April 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11
by Tim Ruiz April 20, 2010

April 20, 2010

Adrian makes some very valid points. One question for Staff on the effect of the motion, if passed and incorporated in the budget. Will it result in an increase in the FY11 budgeted expenses, or will funds be moved around to account for it to keep the expense total as currently projected? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> Date: Tue, April 20, 2010 6:59 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, "KnobenW(a)telekom.de" <KnobenW(a)telekom.de>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I think what the GNSO needs is a very simple resource model that maps current staffing, travel, external study funds against tasks. You don't actually need to be managing a staff budget, it is really managing a resource profile. So I would expect something along the lines of: policy staff: 4.5 FTE Travel funds in addition to ICANN meetings: $x Funds for external studies: $y Then you would expect some estimates related to the PDP steps: - issues report: x FTE - Initial report: y FTE - final report: z FTE You should then be able to work out that there is capacity for say 3 PDPs in parallel. Then what should those 3 be for the year becomes the question.... Right now you have GNSO council kicking off work left and right - with low thresholds to start something. The staff don't have the ability to say “no, can't fit that in this year”. The ultimate result is staff are spread too thin. Of course the same applies to the volunteer resources. Each stakeholder group probably has up to about 4 FTE of people really available to spend hours on this sort of work. I am talking about heavy lifters here - able to guide and draft text. So the point becomes how prioritisation needs to understand how many activities the GNSO can do well. Part of the reason the GNSO doesn't make much progress on some things - is it is working on 10-20 projects at once. I look forward to the Prioritisation Working Group presenting on their model. Chuck – further comments below. Adrian Kinderis From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 10:35 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; KnobenW(a)telekom.de; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Adrian, Please see my responses below. Chuck From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 7:42 PM To: KnobenW(a)telekom.de; Gomes, Chuck; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wolf et al, What concerns me over the entire function of the Council is the fact that there is no budget associated with the policy development*. [Gomes, Chuck] There is a budget associated with policy development although it is not separated as a policy development budget per se. It would be helpful if it was. [AK] Agreed The Work Prioritisation Team is about to present a prioritisation methodology and process that is unable to take into account the amount of staff time that is budgeted to support prioritised work. [Gomes, Chuck] Estimates could probably be made in this regard but I don't think they are needed to do the initial prioritization. They would become quite important if we do not have enough resources to do all of our work. [AK] That is exactly my point! If we don’t have the resources perhaps we should re-evaluate our prioritisation! This seems upside down or back-to-front or something. How can we comment on funding for WHOIS studies when we have no visibility on how much it may impact our ability to have staff support other important areas of work? [Gomes, Chuck] My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of the Studies work would be outsourced. Obviously Staff has to arrange for that and manage it; is that what you are talking about Adrian? I assume the Whois Studies project, if we approve some studies would be a part of our prioritization exercise, but that would only be the case if there are funds to do some studies. [AK] That is indeed what i mean. Do we have any idea how big the bucket is and how much each task/ project will impact it? *On a GNSO call a few months back I asked Denise explicitly if there was a budget for staff support of Policy Development. I was told directly and clearly that there is not. [Gomes, Chuck] I think there is a misunderstanding here. There are lots of funds in the budget to support policy development work; we benefit from those funds everyday. But, as noted above, to date they have not been reported as a separate and inclusive budget category. