June 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

UPDATED Sydney Schedule
by Glen de Saint Géry June 12, 2009

June 12, 2009

Dear All, Attached, please find the updated draft GNSO related meeting schedule for Sydney. Please note that on Saturday, except for the lunch time presentation 'GNSO Scope and Consensus' by Margie Milam and the Travel Drafting Group face to face meeting at 18:00, the times for the different topics related to new gTLDs may change. The meetings in room 5-6 will all be transcribed and there will be recordings available. This schedule should be read along with the full schedule on page: http://syd.icann.org/full-sched Please note there may be other changes, but we will keep you apprised. Please also consult the Wiki pages, al links posted on http://gnso.icann.org/ for agendas and updates. Particularly https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?gnso_council_workspace Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: One & Two-Character Names in dot-travel
by Glen de Saint Géry June 12, 2009

June 12, 2009

[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] News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-10jun09-en.htm ________________________________ Public Comment: One & Two-Character Names in dot-travel 10 June 2008 A new public comment period opens today for 30 days on a proposed amendment from Tralliance to Appendix 6 and 7 of the dot-travel Registry Agreement. On 18 May 2009, ICANN posted for public information a request submitted by Tralliance through the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP). The request calls for a phased allocation process for one and two-character names in dot-travel. The Tralliance proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/travel-18may09-en.pdf<http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/travel-18may09-en.pdf>. As provided for by existing consensus policy (http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html) ICANN performed a preliminary review to determine whether the proposal might raise significant security, stability, or competition issues. ICANN's determination is that the proposal does not raise such issues. [Note that, from 13 June to 13 July 2008, ICANN conducted a public comment forum on a proposed single-character second-level domain names allocation framework (http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/proposed-scsld-allocation-framework…) which supported the allocation single-character second-level domain names in existing registries and reviewed various allocation methods.] The proposal requires an amendment to the dot-travel Schedule of Reserved Names (Appendix 6) and a description of the phased allocation program is proposed to be inserted in Section 9 of Appendix 7. A copy of the proposed contract amendment is available here<http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/travel/proposed-amendment-10jun09.p…> [PDF, 20K]. Comments on the proposed amendment may be submitted to tralliance-amendment at icann.org<mailto:tralliance-amendment@icann.org> through 10 July 2009 23:59 UTC. Comments may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/tralliance-amendment/. All documentation related to the Tralliance proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009003. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

