August 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Formal Petition and Charter of the Proposed New City Top-Level Domain Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

Dear GNSO Council Members; For your information, attached please find a copy of the Formal Petition and Charter of the proposed new City Top-Level Domain Constituency submitted by Dirk Krischenowski of dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG. This significant step represents the fourth formal new constituency petition submitted to the Board in the context of the new GNSO Improvements effort. The Staff will soon open a 30-day Public Comment Forum regarding the Petition which will extend into July. Any comments submitted in the Forum will be summarized for the Board's review. I have shared a copy of the attached documents with the Board and will be sending copies to the GNSO Constituencies leaders list as well. The document is now also posted on the GNSO Improvements web page at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm.@icann.org Please drop me a line if you have any questions or comments on this matter. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth Robert L. Hoggarth, Esq. Senior Policy Director ICANN 424 558 4805 robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org

1 1

Proposed Motion on joint ALAC/GNSO Drafting Team
by Avri Doria Sept. 5, 2009

Sept. 5, 2009

Motion on joint ALAC/GNSO Drafting team Proposed by Avri Doria Whereas On March 4 2009 (Resolution 20090304-2)the GNSO council committed to "drafting a registrant rights charter" in cooperation the ALAC and As part of the same resolution (20090304-2) the GNSO council committed to creating a "drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the RAA and to identify those on which further action may be desirable" Resolved The GNSO accepts the charter defined in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/raa-drafting-team-charter-03sep09-en.pdf with the deliverables and milestones as set out in that charter and invites the ALAC to participate as a partner in this effort. The drafting team, at its next meeting, will pick a pair of coordinators, one each from the At-Large Community and the GNSO.

3 3

ICANN Policy Update - August 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 31, 2009

Aug. 31, 2009

Policy Update Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/ Volume 09, Issue 08 – August 2009 ________________________________ Contents Across ICANN 1. Policy-Related Issues Currently Open for Public Comment<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#1> ccNSO 1. ccTLD Delegation / Redelegation Working Group Launches<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#2> 2. Cocos Islands Arrive as Member 95<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#3> 3. Last Call Issued for DNSSEC Survey<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#4> GNSO 1. Board Approves GNSO Stakeholder Group Charters, Looks toward Seating New Council in Seoul<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#5> 2. GNSO Council Charters New Working Group on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#6> 3. Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Begins Deliberations<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#7> 4. Registration Abuse Policies Group Defines the Problem<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#8> 5. Fast Flux Group Publishes Final Report<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#9> ASO 1. RIRs Progress on Global Policy Proposal for Recovered IPv4 Addresses<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#10> Joint Efforts 1. Cross-Community Geographic Regions Review Publishes Initial Report for Public Input<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#11> 2. New GNSO/SSAC Group to Explore Feasibility of Internationalized Whois<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#12> 3. Joint GNSO/ALAC Working Group to Draft Registrant Rights <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#13> SSAC 1. SSAC Recommends Measures to Protect Domain Registration Services from Misuse<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#14> At-Large 1. At-Large Annual Elections Are Underway<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#15> 2. At-Large Continues Analyzing, Advising on Record Number of Policy Issues<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm#16>

1 0

ICANN 2009 Nominating Committee Selectees
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 31, 2009