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW(a)telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 6:40 AM To: cgomes(a)verisign.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Chuck is this meant as a placeholder to be sure having funds available in FY11? Which is the deadline where it has to become more precise in terms of the number and kind of studies to be funded? I suppose everybody has own priorities. Speaking on behalf of the ISP constituency we would like to see on top those studies dealing with data accuracy improvement and secondly those digging into the privacy complex. Regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Freitag, 16. April 2010 22:37 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wichtigkeit: Hoch <<Motion for Whois Studies Funding for FY11.doc>> In our Council meeting on 1 April I encouraged Councilors and their respective SGs and Constituencies to develop and propose specfic recommendations for funding of Whois Studies in the FY11 budget but no such recommendations were submitted. Recognizing that the Draft ICANN Budget has to be posted not later than 17 May and our next Council meeting after the one on 21 April is not until 20 May, three days later, I decided that we should try to make a recommendation in our meeting on 21 April. To facilitate that possibility I asked Liz to draft the attached motion (also pasted below). Because of the lateness of the motion we would need to first approve an exception to the 8-day GNSO Operating Procedures Requirement for motions before we could act on this motion. Also note that the motion has a placeholder for the amount to be budgeted for Whois Studies. My personal opinion is that it would be good to fund at least two studies in FY11 and even better if we could fund three if they are ready to go, thereby avoiding very lengthy delays for at least two and maybe three studies. Based on the estimates provided for two of the studies, a minimum of $300,000 would be needed and it might be wise to add a 10% buffer on to that, making it $330,000. If we decided to budget for three studies, one of which we do not have any cost estimates for, we could bump the amount up to $500,000. In a year of limited financial resources, we cannot guarantee how much will ultimately be put into the budget but we can should in my opinion at least make a recommendation for consideration by the community and ultimately the ICANN Board. . Please discuss this motion with your SGs and Constituencies before our meeting on Wednesday so that we can act on it using whatever amount we decide at that time if possible. Discussion on the list is encouraged and, if anyone is willing to second it without the amount inserted, that is welcome as well. If anyone would rather see an amount inserted, we can insert one that can later be amended. Chuck Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) Before defining the details of studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-report-25… ). On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS studies and following that assessment the Council would decide which studies should be conducted (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903) On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the GNSO Council of costs and feasibility for the first two study areas, and will continue to work on the remaining areas Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least (insert US dollar amount) be included in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011. Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this resolution to the ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance Committee.

