May 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Bundling of IDN versions of TLDs
by Adrian Kinderis May 18, 2011

May 18, 2011

Have everyone seen this? http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-dengate-thrush-beck… This is, in my opinion, ridiculous. This is an incredibly slippery slope to even bother with and we have covered this ground before. This is nothing more than a real estate grab by those that stand to benefit from it (and the usual suspects they have been able to rope in to "support" them). I thought the GNSO sorted out this issue a long time ago. Did VeriSign just decide how much it was going to cost to go for .com in every script all of a sudden? It is really simple. You cannot clearly define the meaning of every word in English as it directly relates to other scripts. So, if I went for .auto does that mean I get .auto in Arabic - what is the EXACT translation for that? Do you get everything close? How close does it have to be? What about the reverse? What if I go for .auto in Arabic (whatever that is) does that mean I get .car, .automobile, .auto, .autobus etc etc in ASCII? Finally, .music in ASCII) is not the same as .music (Arabic version). It is promoting competition. What amazes me is no one receives any bundled TLD's when they register under .com right now. VeriSign allows for separate registrations in each script. If they are the same, why don't they give each registrant every IDN variant? I would really like to make a stand on this as a Council. This rule has been included in EVERY version of the guidebook. Now we are nearing the finish line these folks would prefer to make a wholesale change to their benefit. What are the thoughts of the Council? Adrian Kinderis

2 1

Updated GNSO Council meeting Agenda Thursday, 19 May 2011, 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry May 17, 2011