New gTLD Program Updates
by Glen de Saint Géry June 12, 2009

June 12, 2009

[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-3-10jun09-en.htm ________________________________ New gTLD Program Updates 10 June 2009 A ICANN offers a set of announcements for public discussion as meeting in Sydney nears. The announcements include: New Explanatory Memo for Pre-delegation Testing for New gTLDs The module 5 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook version 2 available since early February describes procedures applicable at the concluding stages of the gTLD application process, more specifically, a pre-delegation test addressing technical and other requirements the applicant will be asked to fulfill. ICANN is posting today the Pre-Delegation Testing explanatory memoranda<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pre-delegation-testing-08jun09-en.…> [PDF, 108K]. This explanatory memo has been incorporated to the following currently open public comment forum http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-e-en.htm. The deadline for comments is 20 July 2009. The purpose of the pre-delegation technical test is to verify the applicant has met its commitment to establish registry operations in accordance with ICANN’s technical and operational criteria described in the Applicant Guidebook. The checks are also intended to ensure that the applicant can operate the gTLD in a stable and secure manner. There are three sets of tests or verification: DNS infrastructure testing and prerequisites, registry system testing and prerequisites, and an additional requirement to provide for continuity of basic registry operations. ICANN encourages comments on the interim language provided. The comments received will be considered for version 3 of the draft Applicant Guidebook, scheduled to be published in September 2009. IRT Report of Trademark Protection in New gTLDs Public Comment Period Extended The public comments period for the Final Report on Trademark Protection in New gTLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/irt-final-report-trademark-protect…> [PDF, 299K] prepared by the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) has been extended to July 6th, 2009. Malicious Behavior Overarching Issue The Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG) has provided a working draft of their comprehensive ongoing study on the topic of potential malicious abuse of the DNS and new gTLD expansion. The draft report describes several issues and is available for review on the ICANN New gTLD Overarching Issues Wiki<https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi>. Recommended New gTLD Sessions during ICANN Sydney Meeting<http://syd.icann.org> The ICANN Meeting in Sydney (June 21 – 26) will have several New gTLD program sessions. The selection below is a recommendation only and we encourage the ICANN community to see the Sydney schedule for additional details. 21 June 2009 New gTLD Program Updates This session will provide an overview on the progress being made on the New gTLD Program. There will be an opportunity for public feedback. Workshop on Registry-Registrar Cross-Ownership One of the remaining issues to be resolved with regard to the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook is what restrictions should be imposed on new gTLD operators concerning the ownership or control of registrars. This Workshop will focus on potential harms and benefits associated with vertical integration of gTLD registries and registrars, and tools ICANN and the community could consider to attempt to address the issue. The workshop will include presentations from a panel of economists, plus an opportunity for comments from interested registries and registrars, other industry stakeholders, and the public. New gTLD Program: Managing a Registry: Best Practices At this session, few Top-Level Domain (TLD) Registry managers will share their experience discussing the practical aspects of managing a TLD Registry. This session will cover business, operational and technical aspects of day-to-day Registry management. Some of the topics covered will be: buy vs build; security and scalability considerations; channel management; TLD acceptance issues; IDNs management. June 24 2009 New gTLD Program – Consultation Session on Trademark Protection & Malicious Behavior This session is designed to discuss with the community two of the four overarching issues identified in the New gTLD Program: (a) trademark protection; (b) and potential for malicious behavior. This session will be divided in two parts: (1) Trademark Protection - a panel of experts will present and discuss with the community several proposed mechanisms for enhancing protection of intellectual property rights in the New gTLD Program; (2) Malicious Behavior – a panel of experts will provide the community with an update of work done to identify and mitigate potential increases in malicious conduct following the introduction of new gTLDs. Other New gTLD Related Events Sydney marks the first of a series of overarching issues consultation sessions ICANN staff is planning to conduct in June and July. The four overarching issues that were identified in the first two public comment periods of the Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG) are: Trademark Protection; Malicious Behavior; Security & Stability; Scale & Demand (the economic impact of the new gTLDs). Upcoming live consultation sessions will be held in New York (July 13) and London (July 15). In addition to the overarching issues consultation sessions described above, ICANN will also be hosting live outreach/educational events and webinars to offer an introduction about New gTLDs, give up-to date program developments and make available relevant ICANN staff for face to face discussions. These events are designed in a wide range of formats to address different levels of knowledge. A pre-registrations page for these events will be made available soon. For updates, please go to the New gTLD Program page<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm>. Resources: New gTLD Program: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm Overarching Issues Wiki: https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?new_gtld_overarc… Sydney Meeting: http://syd.icann.org/ Relevant Open Public Comments: Trademark Protection (IRT Final Report): http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200906.html#irt-report Revised Excerpts of New gTLD Applicant Guidebook (DAG): http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-e-en.htm New GTLDs and the Internet Openness Change Innovation After years of discussion and thought, new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are being expanded. They will allow for more innovation, choice and change to a global Internet presently served by only 21 generic top-level domain names. As a not-for profit corporation dedicated to coordinating the Internet's addressing system, ICANN is not doing this to add to its revenue. An implementation plan is being developed with opportunities for public comment. There will be processes for objections. There has also been detailed technical scrutiny to ensure the Internet's stability and security. There will be an evaluation fee but it will recover costs only (expenses so far, application processing and anticipated legal costs). Promoting competition and choice is one of the principles upon which ICANN was founded. In a world with 1.5 billion Internet users (and growing), diversity, choice and innovation are key. The Internet has supported huge increases in choice, innovation and the competition of ideas, and expanding new gTLDs is an opportunity for more. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Per Diem payments for the Sydney Meeting
by Glen de Saint Géry June 11, 2009

June 11, 2009

To: Community members requesting information on Per Diems Cc: Those interested in ICANN's travel program (please forward if I missed anyone) Individual notifications will go out to individual travelers, but I promised to many of you an update by today on Sydney per diems to many of you, and.....here it is.... Special thanks to all of the community travelers for working with our ICANN travel support team to ensure that your trip to the ICANN Sydney meeting is as productive as possible. We believe that most rooms have been reserved and most air travel arrangements have been completed as well. Now, the key remaining action item is to process payments for meals, ground transportation and incidental expenses. For most of our supported travelers this means, per diem payments. We expect most per diem payments to be wire transferred or checks sent by close of business tomorrow in accordance with the specific requirements provided by the individual traveler, and calculated based upon the per diem guidelines (e.g., $95/ day x approved days for support). Each traveler who receives a payment will also receive an email notification. If you do not receive your payment after being notified by email (after a reasonable transit time of say, 5 business days), please contact us at ICANN travel, so that we can put a tracer for your payment. For those travelers who either cannot receive wire transfers or who have not provided proper payment detail information by our deadlines, will be eligible to receive a cash payment at the ICANN Sydney meeting. Details of the distribution times and procedures will be sent to those travelers individually. For those travelers who have other payment arrangements (such as those who receive payments after the ICANN meeting) will be handled accordingly. If you have any specific question about your travel situation, please continue to use our hotline: Constituency-Travel(a)icann.org<mailto:Constituency-Travel@icann.org>. Thank you Kevin