2 1

REMINDER Webinar Surveys Whois Requirements, Past and Future - TODAY Tuesday 20 April
by Glen de Saint Géry April 19, 2010

April 19, 2010

REMINDER: http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-09apr10-en.htm Webinar Surveys Whois Requirements, Past and Future *Tuesday, 20 April 2010. 17:00 UTC (10:00 Marina del Rey, 13:00 Washington D.C, 19:00 Brussels) *Tuesday, 4 May 2010, 06:00 UTC (09:00 Riyadh, 11:00 Islamabad, 15:00 Seoul, 16:00 Sydney) Prepared content will be identical at both sessions. (Live audience questions may vary.) The webinar is offered in English. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Teleconference Agenda - 21 April 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry April 19, 2010

April 19, 2010

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the GNSO Council Teleconference on WEDNESDAY, 21 April 2010 at 11:00 UTC. please find the Agenda below. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-21apr10-en.htm https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_21_april_2010 Note the Council motions are posted at : https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 28 October 2009 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/operating-procedures-revised-draft-clean-09o… For convenience: •An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. •An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 11:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 04:00 PDT; 06:00 CDT; 07:00 EDT; 08:00 Buenos Aires; 08:00 Brazil; 13:00 CEST; 15:00 Moscow; 16:00 Pakistan; 19:00 Hong Kong; 20:00 Tokyo, 21:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Please click on the link to join the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/ Please enter as a 'guest'. Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: •1 April 2010 meeting – Approved 16 April 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-01apr10-en.htm Item 2: GNSO Improvements (20 Minutes) 2.1 OSC Communication & Coordination (CCT) WT Recommendations 2.1.1 Refer to CCT WT Report Part 1: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf 2.1.2 Overview of recommendations (Julie Hedlund) 2.1.3 Discussion 2.1.4 Motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions 2.1.5 Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed on these motions.) Item 3: Prioritization of GNSO work (30 minutes) 3.1 Refer to Recommendations by the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT): http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf 3.2 Overview of Recommendations (Olga Cavalli/Ken Bour) 3.3 Discussion 3.4 Next steps? 3.4.1 Motion https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions 3.4.2 Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed on this motion.) Item 4: Whois Studies (25 minutes) 4.1 Refer to: •Whois Studies Report: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion# http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… •Public comment site for the Framework for ICANN's FY11 Operating Plan and Budget: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#op-budg… (Note that the comment period ended 1 April 2010.) •Public comment: Draft NORC Report on Whois Accuracy, (comment period ends 15 April 2010) Presentation Slides from 1 April 2010 Council meeting: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/whois-studies-presentation-01apr10-en.… Follow-up to WHOIS Studies discussion on 1 April 2010 prepared by Liz Gasster, 5 April 2010: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-follow-up-discussion-05apr10-en.pdf 4.2 Summary of proposals for Whois Study budget requests from the GNSO (Liz Gasster) 4.3 Discussion 4.4 Motion https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions 4.4.1 Discussion 4.4.2 Vote Note: 1) a final budget has to be finished by 17 May and there are currently no funds budgeted for Whois Studies; 2) Absentee voting will not be allowed for this motion Item 5: Joint SO/AC WG to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs (5 Minutes) 5.1 Status update (Chuck) •So far, GAC and ALAC plan to participate •Olof Nordling will be the lead New gTLD Implementation Team Staff person supporting this WG 5.2 Request for GNSO participants Item 6: Other Business (20 minutes) 6.1 GNSO Comments regarding the FY11 Operating Plan and Budget? 6.2 AGP Policy questions (Craig Schwartz) •Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy to no longer require semi-annual updates? •Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy by defining the terms “extraordinary circumstances” or “reoccur regularly? For example: ◦Should instances of consumer fraud automatically be a legitimate use of AGP deletes? ◦If a registrar proactively takes down (i.e., deletes) domains that are known to propagate a fraudulent activity such as phishing, should the registrar bear the cost if the deletions cause the registrar to exceed the threshold defined in the Policy? 6.2.1 Follow-up actions? 6.3 Mike Rodenbaugh motion regarding the VeriSign .net Registry Services proposal for a Domain Name Exchange service 6.3.1 Refer to the motion at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions 6.3.2 Discussion 6.3.3 Vote (Note that absentee voting will not apply.) 6.4 Reminder : The Council motion passed on 18 February included the following task : ‘the Affirmation of Commitments Review Drafting Team is requested to continue its work to develop a longer-term process for Council consideration in April’. 6.4.1 Status report (Bill Drake) 6.4.2 Action items? 6.5 Should the GNSO Council submit comments regarding ‘Report of Possible Process Options for Further Consideration of the ICM Application for the .XXX sTLD’ ? (Note that comments are due by 10 May.) 6.6 Request for provisional Trusted Community Representatives (TCRs) for the root key generation and signing ceremonies : http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12apr10-en.htm •Note the very short window for expressions of interest : Friday, 23 April. 6.7 Any other business? Item 7 Status updates (5 minutes) 7.1 Questions/comments on written status updates sent in advance by leaders of Working Groups, Work Teams, staff projects, etc.? Status updates: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/notes-council-21april10-en.htm Item 8: The updated GNSO Project Status List (5 minutes) http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 8.1 Questions/comments? Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1.Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2.Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3.Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4.Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5.Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6.Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1.Initiate a policy development process; 2.Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3.Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4.Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e-mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 11:00UTC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 04:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 12:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+1DST 15:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 20:00 Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 21:00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) 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