May 17, 2011

Dear All, Please find the updated Agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 19 May 2011 at 15:00 UTC. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19may11-en.htm https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+19+May+2011 The motions are posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+May+2011 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 7 April 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-08apr11-en.pdf 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 15:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:15:00 UTC - see below for local times (08:00 Los Angeles, 11:00 Washington DC, 16:00 London, 17:00 Brussels, Friday 20 May 00:00 Tokyo; 01:00 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. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Updated statement of interest received from Bill Drake http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/drake-soi-05may11-en.htm John Berard http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/berard-soi-current-en.htm 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 28 April 2011 Council minutes <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg11235.html> –approved on May 20 2011 Item 2: Pending Projects – GNSO Constituency reconfirmations and review of Stakeholder Group (SG) charters (15 minutes) Standard agenda item to update the Council on the GNSO's Pending Projects. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2.1 Update (Rob Hoggarth) 2.2 Discussion • Where are we now on this? • If SIC now holds token, should this still be on the GNSO's Pending Projects (PP) List? 2.3 Next steps? 2.4 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) Item 3: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) (20 minutes) Second "milestone motion" was sent to the Council by the JAS group on May 8. Refer to motion made following receipt of that report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/second-milestone-report-jas-08may11-en.pdf 3.1 Update and reading of the motion (Rafik Dammak). Refer to motion: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+May+2011 3. 2 Discussion 3.3 Vote 3.4 Next steps? Item 4: Registration Abuse (RAP) outstanding recommendations ( 15 minutes) At its meeting on 3 February 2011, the GNSO Council moved forward with two recommendations of the RAP WG (UDRP Issue Report and Discussion paper on best practices to address abusive registrations of domain names) and started deliberations on a third recommendation (Fake Renewal notices). However there are still a number of RAPWG recommendations that are waiting for Council consideration (see project list -http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf) 4.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings). 4.2 Discussion. 4.3 Next steps. Item 5: Whois Update (15 minutes) 5.1 Update on Whois Studies (Liz Gasster). 5.2 Update on International Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) 5.3 Continuing discussion on Whois Service Requirements Report Item 6: Community Working Groups CWG (20 minutes) The activities of some recent CWGs have raised concerns among some in the ICANN community about whether CWGs should exist, and if so, the practices under which they should operate. Recently the number of cross-SO and AC working groups has increased and the GNSO is currently involved in more than six. The value and effectiveness of these groups might be enhanced if the community could build a common understanding of some high-level principles that would speak to when CWGs may be convened, and agree on some basic practices as to how CWGs should operate. As there has been a lot of discussion on this by the Council, this discussion item aims to focus that discussion and begin to formalise a possible Council position on CWGs. Here are some high level draft principles that have been discussed and that could serve as a baseline for this discussion: Draft Principles for Cross-SO/AC Working Groups (CWGs) 1. Scope of CWGs – 1.1. The purpose of CWGs should be limited to : 1) providing a discussion forum to achieve greater community understanding of issues of common interest; or 2) providing advice to the ICANN staff, community and/or ICANN Board on issues of common interest. 1.2. CWGs may not be used to develop new consensus policy. Each SO has its own rules for developing new policy. 2. Practices for CWGs -- 2.1. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (or similar defined) should apply to all CWGs whenever possible. Exceptions should be detailed, and explained, in the charter for the CWG. 2.2. All CWGs should be chartered by the applicable SOs and ACs (including those initiated by the Board) and each SO and AC should approve a single charter. 2.3. The Charter should speak to the outcomes expected of the group and the steps that must be followed for review of those outcomes by the chartering SOs and ACs. 2.4. CWGs should be expected to follow the approved charter. If a concern arises, it should be brought to all chartering organizations for resolution according to Working Group Guidelines. 2.5. The Final Reports and Outcomes of all CWGs should be communicated to the chartering organizations (only) for review and further action. 2.6. The participating SOs and ACs will make time commitments to finalize actions so as not to unreasonably delay action on a CWG report. 2.7. SOs and ACs should make all reasonable efforts to solicit and consider the views of other SOs and ACs and to try to accommodate diverging views where possible before finalizing their positions. 2.8. If the work of a CWG leads to a policy recommendation, that recommendation would still need to be considered and approved through the appropriate Policy Development Process. 6.1 Discussion 6.2 Next steps Item 7. Global Outreach Recommendations (10 minutes) The OSC CSG WT has developed a series of recommendations to improve "stakeholder outreach and engagement". At its April 28, 2011 teleconference, the GNSO Council passed a motion on these recommendations. See motion: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201104 and specifically the following resolved clauses: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council directs the OSC to ask the CSG-WT to review the Summary and Analysis document as well as the comments and make any changes to the proposed recommendations as are deemed appropriate, or to make those changes directly as it sees fit. On May 16, the OSC Chair Philip Sheppard sent an email to the GNSO Council Chair Stéphane Van Gelder, indicating that following review of public comments, it was his opinion that the work on this is finished. Excerpt: I suggest the work of the OSC is done for this topic. The recommendations in the report can now be actioned under the auspices of the GNSO Council. 7.1 Review by Staff of the main Global Outreach Recommendations, including the Outreach Task Force (Julie Hedlund) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps Item 8. UDRP (10 minutes) A drafting team is working on providing guidance for an issues report and a webinar was organized early May to solicit input and information from interested parties. 8.1 Update from Staff on webinar and current work (Margie Milam) 8.2 Discussion Item 9: Proposed GNSO Council teleconference schedule change (10 minutes) Last year, the Council opted to maintain the current (at the time) practice of holding a teleconference every 3 weeks, and planned to review that a year later. The Council Leadership team would like to propose a schedule change to 1 teleconference every 4 weeks. Recent efforts at reducing the pending projects and prioritizing the Council's workload have met with success, and make this schedule change possible. 9.1 Discussion 9.2 Next steps. Item 10. Any Other Business (5 minutes) 10.1 GNSO-selected Board, ccNSO and GAC topics 10.2 Key votes or discussion topics where briefing papers would be desired 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 (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. 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 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 16:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 19:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#50]
by Glen de Saint Géry May 17, 2011

