October 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
by john＠crediblecontext.com 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

Stephane, I am good with the letter, but note that the second paragraph is grammatically challenged. I have restated it as: As a first step, we want to ensure that we have a common understanding of the proposal. The Proposal,at the top-level, places the exact strings contained in Schedule A of the Proposal on the official reserved names list as opposed to the “Strings Ineligible for Registration” list in the Applicant Guidebook, and (b) that the reservation be permanent, not just for the initial new gTLD round. This implies that the names may not be used as gTLDs, even at the request of the designated trade-mark owners. Cheers, Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Tue, October 25, 2011 3:15 am To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Thanks to Jeff for starting us off on this, and to all those who proposed edits. I have tried to group these together in the attached document. I have only included actual edits, not suggestions, as I did not want to put words in other people's mouths. Please review/comment as required. Stéphane Le 24 oct. 2011 à 15:40, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : > Some additional suggested changes (the attached incorporates Tim's suggestions.) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 9:13 AM > To: john(a)crediblecontext.com > Cc: GNSO Council; Neuman,Jeff > Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names > > > Agree with John's edits with a couple of suggestons: > > In the second paragraph, first sentence would read better as: > As a first step, we want to ensure that we have a common understanding > of your proposal. > > In the third paragraph perhaps instead of asking how it affects existing > registrations, we make it statement that, as we understand it, there > would be no impact on existing registrations. > > Not married to either edit, just suggestions. > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: > IOC/Red Cross Names > From: <john(a)crediblecontext.com> > Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 7:26 am > To: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Cc: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Jeff, > > I have made some suggestions. > > Berard > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: > IOC/Red Cross Names > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 3:37 am > To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > All, > > Please find enclosed a proposed draft of a note that I believe should be > sent by Stephane to the GAC documenting our discussion yesterday on the > IOC/Red Cross names, including both a recap of our understanding of the > proposal and the questions we have. This is a first draft and I welcome > your comments or suggestions. I know the suggestion that we form a > joint group was met with silence, but I strongly believe we should > continue to press on that. > > Thanks. > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > Dear __________, > > The GNSO Council truly appreciates the work that has gone into the > GAC’s “Proposal to the GNSO RE: Protecting the International > Committee and Red Cross/Red Crescent Names in New gTLDs” > (“Proposal”). We want to assure you that the GNSO Council has > taken, and will continue to take, the proposal seriously. At this point > in time, we do not have a consensus position of the Council on this > topic, but believe the way forward is to try and find a way work with > collaboratively with the GAC to find a workable solution to the issues > identified. > > To that end, we wanted to document our understanding of the proposal to > ensure that we had a common understanding on the Proposal. Our > understanding is that the Proposal at the top-level is (a) to place the > exact strings contained in Schedule A of the Proposal on the official > reserved names list as opposed to the “Strings Ineligible for > Registration” list in the Applicant Guidebook, and (b) that the > reservation be a permanent one as opposed to applying in just the > initial round. > > At the second-level, the Proposal asks that the strings contained in > Schedule A be “reserved”. With respect to this proposal, the GNSO > raised several questions during its discussions this weekend. The first > is to confirm whether the reservation sought applies just to exact > matches of those marks or whether it is the GAC’s desire to > “reserve” all strings containing those marks. We have assumed it > was the former, but would like to confirm. > > In addition, the GNSO Council noted that there are several types of > Reserved Names contained within the proposed new gTLD ICANN Registry > Agreement. The first type which only consists of the string > “EXAMPLE” is a reserved name which may under no circumstances be > delegated at the second level. The second type of Reserved Names are > those that are initially reserved, but may be used by the Registry > Operator (eg, www, nic and whois). A third type of reserved names are > those that are initially reserved, but may be delegated under certain > limited circumstances. For example, two character strings are initially > reserved, however, the Registry Operator may propose release of these > reservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion > with the corresponding country codes. Further, country and territory > names are initially reserved, but may be released to the extent that the > Registry Operator reaches agreement with the applicable government(s), > or subject to review by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee and > approval by ICANN. > > Finally, the GNSO understands that with respect to both the IOC and Red > Cross marks, there may be certain circumstances in which the IOC, Red > Cross and/or their affiliated entities may want to use the domain names > and the second-level themselves. In addition, notwithstanding the > international protection afforded to these marks, there may be certain > circumstances where third parties do have a legitimate right to use and > register these marks either due to grandfathering rules, geographic > considerations, etc. (eg., Olympic Airlines and Olympic paint). > Therefore, the GNSO believes that there should be a mechanism to release > these names to those entities and that such a mechanism still needs to > be developed. > > The GNSO Council would like to thank the GAC for the well thought out > and detailed proposal and would like to again request that the GNSO work > collaboratively together to address these questions We believe a good > way forward would be solicit volunteers from both the GAC and GNSO to > form a committee or task force to work through these issues with the > goal of sending those recommendations back to their respective > organizations for approval. We know time is limited to resolve these > matters and remain committed to do so as quickly as possible. > > Respectfully submitted, > > _____________________ > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 > Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / > jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for > the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential > and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you > have received this e-mail message in error and any review, > dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately and delete the original message. > > > <GAC letter.doc>