Aug. 31, 2009

Dear Councillors, Please note the ICANN 2009 Nominating Committee Selectees. Congratulations Olga! http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28aug09-en.htm 28 August 2009 The 2009 ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom) has completed its selections for nine leadership positions within ICANN. NomCom Chair, Tricia Drakes, said "We are delighted to announce this year's selectees to ICANN's leadership. They include highly accomplished individuals from Russia, India, Malaysia, Jamaica, Argentina, Chile and the United States. The Committee's hard work has given us a result that we believe balances continuity and diversity, and includes the selection of the youngest ever member to serve on the ICANN Board. We have added some new faces to the mix, but I hope the community will agree that there is a real depth of experience as well." The NomCom is charged with recruiting and selecting a portion of ICANN's community leadership. NomCom works to make sure that, overall, ICANN's leadership is diverse in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective. The basic criteria are that nominees are people of integrity, objectivity and judgment, can help group decision-making, can work effectively through English, have an understanding of ICANN's mission and work, are committed to its success, contribute to cultural, professional and geographic expertise, and can work long and hard as volunteers working in the global public trust. The NomCom evaluated over eighty candidates, many of whom were unusually strong, against key criteria set out in the ICANN Bylaws. The Committee also wanted to include some of those with skills, expertise and experience in some of the important new areas where ICANN may face challenges throughout the organization over the next few years, including IDNs (internationalized domain names). The Committee took very seriously the evolving and increasing importance of independent Board directors, and in so doing found itself unable to appoint to the Board some very experienced applicants whom it might otherwise have wished to do so. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ICANN Board of Directors Rajasekar Ramaraj, India (2nd term) Gonzalo Navarro, Chile George Sadowsky, United States ALAC James Seng, Malaysian citizen residing in China Carlton Samuels, Jamaica Dave Kissoondoyal, Mauritius GNSO Council Olga Cavalli, Argentina (2nd term) Andrey Kolesnikov, Russian Federation ccNSO Council J. Beckwith Burr (Becky), United States (2nd term) The biographies of the Nominees are reproduced below. The nominees will take up their positions at the end of ICANN's Annual Meeting in Seoul, Korea on 30 October 2009. This year's Nominating Committee received 86 Statements of Interest from candidates worldwide during its open nomination period from 2 December 2008 to 15 April 2009. 71 of the 2009 candidates were men and 15 are women. The regional breakdown of this year's candidates was: * 10 from Africa, * 24 from Asia/Australia/Pacific * 23 from Europe * 12 from Latin America/Caribbean. * 17 from North America For more information about NomCom, please visit http://nomcom.icann.org/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

News Alert -- Toronto Presentations Published
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 30, 2009

Aug. 30, 2009

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-25aug09-en.htm ________________________________ Toronto Presentations Published 25 August 2009 On 20-21 August 2009, ICANN hosted its North American Registry/Registrar Regional Event in Toronto, Ontario. Remote participation for the event was made available via Adobe Connect and an audio conference bridge. The regional event model was introduced in 2006 as a means to inform and educate gTLD registries and ICANN-accredited registrars about ICANN activities and processes that may impact their operations. These events also broaden participation in the ICANN multi-stakeholder governance model for registry and registrar staff members who do not generally attend ICANN’s annual public meetings. ICANN subject matter experts facilitated discussions on issues such as gTLD registry continuity, contractual compliance, new gTLDs, GNSO policy activities, security initiatives, the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, and the terminated registrar transition process. Such discussions enhance knowledge and foster better cooperation between ICANN and its contracted stakeholders. The Toronto event also featured a session on registry/registrar areas of interest that was facilitated by David Maher, Chair, Registry Constituency, and Mason Cole, Chair, Registrar Constituency. The chairs co-led a discussion about how the two groups might work better together on joint areas of interest such as electing leaders for the GNSO Council and engaging in discussions when new registry service requests, submitted via the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP), have the potential to impact registrars. In the interest of transparency, the presentations are being made public. The following information is available about the event: * Master PPT presentation: http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/regional-gathering-toronto-20aug09-en.pdf [PDF, 11,100K] * New gTLDs: http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/regional-gathering-new-gtlds-toronto-20aug… [PDF, 369K] Time Thursday 20 August 09 Friday 21 August 09 09:00 gTLD Registry Continuity Plan Workshop<http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/regional-gathering-toronto-20aug09-en.pdf> - Patrick Jones (pages 3-33) Contractual Compliance<http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/regional-gathering-toronto-20aug09-en.pdf> - Stacy Burnette (pages 84-96) 09:30 10:00 New RAA Implementation - Tim Cole 10:30 Core Planning Team Meeting/Registry Data Escrow - Patrick Jones Coffee 11:00 Coffee Registry/Registrar Dialogue<http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/regional-gathering-registrar-registry-toro…> - David Maher and Mason Cole 11:30 Welcome/Introductions/Key Messages - Craig Schwartz/Tim Cole 12:00 ICANN Policy<http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/regional-gathering-toronto-20aug09-en.pdf> - Margie Milam (pages 38-75) 12:30 Registry Presentations 13:00 Lunch Lunch 14:00 Registry Presentations Registrar Constituency Update<http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/regional-gathering-registrar-constituency-…> - Mason Cole 14:30 Terminated Registrar Transition Process - Mike Zupke Security<http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/regional-gathering-toronto-20aug09-en.pdf> - Yurie Ito (pages 103-134) 15:00 15:30 Coffee Coffee 16:00 New gTLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/regional-gathering-new-gtlds-toronto-20aug…> - Kurt Pritz National Cyber Forensic Training Alliance<http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/regional-gathering-toronto-20aug09-en.pdf> (NCFTA) (pages 136-155) 16:30 17:00 ________________________________ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