FW: Trusted Community Representatives
by Gomes, Chuck April 18, 2010

April 18, 2010

Please note the request for provisional Trusted Community Representatives (TCRs) for the root key generation and signing ceremonies : http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12apr10-en.htm <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12apr10-en.htm> . And especially note the very short window for expressions of interest : Friday, 23 April. Please distribute this in your respective groups immediately. Thanks, Chuck ________________________________ From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 5:13 PM To: Olga Cavalli; Gomes, Chuck; Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Subject: FW: Trusted Community Representatives ====================================================== Message from Doug Brent Dear Chairpersons of the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees: As you know, ICANN (as the IANA functions operator) is working jointly with VeriSign (as the root zone maintainer) in the process of making the root of the DNS more secure through the implementation of DNSSEC. As part of this joint effort with the US Department of Commerce, ICANN will seek on a provisional basis the participation of a number of persons to participate in the root key generation and signing ceremonies. These persons are called Trusted Community Representatives ("TCRs"). The TCRs will be chosen by ICANN based on Statements of Interest from the Internet community. The initial TCR selection will be on a provisional basis, to determine the viability of the approach based upon the first initialization of the Hardware Security Modules (HSMs) and key generation that are scheduled to take place in June of this year. There are two types of TCRs - a "Crypto Officer" and a "Recovery Key Share Holder". A Crypto Officer participates in activating (enabling) the HSM containing the private half of the DNSSEC root Key Signing Key (KSK) before that module may be used for cryptographic operations. Seven (7) individuals are designated for each ICANN-operated secure KSK facility, with one facility located on the U.S. East Coast and another facility on the U.S. West Coast, for a total of 14 Crypto Officers. It is expected that each TCR will be required to travel to either the US East or West Coast ICANN KSK facility up to four (4) times a year. A Recovery Key Share Holder is responsible for protecting a part of a key used to encrypt backup copies of the HSM contents. Each share holder is responsible for keeping a smart card (in a tamper-evident bag) in a bank safe deposit box accessible by them. Seven (7) individuals are required. After HSM initialization, the share holder is not expected to participate in any scheduled ceremonies, but must be able to travel to an ICANN KSK facility in the US on relatively short notice at any time when requested. Share holders must participate in the annual inventory by providing proof of possession of their smart card. As leaders of the ICANN community, we would like to ask you to help communicate this opportunity to qualified individuals to serve as TCRs. We intend to select individuals that are committed to the security of the DNS and, as much as possible, reflect geographic diversity. Qualified candidates should be knowledgeable about the technical functions for which ICANN has responsibilities. For an individual to be considered, he or she must submit a Statement of Interest following the application procedures that are to be published on the ICANN and http://www.root-dnssec.org/tcr/ websites. Based on these submissions, ICANN will select 21 TCRs along with a reserve list of candidates for use as replacements if needed. For more information about the TCR program and the application and selection process, please visit http://www.root-dnssec.org . TCRs will serve an important function in enhancing the security of the DNS and to the greatest extent possible should reflect the diverse makeup of the ICANN community. Please help us communicate this need. Thank you in advance for your help and consideration. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, Doug -- Doug Brent Chief Operating Officer ICANN Voice: +1 310.301.3871 Mobile: +1 650.996.4447 Fax: +1 310.823.8649

1 0

ICANN Board Agenda - 22 April 2010
by Bruce Tonkin April 15, 2010

April 15, 2010

Hello All, Below is the agenda for the Board meeting next week. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-22apr10-en.htm Board Meeting - Agenda 22 April 2010 Consent Agenda: =============== 1. Consent Agenda Resolution: 1. .INFO Contract Amendment re One & Two Character Names 2. Redelegation - Tanzania (.TZ) 3. Approval of Recommendation from Compensation Committee regarding Paul Twomey's At Risk Component of Compensation as Senior President 4. Renewal of DotPro Registry Agreement Main Board Meeting: =================== 2. President's Report 3. Proposed Implementation Plan for Synchronized ccTLD 4. Delegation of IDN ccTLDs 5. Latin American Meeting Location 6. Affirmation of Commitments 1. A. Meeting Our Commitments under AOC B. Board oversight of performance of Affirmation of Commitments. 2. Supporting & Facilitating Reviews - Board's Role 3. Transparency & Accountability Review Update 7. DNS Cert 8. New gTLDs 1. Reporting performance against new gTLD Project Plan 2. Status of Vertical Integration, IP Issues and Communications Plan 9. May Retreat- Draft Agenda 10. UDRP Policy - relationships with service providers; changes in procedures 11. Any Other Business 12. Executive Session

1 0

Re: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO
by Caroline Greer April 15, 2010