1 0

IRTP Part B Motions for action in Sydney
by Tim Ruiz June 11, 2009

June 11, 2009

I am making the following two motions regarding IRTP Part B (drafted in consultation with the Transfers WG) for consideration in Sydney. Seconds please. The motions are also attached as a doc file. Tim Motion I – Initiation of a PDP on IRTP Part B Whereas The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO, The GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008, The GNSO Council, in order to be more efficient and hopefully reduce the overall timeline for addressing all the IRTP PDPs, resolved on 16 April 2009 to combine the issues outlined under the original issue set B, addressing three issues on undoing IRTP transfers, and some of the issues outlined in issue set C, related to registrar lock status into one IRTP Part B, The GNSO Issues Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B was submitted to the GNSO Council on 15 May 2009, The Issues Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO Resolved The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Issues Report Part B. A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. Motion II – Approval of a Charter for the IRTP Part B WG Whereas On [date] 2009 the GNSO Council initiated PDP IRTP Part B and, decided to create a PDP WG for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP, and, The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter. Resolved The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints Tim Ruiz confirmed as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP PDP Part B WG. The GNSO council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part B WG be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO council Liaison shall act as interim chair. Charter The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in the issues report and make recommendations to the GNSO Council: a) Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf) see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm) b) Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar; c) Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases; d) Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied); e) Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in “lock status” provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. Working Group processes: While the development of Guidelines for Working Group operations are still to be developed the following guidelines will apply to this WG: - The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. Consensus views should include the names and affiliations of those in agreement with that view. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. Minority report should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to the minority report. - In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: --- Unanimous consensus position --- Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree --- Strong support but significant opposition --- Minority viewpoint(s) - If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these steps sequentially: 1. Send email to the chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error. 2. If the chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the council liaison(s) to the group. The chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response. * If the liaisons support the chair's position, forward the appeal to the council. The liaison(s) must explain his or her reasoning in the response. 3. If the council supports the chair and liaison's position, attach a statement of the appeal to the board report. This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the council. - The chair, in consultation with the GNSO council liaison(s) is empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the WG. Any such restriction will be reviewed by the GNSO council. Generally the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place. In extreme circumstances this requirement may be bypassed. - The WG will have an archived mailing list. The mailing list will be open for reading by the community. All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public. A IRTP PDP B mailing list has been created (Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org) and the public archives are at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/. - A SocialText wiki has been provided for WG usage and can be found at https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/index.cgi?irtp_part_b - If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG, the WG may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time it was (re)chartered or use the new guidelines. - The council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG status monthly to the council. - All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO council every 6 months for renewal. Milestones - WG formed, chair & Council liaison & staff coordinator identified = T - Initial Report: T + 170 days - First comment period ends: T + 190 days - Preliminary Final Report: T + 220 days. Note: If the WG decides that a change is needed to the milestone dates, it should submit a revised time line to the GNSO council for approval

2 1

Board - Policy Staff - GNSO Council topics
by Avri Doria June 11, 2009

June 11, 2009

Hi, The top 2 topics were: 1. with 11 in favor: Critical Issues for new gTLDs - Geographic names at 1st and 2nd levels 2. with 10 in favor: Critical Issues for new gTLDs - The IRT Report and in third: 3. with 8 in favor: Restructuring issues: By-laws and Charters the other topics were distant also-ran with 0 and 2 votes. So have decided the number one issue: Critical Issues for new gTLDs - Geographic names at 1st and 2nd levels Will be the main topic at the dinner and the number 2 issue Critical Issues for new gTLDs - The IRT Report will be the dessert topic. I am assuming that the number 3 topic will be available for people who decide they have nothing further to say on the previous two topics or who are looking for some light banter during cocktails or in the bar after dinner, but will not schedule it for the dinner. I am hoping, however, there will be chance for all of the Stakeholder Groups to discuss their pending charters with the SIC and the Board at some time during the week in Sydney. With having resolved most of the issue on the By-Laws in the DT, I think the charter issues are largely SG specific in any case. Thanks for taking part in the poll. a.