6 6

Updates: Geo Regions - ccNSO - Travel drafting team
by Olga Cavalli Aug. 29, 2009

Aug. 29, 2009

Hi, these are the updates for ccnso, geo regions and travel drafting team. I will update this report on Monday after the first conference call of the IDN PDP Wolking Group, if needed. Regards Olga *ccNSO update:* IDN PDP Working Group will have its first conference call on Monday 31 August. I will send an update about this meeting before the GNSO conference call on Thursday. ccNSO is working in defining their agenda for the Seoul Meeting. *Geo Regions:* The innitial Working Group is available for public comments. It attempts to identify the various applications and functions to which “ICANN Geographic Regions” are currently applied by existing ICANN structures. 35 days period of public comments ends on 4 September. http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#geo-regions-review *Travel Drafting Team:* Travel drafting team did not reach agreement on whether some retiring councelors should be funded to attend the Seoul meeting or not. In relation with the question of having additional support for retiring councelors, Kevin Wilson informed us that ICANN is constrained by travel Gidelines. He suggested that if GNSO decides to request additional support, we should submit the request and if the budget impact is small, ICANN may be able to support. If the budget impact is significant, ICANN would need to consider what process and approvals need to be pursued. A face to face meeting of the travel drafting team will be scheduled with ICANN staff during the ICANN Seoul meeting. Once the date and time are established, this information will be sent to the drafting team list.

2 1

Other issues in the Policy Staff recommendation for transition
by Avri Doria Aug. 29, 2009

Aug. 29, 2009

> · How Council vacancies, if any, will be handled during the > transition period; > I do not understand this question. What is the transition period: 23-30 October 2009? or xx October 2009 - xx October 2011? Or some other interval between those two? And in any case why would this be any different then the way it is now, i.e. the entity (constituency, SG or nomcom) that chose the person, replaces the person for the balance of the replaced person's term. > · For each Stakeholder Group, how each assigned Council seat to > take effect at the 2009 ICANN annual meeting will be filled, whether > through a continuation of an existing term or a new election or > appointment; > Isn't this an issue for each of the SGs. Or is there a belief that this should be standardized across all of the SGs? if so, why? > · How it plans to address staggered terms such that the new > GNSO Council preserves as much continuity as reasonably possible; and > I guess this depends on whether we are allowed to let people just continue with their terms after being reconfirmed, or are not allowed to do so. As we still have not seen the new Bylaws, it is hard to know. The other obvious possibility, except for the CSG, is that every election or appointment would be for the balance of time of a current council member's term. And it might need some readjustment in the NCSG depending on whether the Board is using up all of the 2 year terms thus forcing the NCUC into just having 1 year terms. The CSG issue if complicated, but as I understand it, they are sing a constituency based seating model and thus each constituency could choose one persona for a 1 year term and 1 persona for a two year terms. Again this seems to be an SG specific issue. > · The effect of Bylaws term limits on each Council member. > Doesn't one just count the number of full terms a council member has served? if < 2 they can run again, if >2 they can't. a.