April 15, 2010

I completely agree with you Tim. If Council does decide to issue comments, those comments should be focused on process issues. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that this focus is lacking in any of the public comments to date. The case raises questions around accountability, transparency and predictability and so I think it right that we at least consider it. ---------------- Caroline Greer Director of Policy dotMobi ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Apr 15 22:30:29 2010 Subject: RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO The draft options document does raise serious questions. Should the Board be able to pick and choose what it wants from the findings of the IRP (majority findings, minority findings, or parts of either), or should the decision be that it either accepts the findings of the Panel or rejects them? If the Board agrees with the finding, should it be able to decide to not act on those findings anyway (too much time has passed, too much has changed, etc)? It gets to the accountability and institutional confidence issues that the community has been hounding on for years (and hopefully the first AoC review team will finally resolve). If the Council should choose to comment, I would prefer that the comment be focused on these higher level issues and not the specifics of this particular case. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Thu, April 15, 2010 3:56 pm To: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu>, "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> To be clear, my reluctance has nothing to do with the TLD itself. I have nightmarish visions of the proverbial slippery slope where Council becomes bombarded with requests for comment and/or intervention on a multitude of issues. Even if such requests came only from owners of new gTLD applications that fail, it's still a potentially big pool. Mary, if you're suggesting that this may be an opportunity for Council to issue a statement on when it will (or will not) comment, I'm all for it. K From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:50 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO I agree and also for the reasons outlined by Stephane. Personally I think it probably not something the Council as a whole should comment on, but it'd be remiss of us not to at least discuss it, with a view toward figuring out whether or not there ought to be just such a public statement on our part. Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong(a)piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch>To:GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org>Date: 4/14/2010 11:16 AMSubject: Re: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO I think we have to talk about it for the reasons Stéphane states. Which admittedly is probably easier for me to say since I didn't live through it the last time around. Bill On Apr 14, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: LOL. I do think it's worth discussing if there is time during our next meeting. If people echo's Kristina's desire not to go anywhere near this, then that discussion will be short. But .XXX is a gTLD, it is within the purview of the GNSO, and the case does raise several procedural issues that I think lie at the core of ICANN's function (the main one being, obviously, whether the independent review panel's decisions actually mean anything). Stéphane Le 14 avr. 2010 à 15:54, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : My only interest in discussing would be to say that I don't want to touch this topic with a 10-foot-pole, but I suspect that's not what you had in mind. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:52 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO If anyone would like to discuss this in our 21 April meeting, please say so and I will add it under Any Other Business. Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:46 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO Councillors, Chuck and I were recently contacted by ICM Registry CEO Stuart Lawley. Stuart asked us if the GNSO Council might be willing to make a comment on the ICM process options (the comment period for that being currently underway). In response, I suggested that Stuart send us a draft of what kind of comment he would like to ask the Council to make, so that we could all at least consider it. Chuck explained to Stuart that the GNSO Council does not frequently make comments on behalf of the GNSO in response to ICANN comment periods, part of the reason for that being the difficulty we sometimes have in reaching consensus on such comments within the timeframe of an ICANN comment period. Neither of us indicated to Stuart that there would be any GNSO Council action following his request. You will find below the exact transcript of the text that Stuart sent us to forward to the Council in response to my suggestion. The idea being that if Council is interested in discussing this, then the text may serve as a starting point for that discussion. Thanks, Stéphane We would ask the GNSo , or indeed and of its members, to consider commenting to ICANN during the Public Comment Period that runs until May 10 on the Possible Process Options for ICM as outlined in the ICANN announcement http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-26mar10-en.htm. Regardless of the nature of the sTLD we feel this is a watershed moment for ICANN in terms of its Transparency and Accountability and would like the Council to consider submitting a comment/statement along the lines of The GNSO urges ICANN to implement the findings of the Independent Review Panel in ICM Registry v. ICANN without delay by finalizing a registry agreement with ICM based on the rules established for the sTLD applications submitted in March, 2004. The merits of the .xxx top level domain are no longer on the table: rather, the only question now before the ICANN Board is whether or not it is prepared to respect the findings of a panel of independent judges in accordance with a procedure established by the ICANN bylaws. Those findings are: 1. That the ICANN Board determined on 1 June 2005 that the ICM Registry application met the criteria established for the sTLD round opened on December 15, 2003; 2. The Boards reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy. 3. That ICANN should have proceeded to negotiate a contract with ICM Registry; and Those findings are clear, and the path forward is plain: The ICM Registrys application was submitted under the rules established by the Board for the sTLD round based on extensive community input. Having determined that the ICM application satisfied the eligibility criteria established for that round, all that remains is for ICANN to negotiate a contract with ICM Registry based on the contractual arrangements adopted for that round. Most of the options provided by staff for responding to the IRP declaration would apply new rules to ICM Registry. There is no principled basis for this approach, which would only compound the violations already identified in the IRP declaration. The Board should reject those options, respect the judgment of the Independent Review panel, and provide tangible proof of its willingness to be accountable to the community it serves. *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************

1 0

RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO
by Tim Ruiz April 15, 2010