7 10

GNSO Council resolutions
by Glen de Saint Géry 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the official GNSO Council minutes, please find resolution 1 that was passed at the meeting of the old GNSO Council and resolution 2 that was passed by the new GNSO Council that reconvened at the end of the meeting in Dakar on 26 October 2011. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen 1. Motion to Adopt the Policy Development Process Work Team Updated Final Report - deferred from the Council meeting on 6 October 2011. WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan; (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implemen…) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182) (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm); WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT), which was chartered to develop a new policy development process that incorporates a working group approach and makes it more effective and responsive to ICANN's policy development needs; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council decided to terminate the PPSC on 28 April 2011 and instructed the PDP-WT to deliver its Final Report directly to the GNSO Council; WHEREAS, the PDP-WT submitted its Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf) on 1 June 2011 to the GNSO Council; WHEREAS the GNSO Council opened a 30-day public comment period on the Final Report (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09jun11-en.htm); WHEREAS the GNSO Council referred those comments back to the PDP-WT for consideration (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107); WHEREAS the PDP-WT has reviewed those comments and updated the report as deemed appropriate (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/9405500/PDP-WT+Public+Comm…); WHEREAS the PDP-WT submitted its Updated Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/updated-final-report-pdpwt-28sep11.pdf) to the GNSO Council on 27 September 2011. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Board of Directors adopt the revised GNSO Policy Development Process as reflected in the proposed Annex A and PDP Manual as outlined in the PDP Updated Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/updated-final-report-pdpwt-28sep11.pdf). RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends that the procedures of the new Annex A shall be applicable to all requests for Issue Reports and PDPs initiated following adoption by the ICANN Board. For all ongoing PDPs initiated prior to the adoption by the Board, the Council shall determine the feasibility of transitioning to the procedures set forth in this Annex A for all remaining steps within the PDP. If the Council determines that any ongoing PDP cannot be feasibly transitioned to these updated procedures, the PDP shall be concluded according to the procedures set forth in Annex A in force on before the adoption of the new Annex A by the Board. 2. GNSO Council Chair election The GNSO Council is delighted to announce the election of Stéphane van Gelder as Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben as Vice Chair of the Non Contracted Parties House (NCPH) and Jeff Neuman as Vice Chair of the Contracted Parties House (CPH). The Council wishes to thank the outgoing NCPH Vice Chair, Mary Wong for her year of service and dedication. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] Informal conversation
by Mason Cole 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

I would at some point when things are not so tense suggest that we politely remind the GAC that the GNSO has similar workload challenges. The two bodies need to commit to cooperating on a two-way street if the GAC has increased policy influence expectations. To be clear I am not suggesting anything unduly impolite -- I just want the GAC to be better educated about the details of various groups' work and concerns. I believe that precisely is what led to the GAC's confrontation over the weekend. Mason ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu>; council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 27 10:17:26 2011 Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Stéphane, thanks for having dealt with this already! I think that the suggestion that we send someone is most interesting and we should make a decision whether or not to grab this opportunity to open up an additional communication chanel in a timely fashion given the current difficult situation. I would very much welcome if we accepted the offer. Thomas ============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0 Am 27.10.2011 um 16:48 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>: > > Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison! > > An interesting suggestion… > > Stéphane > > > > Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> a écrit : > >> Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons? >> >> Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading? >> >> Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane. >> >> Cheers >> Mary >> >> "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> All, >> >> As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC. >> >> I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively. >> >> The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on. >> >> With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies). >> >> Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about. >> >> The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion). >> >> Hope this is helpful. >> >> Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week. >> >> Stéphane >> > >