1 0

some issues related to the idea of all terms ending on 23 October.
by Margie Milam Aug. 28, 2009

Aug. 28, 2009

Dear GNSO Council Members: In response to Avri's most recent emails concerning the Restructure Implementation Plan, I thought it would be useful to add some relevant background along with Staff's rationale concerning certain timing elements and Bylaws provisions. 1. There is an important section of the plan document that was not referenced in Avri's most recent email. The draft Plan clearly indicates that the Chair and Vice-Chair would continue in Seoul precisely to manage the Council's transition. These administrative roles are described in the draft Restructuring Implementation Plan, as follows: "GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair: These positions will continue in an administrative capacity until such time as the new GNSO Council elects a Chair and two Vice-Chairs, one from each House. Council membership and voting privileges will be determined in accordance with the provisions of this plan." The draft Plan intended to clarify that the incumbent GNSO Council Chair and Vice Chair would be non-voting (unless otherwise elected to the new Council); otherwise, we would have too many voting Councilors in the bicameral structure (22 instead 20 members). Due to the unique and special circumstances of this transition, we anticipated that travel funding for the Chair and Vice-Chairs, as needed, would be approved by the ICANN Finance Department. 2. As Avri noted in her first email, the Bylaws Amendments (Article XX, Section 6), posted in August for public comment and approved at the Board meeting this week, referenced the need for a Restructure Implementation Plan: "The GNSO Council, as part of its Restructure Implementation Plan, will document: (a) how vacancies, if any, will be handled during the transition period; (b) for each Stakeholder Group, how each assigned Council seat to take effect at the 2009 ICANN annual meeting will be filled, whether through a continuation of an existing term or a new election or appointment; (c) how it plans to address staggered terms such that the new GNSO Council preserves as much continuity as reasonably possible; (d) the effect of Bylaws term limits on each Council member." Staff understands that the Board Secretary will be posting a preliminary report on the results of the Board meeting this week, so you'll be able to confirm this information shortly. In Staff's view, the Bylaws anticipated the one-time shortening of existing Councilor terms because the new Council was directed to take effect "at the commencement of the ICANN meeting in Seoul or such other date the board may designate by resolution." Thus, by necessity, Councilors' terms that were not continuing in the new Council would have to terminate prior to the effective date of the new Council seating. If the GNSO Council believes that a date other than the commencement of the ICANN meeting in Seoul is more appropriate, it should identify that date and reflect it in the Plan along with the details of a plan consistent with that recommendation. Hopefully this provides you with a fuller context concerning how this draft proposal was constructed. As Rob indicated, Staff's intent was to provide the GNSO a starting point for its discussions on finalizing the implementation details, recognizing that the Council may recommend other approaches as appropriate. Best Regards, Margie ________________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ________________ -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 9:27 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] some issues related to the idea of all terms ending on 23 October. Hi, Prompted by the document sent by the Policy staff (I know it is from Rob, but I am assuming that its contents have the imprimatur of the Policy Staff leadership) I started thinking about the side effects of ending all terms on the 23 of October. While I still maintain that it is not what the Bylaws mandate - always assuming that (for the purpose of this note) they still are as they were in the last draft - I could be proven wrong. So it seemed worth looking at the possible wrinkle we have been presented with. 1. So that I have said it and it is out of the way, under those circumstances, I would no longer be a member of the council and consequently no longer be council chair. While not having to travel to Seoul and donating one last week of my life to the GNSO council cause does have some side benefits, it also prevents me from doing what I think is my job which is to assist the council in a smooth transition and orderly hand over. However, I believe that no one is ever indispensable and certainly that applies to me. This could be dealt with by making sure that both houses had elected their vice chairs on the Saturday (my suggestion in any case), as the Bylaws provide for the vice-chairs to take the chair role in the absence of a chair. Since the new council won't be seated until the 23rd they would not be able to elect a new chair until then. Another possibility would be to schedule an actual voting meeting on the Saturday morning to either elect a temporary chair or the actual ongoing chair. Chuck, who I assume would be re-chosen as a Council member by his SG to finish out his current time, would be able to chair that meeting until the new chair was elected. Otherwise, the plan could proceed as I originally suggested with having the vote on the new chair as well as the vote on the new Council procedures as the first items of the Wednesday meeting. If every council member is in attendance either in person on remotely for at least this part of the meeting, the election can be completed quickly - otherwise it can be continued as I originally suggested with a 24 absentee ballet and completed in time for the Thursday meeting. There may also be other solutions to this consequent of terminating all terms on the 23rd but it appears that replacing me as chair is fairly easy to work around if I am not longer on the council in Seoul. 2. It exacerbates the plan of how the alternate year seating plan is enacted. I think this is a bigger issue. If it is time zero for every council member, then we need a plan in each of the SGs to elect one for one year and another for two years (possibly complicated by the Contracted parties having an odd number of council members, so instead of 3 odd and 3 even in the house we might have 2 odd and 4 even). Whereas if some people are appointed to continue with their last year while others are newly elected to full terms, it is most likely that a natural alternation will occur that may only need to be adjuste in a few cases in the non-contracted house. 3. In terms of the continuing NCA, if indeed Terry's term is terminated, he needs to be reappointed for a one year term. Perhaps this has already been dealt with and we will find out when the Nomcom list is announced. 4. I know that as new NCA when I began, the first meeting I attended, since we do not have retreats as the Board does for new members, was an important learning time. Inserting a new NCA into the council and requiring them to be functional on their first day of ICANN participation (and I do not know whether we have one or two new NCA council members) is a daunting prospect. Various constituency members have talked about the need for them to go to the meeting in Seoul to provide assistance for new council members, and these are people who have been active in the constituencies. Imagine what it is like for a new NCA for whom it may be their first ICANN meeting. while I now feel that I understand every nook and cranny of ICANN's gothic architecture, it can be frightening at first glance. There may be other issues, but those are the first that occur to me. a.