April 15, 2010

The draft options document does raise serious questions. Should the Board be able to pick and choose what it wants from the findings of the IRP (majority findings, minority findings, or parts of either), or should the decision be that it either accepts the findings of the Panel or rejects them? If the Board agrees with the finding, should it be able to decide to not act on those findings anyway (too much time has passed, too much has changed, etc)? It gets to the accountability and institutional confidence issues that the community has been hounding on for years (and hopefully the first AoC review team will finally resolve). If the Council should choose to comment, I would prefer that the comment be focused on these higher level issues and not the specifics of this particular case. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Thu, April 15, 2010 3:56 pm To: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu>, "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> To be clear, my reluctance has nothing to do with the TLD itself. I have nightmarish visions of the proverbial slippery slope where Council becomes bombarded with requests for comment and/or intervention on a multitude of issues. Even if such requests came only from owners of new gTLD applications that fail, it's still a potentially big pool. Mary, if you're suggesting that this may be an opportunity for Council to issue a statement on when it will (or will not) comment, I'm all for it. K From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:50 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO I agree and also for the reasons outlined by Stephane. Personally I think it probably not something the Council as a whole should comment on, but it'd be remiss of us not to at least discuss it, with a view toward figuring out whether or not there ought to be just such a public statement on our part. Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong(a)piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch>To:GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org>Date: 4/14/2010 11:16 AMSubject: Re: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO I think we have to talk about it for the reasons Stéphane states. Which admittedly is probably easier for me to say since I didn't live through it the last time around. Bill On Apr 14, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: LOL. I do think it's worth discussing if there is time during our next meeting. If people echo's Kristina's desire not to go anywhere near this, then that discussion will be short. But .XXX is a gTLD, it is within the purview of the GNSO, and the case does raise several procedural issues that I think lie at the core of ICANN's function (the main one being, obviously, whether the independent review panel's decisions actually mean anything). Stéphane Le 14 avr. 2010 à 15:54, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : My only interest in discussing would be to say that I don't want to touch this topic with a 10-foot-pole, but I suspect that's not what you had in mind. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:52 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO If anyone would like to discuss this in our 21 April meeting, please say so and I will add it under Any Other Business. Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:46 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO Councillors, Chuck and I were recently contacted by ICM Registry CEO Stuart Lawley. Stuart asked us if the GNSO Council might be willing to make a comment on the ICM process options (the comment period for that being currently underway). In response, I suggested that Stuart send us a draft of what kind of comment he would like to ask the Council to make, so that we could all at least consider it. Chuck explained to Stuart that the GNSO Council does not frequently make comments on behalf of the GNSO in response to ICANN comment periods, part of the reason for that being the difficulty we sometimes have in reaching consensus on such comments within the timeframe of an ICANN comment period. Neither of us indicated to Stuart that there would be any GNSO Council action following his request. You will find below the exact transcript of the text that Stuart sent us to forward to the Council in response to my suggestion. The idea being that if Council is interested in discussing this, then the text may serve as a starting point for that discussion. Thanks, Stéphane We would ask the GNSo , or indeed and of its members, to consider commenting to ICANN during the Public Comment Period that runs until May 10 on the Possible Process Options for ICM as outlined in the ICANN announcement http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-26mar10-en.htm. Regardless of the nature of the sTLD we feel this is a watershed moment for ICANN in terms of its Transparency and Accountability and would like the Council to consider submitting a comment/statement along the lines of The GNSO urges ICANN to implement the findings of the Independent Review Panel in ICM Registry v. ICANN without delay by finalizing a registry agreement with ICM based on the rules established for the sTLD applications submitted in March, 2004. The merits of the .xxx top level domain are no longer on the table: rather, the only question now before the ICANN Board is whether or not it is prepared to respect the findings of a panel of independent judges in accordance with a procedure established by the ICANN bylaws. Those findings are: 1. That the ICANN Board determined on 1 June 2005 that the ICM Registry application met the criteria established for the sTLD round opened on December 15, 2003; 2. The Boards reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy. 3. That ICANN should have proceeded to negotiate a contract with ICM Registry; and Those findings are clear, and the path forward is plain: The ICM Registrys application was submitted under the rules established by the Board for the sTLD round based on extensive community input. Having determined that the ICM application satisfied the eligibility criteria established for that round, all that remains is for ICANN to negotiate a contract with ICM Registry based on the contractual arrangements adopted for that round. Most of the options provided by staff for responding to the IRP declaration would apply new rules to ICM Registry. There is no principled basis for this approach, which would only compound the violations already identified in the IRP declaration. The Board should reject those options, respect the judgment of the Independent Review panel, and provide tangible proof of its willingness to be accountable to the community it serves. *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************