1 0

Fwd: draft letter on JAS WG to the Board
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

Dear all, Wolf-Ulrich's and my proposed draft is below. Apologies that, due to the limited functionality of the email program on my tablet, I've not been able to send just the text cut and pasted into a single email. Please let us know if you are fine with the letter. If I may, can I ask that comments be directed as far as possible to the substance rather than style (though I'm more than ready to take lessons on that in less time sensitive communications :-) Thanks and cheers Mary -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AW: P.S. Re: Draft letter to GAC From: "<KnobenW(a)telekom.de>" <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> To: Mary Wong <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> CC: Mary, as I said I'm ok with the text. I would like to ask councillors whether we could give the following hint to the board regarding the fee reduction: << In particular we are confident that a common view can be achieved on the fee reduction which we see essential for needy applicants who qualify, thereby ensuring benefits from the new gTLD program are open to all parts of the community. >> Which may be inserted into the 3rd para (see attached) See you later Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. Oktober 2011 15:53 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: P.S. Re: Draft letter to GAC Oops, I meant draft letter to the Board! "Mary Wong<mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu>" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> wrote: Hi Wolf, thanks for volunteering to help out! What do you think of this - (From Stéphane as Council chair to Steve Crocker) Dear Dr. Crocker, I am pleased to send the following note on behalf of the GNSO Council, in relation to the recommendations contained in the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group (WG) Final Report. We understand that the Board has been working on the issue of how ICANN can demonstrate its commitment to ensuring fair and non-discriminatory access by and adequate support for needy applicants in the new gTLD program, and hope that the GNSO community can be of assistance in this regard. The GNSO Council and community which it represents shares the Board's commitment and fully supports the goals around which the JAS WG was formed. The Council is extremely grateful to the WG and its volunteers, for the incredible amount of work and the many substantive recommendations that it made, including in the Milestone Reports that were published prior to the Final Report. We accepted all the WG reports and have actively encouraged each of the GNSO's constituences and stakeholder groups to submit substantive comments and, where appropriate, level of support for each of the WG's recommendations. We understand that the Registry and Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups have each submitted formal comments. We believe that other groups will follow suit. As the overall issue and specific recommendations are fairly complex, spanning financial, technical and policy implementation matters, we hope the Board understands that this is not a topic on which there is a unified community consensus. We believe that, as each constituency and stakeholder group's comments are received, it will be possible to see where there is consensus and/or support, and where there is disagreement. << In particular we are confident that a common view can be achieved on the fee reduction which we see essential for needy applicants who qualify, thereby ensuring benefits from the new gTLD program are open to all parts of the community. >> In addition, we hope that more specific implementation issues and suggestions may emerge from these comments. We are pleased that the Board has demonstrated a continuing and serious interest in the work of the JAS WG, and wish to inform you that the Council and GNSO community stands ready to assist the Board in coming to implementable decisions regarding this very important issue. Yours sincerely, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair

4 3

Informal conversation
by Stéphane Van Gelder 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

All, As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC. I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively. The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on. With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies). Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about. The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion). Hope this is helpful. Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week. Stéphane

1 0

Action items from the wrap-up
by Stéphane Van Gelder 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

Councillors, Please see attached the notes on action items that I took during today's wrap-up session. Thanks, Stéphane

1 0

GNSO presentation to Board
by Stéphane Van Gelder 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

Councillors, FYI, please find attached the presentation I will be making to the Board tomorrow morning. Stéphane

1 0

Wrap-up topics
by Stéphane Van Gelder 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