2 1

Rodenbaugh Comment re GNSO Restructure Amendments to ICANN Bylaws
by Mike Rodenbaugh Aug. 28, 2009

Aug. 28, 2009

For nearly three years I have represented the Business Constituency as one of its Officers and GNSO Councilors, but make these comments in my personal capacity only, as they have not been reviewed by the BC. Why is ICANN refusing to allow new constituencies in the Contracted Party SG? There are applications for two subsets of newTLD registry operators -- geoTLDs and IDN TLDs. It seems reasonable for there to be a "Resellers Constituency." These commercial entities have interests wholly aligned with those of the Contracted Parties. Indeed resellers effectively are contracted parties, and prospective registry operators will have a contract with ICANN upon making their application. Meanwhile they have an "as soon as possible" expectancy of such a contract, and then a registry contract. Yet the Board and Staff, without any explanation that I have seen, have unilaterally decided that no other entities will be allowed into the "Contracted Party" House. These entities do not belong in the Non-Contracted Party SG, as they simply would dilute the power and voice of the vast majority of entities and individuals in the world, who do not rely substantially on ICANN contracts (or the expectation of ICANN contract) for their livelihood, but are materially impacted by the policies of ICANN and its contracting parties. Resellers and prospective registry applicants (if that was their primary purpose, at least) would not be allowed in the existing or proposed Business Constituency, ISPCPC or IPC -- and should not be allowed to dilute the voices of the new Commercial SG and Non-Commercial SG. Representatives of those parties have indicated assent, however reluctantly in many cases, to this restructuring plan on the basis that parties aligned with ICANN Contracting Parties would find their voice through that House, not ours. The voices and voting power of so-called "Non-Contracting" commercial interests are already heavily diluted under this restructuring scheme, with the NCSG gaining much and the Contracting Parties losing nothing whatsoever. Yet it is those "Non-Contracting" commercial interests that essentially fund by far the greatest portion of ICANN's budget through their domain registration fees, and it is those commercial interests that make domain names valuable. While those interests suffer much already in the proposed restructure, now it will be proposed that 'contracting party' interests be allowed in our House as well? The result will be an even stronger stranglehold on policy development than is already wielded by the Contracting Parties. Their two Constituencies are essentially aligned in interest on virtually all issues. Alignment will only increase if ICANN repeals restrictions on cross-ownership, which anyway do not exist with respect to ccTLDs in most cases, so we have seen registrars and registries teaming up on ventures for many years now. One of the GNSO Councilors, for the Registrar Constituency, is CEO of a registry services company. Effectively today they are one block with effective veto power over anything. The best way to cement that in place is to forbid any other voices from joining their House. Why do Contracting Parties maintain double voting? It is unwise that the Contracting Parties are allowed to continue with 'double voting' on the new Council. Is it not a main point of the restructure to increase participation and diversity on the Council? Why does this only apply to one House, and not the other? Particularly in the near future with hundreds more new TLD operators, and most likely hundreds more registrars, there is no excuse to allow just six seats in that House, while there are twelve in the other. That makes it twice as hard to persuade a single vote to "switch sides", which might make the difference in many cases. [Not sure if this is changed in their new charters, but for similar reasons it also should be forbidden that the Registry Constituency Councilors be required to vote as a block as they are today, rather than individually as in the Registrar Constituency.] ICANN should be well aware that this entire GNSO restructure has been a bitter pill for the "Non-Contracting" business community to swallow. Their power and voices will be diminished and those who have been involved know it. It has not caused such recent uproar since the newTLD process has proved to be a more immediate and distressing battle for some in that community, though by no means all. These details are also rather uninteresting for any normal person to consider, particularly anyone who has not participated on Council. From my perspective, these specific elements of the new restructure could result in a lot more bitterness in the years to come, and appear wholly contrary to the spirit and stated intention of the ICANN Board in its mandate of this effort. Moreover, they were primary facets of the compromise reached in 2008, which now appear to have been discarded by the Board and Staff, without explanation or reason. Sincerely, Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com