1 0

ICM registry request for GNSO
by Stéphane Van Gelder April 15, 2010

April 15, 2010

Councillors, Chuck and I were recently contacted by ICM Registry CEO Stuart Lawley. Stuart asked us if the GNSO Council might be willing to make a comment on the ICM process options (the comment period for that being currently underway). In response, I suggested that Stuart send us a draft of what kind of comment he would like to ask the Council to make, so that we could all at least consider it. Chuck explained to Stuart that the GNSO Council does not frequently make comments on behalf of the GNSO in response to ICANN comment periods, part of the reason for that being the difficulty we sometimes have in reaching consensus on such comments within the timeframe of an ICANN comment period. Neither of us indicated to Stuart that there would be any GNSO Council action following his request. You will find below the exact transcript of the text that Stuart sent us to forward to the Council in response to my suggestion. The idea being that if Council is interested in discussing this, then the text may serve as a starting point for that discussion. Thanks, Stéphane We would ask the GNSo , or indeed and of its members, to consider commenting to ICANN during the Public Comment Period that runs until May 10 on the Possible Process Options for ICM as outlined in the ICANN announcement http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-26mar10-en.htm. Regardless of the nature of the sTLD we feel this is a watershed moment for ICANN in terms of its Transparency and Accountability and would like the Council to consider submitting a comment/statement along the lines of The GNSO urges ICANN to implement the findings of the Independent Review Panel in ICM Registry v. ICANN without delay by finalizing a registry agreement with ICM based on the rules established for the sTLD applications submitted in March, 2004. The merits of the .xxx top level domain are no longer on the table: rather, the only question now before the ICANN Board is whether or not it is prepared to respect the findings of a panel of independent judges in accordance with a procedure established by the ICANN bylaws. Those findings are: 1. That the ICANN Board determined on 1 June 2005 that the ICM Registry application met the criteria established for the sTLD round opened on December 15, 2003; 2. The Boards reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy. 3. That ICANN should have proceeded to negotiate a contract with ICM Registry; and Those findings are clear, and the path forward is plain: The ICM Registry’s application was submitted under the rules established by the Board for the sTLD round based on extensive community input. Having determined that the ICM application satisfied the eligibility criteria established for that round, all that remains is for ICANN to negotiate a contract with ICM Registry based on the contractual arrangements adopted for that round. Most of the “options” provided by staff for responding to the IRP declaration would apply new rules to ICM Registry. There is no principled basis for this approach, which would only compound the violations already identified in the IRP declaration. The Board should reject those options, respect the judgment of the Independent Review panel, and provide tangible proof of its willingness to be accountable to the community it serves.

5 7

FW: [GAC] Draft GAC letter to ICANN re LEA Due Diligence and RAA amendment proposals
by Gomes, Chuck April 13, 2010

April 13, 2010

Please note the attached letters to ICANN as submitted by Janis recommending "Endorsement of the "Law Enforcement Recommended Amendments to ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and Due Diligence Recommendations"". Glen - Please forward these to the RAA WG. Chuck ________________________________ From: Janis Karklins [mailto:janis.karklins@icann.org] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:41 PM To: peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org Cc: 'ICANN Board ICANN Board List'; gac(a)gac.icann.org; Gomes, Chuck Subject: FW: [GAC] Draft GAC letter to ICANN re LEA Due Diligence and RAA amendment proposals Dear Peter, In the Nairobi Communiqué the GAC committed to send to ICANN the G8, Interpol and COE Octopus statements of support for the law enforcement agencies' proposals. In this respect, pls find attached the GAC letter and corresponding annexes: · Interpol Working Party on IT Crime-Europe Statement · G8 Lyon-Roma Group High Tech Crime Subgroup Statement · Council of Europe Project on Cybercrime, "Messages from the Octopus Conference" Best regards JK