Councillors, As you know, our ICANN meeting wrap-up sessions do not have a set agenda, as they are discussions and stock-taking sessions. As pointers to those discussions, here are a few topics we might like to consider. These are just suggestions stemming from the notes I have been taking throughout the week. We don't have to discuss them all during the wrap-up, and we can obviously add or delete topics as desired. See you all in Salon Vert room from 12:30 to 2pm today. Stéphane IOC Red Cross, working with the GAC A letter has been drafted, to be sent by GNSO Council Chair to GAC Chair. Edits/comments? Should we send? Best practices Where to next? What does the Council want to do now? JAS Final report What do we want to do now? We reserved our right to approve it in the resolution we passed and we heard from Kurt on Sunday that Staff would now like some direction from the GNSO Council on whether we approve it or not. NCA Discussion of possible interactions between the Council and the NomCom going forward (see notes from meeting between NomCom and GNSO leadership earlier this week). Cross-TLD registration scam and domain kiting See response from SSAC Chair Patrik Faltstrom sent to Council list this week. Next steps for the Council? ccNSO Suggestions from the ccNSO to have work sessions together on looking at the strategic plan. Our response? A suggestion that the GNSO joins the ccNSO in requesting extra detail from the CFO on the budget. Meetings: how do we strengthen our meetings with the ccNSO? How do we build the agenda in an effective way? The ccNSO has dedicated 2 people to looking at the agenda. The suggestion is that the GNSO agenda person liaise with them. Post newgTLD landscape Should the GNSO Council be looking at how the community will change as a result of new gTLDs and VI and ccNSO registries providing new gTLD services and vice-versa? Costa Rica preparation Who will handle the agenda? Open Council meeting: Presentations by SG and C chairs at the start of the open council meeting. A suggestion to post a list of topics to the constituency list prior to the Open Council meeting so that the group leaders know what they are going to discuss… GNSO teleconference schedule for the upcoming year Secretariat to suggest a schedule, to be approved by Leadership team.

5 5

Fwd: Some questions in relation to the IOC and Red Cross protection mechanism
by Stéphane Van Gelder 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

Thanks Heather, copying the Council and passing along the document as requested. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> > Objet : Some questions in relation to the IOC and Red Cross protection mechanism > Date : 27 octobre 2011 09:57:07 UTC+00:00 > À : <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > Dear Stephane, > > Following the exchange of the GNSO and GAC on Sunday, please find attached some questions prepared by colleagues in the GAC. Could you provide to the GNSO Council? > > Hope you will find this useful. > Best, > Heather Dryden > > > > >

1 0

Re: AW: [council] RE: URGENT - GALA Evening / Soiree
by Alan Greenberg 26 Oct '11

26 Oct '11

Unfortunately the folks handing them out require to see you badge to get your name. So will require staff action... At 26/10/2011 01:12 PM, KnobenW(a)telekom.de wrote: >could be a good action by incoming councillors.... > > >Wolf-Ulrich > > >---------- >Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder >Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. Oktober 2011 19:00 >An: Glen de Saint Géry >Cc: Council GNSO >Betreff: Re: [council] RE: URGENT - GALA Evening / Soiree > >Thanks Glen, > >Any chance someone could get enough tickets for all the Council members now? > >Obviously, it will be hard for the Councillors to do so themselves > >Stéphane > > > >Le 26 oct. 2011 à 16:56, Adrian Kinderis a écrit : > >>I love that this is posted now. >>So very very ICANN.... >>Thanks Glen! Appreciate you looking out for us. >>Adrian Kinderis >> >>From: >><mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org>owner-ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org >>[mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry >>Sent: Wednesday, 26 October 2011 4:53 PM >>To: <mailto:mail=ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org>mail=ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org >>Subject: TR: URGENT - GALA Evening / Soiree >> >> >>Dear All, >> >>This is note that is circulating and I have >>asked the Meeting team if they can >>suggest a way for the Councillors to get tickets. >>Thank you. >> >>Glen >> >>Please note that GALA Tickets will be required >>to enter this evening (GALA by the Meridien >>pool).Your badge will NOT give you access. >> >>IF you DO NOT have a ticket, and you are in the >>Conference centre, please go to the Promo stand >>NOW (between the entrance and the registration) to fetch a ticket. >> >>If you do NOT have a ticket, we have a very LIMITED number of tickets. >> >>Thank you >> >>***************** >> >>Vous devez absolument avoir un TICKET pour le >>GALA ce soir a 19h30 au bord de la piscine du >>Meridien. Votre badge ne vous donnera PAS access. >> >>Si vous n'avez pas de ticket, merci de vous >>presenter au stand Promo dans le hall d'entrée >>du Centre des Conferences DES QUE POSSIBLE. >> >>Nous avons un nombre TRES LIMITE de tickets pour ceux qui n'en auront pas. >> >>Merci >> >>Regards, >>Glen de Saint Géry >>GNSO Secretariat >><mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >>http://gnso.icann.org >> >>

5 5