7 9

Revised GNSO Council Transition Implementation Plan and Timetable Documents
by Robert Hoggarth Aug. 28, 2009

Aug. 28, 2009

Dear Council Members; At Chuck's suggestion, to facilitate discussion at the 3 September Council meeting I am circulating to you updated copies of the draft GNSO Council Restructure Draft Implementation Plan (v3) and the GNSO Council Restructure Draft Timetable (v3). You'll recall I circulated previous document versions on 10 August (v1 of the draft Plan and Timetable) and 15 August (v2 of the draft Plan). The documents were also noted during the 13 August Council meeting. I am hopeful that you will set side time for a discussion of the documents at your meeting next week. There are a number of significant transition matters included in the draft documents that need your review and community agreement. They include (1) the timing of the Council Chair and Vice Chair elections - and how that timing impacts a smooth transition in Seoul; (2) the timing of the present Council member terms - when they officially expire and when the new terms begin; and potentially (3) the assignment mechanisms for the three Nominating Committee Appointees into their respective slots on the Council (I am hopeful that we will have more information on the necessity of that topic in time for the meeting). To make sure that everything is proceeding smoothly, it would also be extremely helpful for representatives of the various GNSO structures (Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies) to provide some basic update information to the Council (verbally at the meeting or before in writing) on (1) the progress they are making to establish their Executive Committees; and (2) their plans for their Council representative (s)elections (see draft Timetable document). On that last item, Kristina has provided some very helpful clarification information regarding her term and just today Tony Holmes provided a helpful update regarding Greg Ruth's seat and Maggie Mansourkia's new Council member status. As I mentioned in my previous emails (copies also attached), these documents are intended to spark discussion. They are Staff suggestions based on the now Board-ratified Bylaws and other recent discussions of the Council and the Restructure Drafting Team. The Council is obviously free to edit, modify or otherwise complete replace the drafts with new plan documents. The only strong recommendation is that the Council agree on its plan by the 24 September meeting so that the community has a complete picture on what is expected to happen in Seoul. I am happy to try and answer any questions regarding the drafts between now and the meeting. An email dialogue during the coming week may make any meeting discussions shorter and more productive. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth

3 4