5 5

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 21 April 2010.
by Glen de Saint Géry April 13, 2010

April 13, 2010

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 21 April 2010. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-21apr10-en.htm https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_21_april_2010 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 28 October 2009 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/operating-procedures-revised-draft-clean-09o… For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 11:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 04:00 PDT; 06:00 CDT; 07:00 EDT; 08:00 Buenos Aires; 08:00 Brazil; 13:00 CEST; 15:00 Moscow; 16:00 Pakistan; 19:00 Hong Kong; 20:00 Tokyo, 21:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Please click on the link to join the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/ Please enter as a 'guest'. Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: * 1 April 2010 meeting - Approved 16 April 2010 : (insert URL) Item 2: GNSO Improvements (20 Minutes) 2.1 OSC Communication & Coordination (CCT) WT Recommendations 2.1.1 Refer to CCT WT Report Part 1: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf 2.1.2 Overview of recommendations (Julie Hedlund) 2.1.3 Discussion 2.1.4 Motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions 2.1.5 Vote 2.2 OCS GNSO Council Operations WT Recommendations 2.2.1 Overview of recommendations (Julie Hedlund) 2.2.2 Discussion 2.2.3 Motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions 2.2.4 Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed on these motions.) Item 3: Whois Studies (30 minutes) 3.1 Refer to: * Whois Studies Report: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion#<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… * Public comment site for the Framework for ICANN's FY11 Operating Plan and Budget: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#op-budg… (Note that the comment period ended 1 April 2010.) * Public comment: Draft NORC Report on Whois Accuracy, (comment period ends 15 April 2010) Presentation Slides from 1 April 2010 Council meeting: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/whois-studies-presentation-01apr10-en.… Follow-up to WHOIS Studies discussion on 1 April 2010 prepared by Liz Gasster, 5 April 2010: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-follow-up-discussion-05apr10-en.pdf 3.2 Summary of proposals for Whois Study budget requests from the GNSO 3.3 Discussion 3.4 Next steps? * Note that a final budget has to be finished by 17 May and there are currently no funds budgeted for Whois Studies. Item 4: Prioritization of GNSO work (30 minutes) 4.1 Refer to Recommendations by the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT): http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf 4.2 Overview of Recommendations (Olga Cavalli/Ken Bour) 4.3 Discussion 4.4 Next steps? 4.4.1 Motion https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions4.4.2 Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed on this motion.) Item 5: Joint SO/AC WG to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs (5 Minutes) 5.1 Status update (Chuck) So far, GAC and ALAC plan to participate Olof Nordling will be the lead New gTLD Implementation Team Staff person supporting this WG 5.2 Request for GNSO participants Item 6: Other Business (15 minutes) 6.1 GNSO Comments regarding the FY11 Operating Plan and Budget? 6.2 AGP Policy overview of Staff report (Craig Schwartz) 6.2.1 Brief overview of Staff report (Craig Schwartz) * Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy to no longer require semi-annual updates? * Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy by defining the terms "extraordinary circumstances" or "reoccur regularly? For example: o Should instances of consumer fraud automatically be a legitimate use of AGP deletes? o If a registrar proactively takes down (i.e., deletes) domains that are known to propagate a fraudulent activity such as phishing, should the registrar bear the cost if the deletions cause the registrar to exceed the threshold defined in the Policy? 6.2.2 Follow-up actions? 6.3 Mike Rodenbaugh motion regarding the VeriSign .net Registry Services proposal for a Domain Name Exchange service 6.3.1 Refer to the motion at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions6.3.2 Discussion 6.3.3 Vote Note that absentee voting will not apply. 6.4 Any other business? Item 7 Status updates (5 minutes) 7.1 Questions/comments on written status updates sent in advance by leaders of Working Groups, Work Teams, staff projects, etc.? Status updates: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/notes-council-21april10-en.htm Item 8: The updated GNSO Project Status List (5 minutes) http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 7.1 Questions/comments? Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Supermajority"); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. ________________________________________ Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ________________________________________ Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 11:00UTC ________________________________________ California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 04:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 12:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+1DST 15:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 20:00 Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 21:00 ________________________________________ The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0