1 0

PEDNR Charter and Motion for Council Action in Sydney
by Tim Ruiz June 10, 2009

June 10, 2009

Attached and copied below in text is the charter developed by the PEDNR Charter Drafting Team. I also make the motion stated in the Charter section just following the introductory comments. Tim Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery - PDP Working Group Charter This charter is based on the GNSO Council decision to create a PDP WG to recommend best practices and/or consensus policies regarding the issues defined in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf The full resolution of the Council on 7 May 2009: Whereas on 05 December 2008, the GNSO received an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR); Whereas on 29 January 2009 the GNSO Council decided to form a Drafting Team (DT) to consider the form of policy development action in regard to PEDNR; Whereas a DT has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the issues documented in the Issues Report; Whereas the DT has concluded that although some further information gathering may be needed, it should be done under the auspices of a PDP; Whereas staff has suggested and the DT concurs that the issue of registrar transfer during the RGP might be better handled during the IRTP Part C PDP. The GNSO Council RESOLVES To initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address the issues identified in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report. The charter for this PDP should instruct the Working Group: that it should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy; that to inform its work it should pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery of domain names during the RGP are enforced; and that it should specifically consider the following questions: - Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names; - Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough; - Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations; - Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined). - Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. The GNSO Council further resolves that the issue of logistics of possible registrar transfer during the RGP shall be incorporated into the charter of the IRTP Part C charter. Charter Whereas: The GNSO council has decided to initiate a PDP on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR); and The GNSO council had decided against initiating a Task force as defined in the bylaw; The GNSO Council RESOLVES To form a Working Group composed of Constituency representatives as well as interested stakeholders in order to develop potential policy and/or best practices to address the issues covered, while seeking additional information as appropriate to inform the work. The WG will also be open to invited experts and to members or representatives of the ICANN Advisory Committees, whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC. The Working Group initially shall: 1. Pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery of domain names following expiration are enforced; 2. Review and understand the current domain name life cycle; 3. Review current registrar practices regarding domain name expiration, renewal, and post-expiration recovery. The Working Group shall then consider the following questions: 1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names; 2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough; 3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations; 4. Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined); 5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. The Working Group is expected to organize an issue update / workshop at the Seoul meeting, in addition to an update to the GNSO Council. The Working Group should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy. Working Group processes: While the development of Guidelines for Working Group operations are still to be developed the following guidelines will apply to this WG: - The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. Consensus views should include the names and affiliations of those in agreement with that view. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. Minority report should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to the minority report. - In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: -- Unanimous consensus position -- Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree -- Strong support but significant opposition -- Minority viewpoint(s) - If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these steps sequentially : 1. Send email to the chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error. 2. If the chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the council liaison(s) to the group. The chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response. * If the liaisons support the chair's position, forward the appeal to the council. The liaison(s) must explain his or her reasoning in the response. 3. If the council supports the chair and liaison's position, attach a statement of the appeal to the board report. This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the council. - The chair, in consultation with the GNSO council liaison(s) is empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the WG. Any such restriction will be reviewed by the GNSO council. Generally the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place. In extreme circumstances this requirement may be bypassed. - The WG will have an archived mailing list. The mailing list will be open for reading by the community. All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public. A PEDNR WG mailing list has been created (gnso-pednr-dt(a)icann.org) with public archives at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/. - A SocialText wiki has been provided for WG usage and can be found at https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi?post_expirati… - If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG, the WG may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time it was (re)chartered or use the new guidelines. - The council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG status monthly to the council. - All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO council every 6 months for renewal. Milestones (dates to be updated if/when charter is approved) - WG formed, chair & Council liaison & staff coordinator identified = T - Initial Report: T + 150 - 170 days - First comment period ends: T + 170 - 200 days - Preliminary Final Report: T + 190 - 220 days. Note: If the WG decides that a change is needed to the milestone dates, it should submit a revised time line to the GNSO council for approval

1 0

ccNSO update
by Olga Cavalli June 10, 2009

June 10, 2009

Hi, Vanuatu (.vu) is now the 92nd member of the ccNSO. Also the Working Group 1 IDN ccPDP will schedule a face to face meeting in Sydney. GNSO participants in this WG are Edmond, myself, and Avri and Chuck as observers. Best regards, Olga -- Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing. www.south-ssig.com.ar

1 0

With ATTACHMENT Working space available in Sydney on Saturday 20 June 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry June 10, 2009

June 10, 2009

Dear All, The GNSO has two working rooms in Sydney for Saturday 20 and Sunday 21 June 2009 meetings on level 2. One of these rooms, level 2 - Function room 2 is currently not being used on Saturday and would be available for any small groups to use. Attached for your convenience, is the draft schedule for the GNSO related events during the meeting. Please remember that the schedule may change Please let us know if you would like to take up this offer. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

With ATTACHMENT Working space available in Sydney on Saturday 20 June 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry June 10, 2009

June 10, 2009

Dear All, The GNSO has two working rooms in Sydney for Saturday 20 and Sunday 21 June 2009 meetings on level 2. One of these rooms, level 2 - Function room 2 is currently not being used on Saturday and would be available for any small groups to use. Attached for your convenience, is the draft schedule for the GNSO related events during the meeting. Please remember that the schedule may change Please let us know if you would like to take up this offer. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0