTLDs and IDN > > > > gTLDs, especially with regard to scripts that are used for > > > fast track > > > > IDN ccTLDs. There are several things that might help > > > reduce that gap: > > > > 1) continue to advocate that the two processes (g's and fast track > > > > cc's) happen at the same time; 2) reduce gTLD delays as > > > suggested by > > > > my motion or something similar; 3) allow for a fast track for IDN > > > > gTLDs for scripts that correspond to fast track IDN ccTLDs. > > > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 12:34 PM > > > >> To: Gomes, Chuck > > > >> Cc: GNSO Council > > > >> Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs > > > >> > > > >> May sound strange coming from me since I supported this idea > > > >> initially, but after all the comments that have been > > > submitted (still > > > >> reading them) and the criticisms that have been made, is > > > it wise for > > > >> us to try and hurry this up in any way? > > > >> > > > >> And a couple of procedural questions: > > > >> 1) What is the threshold for Council approval? > > > >> 2) Will the Board have to also approve this? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Tim > > > >> > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > > > >> Subject: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs > > > >> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > > > >> Date: Wed, December 17, 2008 7:37 am > > > >> To: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > >> > > > >> Avri, > > > >> > > > >> I just realized that the attached motion regarding the 4-month > > > >> communication period that I submitted on 21 November has > > been left > > > >> off the agenda for our Council meeting tomorrow. > > > >> > > > >> Chuck > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0