May 17, 2011

FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mardi 17 mai 2011 19:02 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#50] Name of Officer: * J. Scott Evans Officer Email Address: * jscottevans(a)yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, May 17, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Intellectual Property Constituency Officer Position or Title: * President Voting Remedy: * Temporary Alternate Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * GNSO Councilor unavailable. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * GNSO Meeting on Thursday, May 19, 2011 Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, May 20, 2011 Please identify the individual (cannot be a current GNSO Councilor) who will serve as the abstaining Councilor's Temporary Alternate. [Note: if not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place]. * Brian Winterfeldt Temporary Alternate Email Address: * bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#49]
by Glen de Saint Géry May 17, 2011

May 17, 2011

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mardi 17 mai 2011 14:21 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#49] Name of Officer: * Steve DelBianco Officer Email Address: * sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, May 17, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Business Constituency Officer Position or Title: * Vice Chair for Policy Coordination Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Councilor John Berard has an unavoidable schedule conflict during Council conference call on 19-May-2011 Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Motion on JAS WG Milestone report Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, May 20, 2011 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Zahid Jamil

1 0

AW: Fwd: [council] Re: Second Milestone Report of the JAS CWG
by KnobenW＠telekom.de May 17, 2011

May 17, 2011

Thanks Eric, I'll forward it to the council list since there'll be a discussion about the JAS report Thursday this week. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net] Gesendet: Montag, 16. Mai 2011 22:26 An: soac-newgtldapsup-wg(a)icann.org Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: Re: Fwd: [council] Re: Second Milestone Report of the JAS CWG > below you find the question from Wolf-Ulrich. ... > 3.2 Financial need: How is the contribution of 45,000 $ calculated? > Is this just 25% of the regular application fee? No, and yes. It is the figure ICANN used in 2000 and 2004, and it is also a quarter of the current application fee. Assuming the Board approves some reduction in fee (and 50% is just such a presumption), then if the applicants are capable of meeting 50% of that cost, before external support, then the applicants need to be capble of self-funding at the 2000-2004 level. Ultimately, what fee reduction the Board directs, and what external cost support exists, are controlling. Eric

1 0

RE: [council] Corrected time: Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 19 May 2011
by Rosemary Sinclair May 17, 2011

May 17, 2011

Hi Glen and all my new email address is rosemary.sinclair(a)unsw.edu.au Cheers Rosemary ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tue 17/05/2011 3:16 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Corrected time: Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 19 May 2011 Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council meeting to be held on Thursday, 19 May 2011 at 15:00 UTC. Please note that the latest updates are always found on the agenda on the Wiki. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 19 May 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19may11-en.htm https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+19+May+2011 The motions are posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+May+2011 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 7 April 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-08apr11-en.pdf 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 15:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:15:00 UTC - see below for local times (08:00 Los Angeles, 11:00 Washington DC, 15:00 London, 17:00 Brussels) Friday 20 May 00:00 Tokyo; 01:00 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. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u <http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Updated statement of interest received from Bill Drake http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/drake-soi-05may11-en.htm John Berard http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/berard-soi-current-en.htm 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: * 28 April 2011 Council minutes <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg11235.html> -approved on May 20 2011 Item 2: Pending Projects - GNSO Constituency reconfirmations and review of Stakeholder Group (SG) charters (15 minutes) Standard agenda item to update the Council on the GNSO's Pending Projects. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2.1 Update (Rob Hoggarth) 2.2 Discussion § Where are we now on this? § If SIC now holds token, should this still be on the GNSO's Pending Projects (PP) List? 2.3 Next steps? 2.4 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) Item 3: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) (20 minutes) Second "milestone motion" was sent to the Council by the JAS group on May 8. Refer to motion made following receipt of that report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/second-milestone-report-jas-08may11-en.pdf 3.1 Update and reading of the motion (Rafik Dammak). 3. 2 Discussion 3.3 Vote 3.4 Next steps? Item 4: Registration Abuse (RAP) outstanding recommendations ( 15 minutes) At its meeting on 3 February 2011, the GNSO Council moved forward with two recommendations of the RAP WG (UDRP Issue Report and Discussion paper on best practices to address abusive registrations of domain names) and started deliberations on a third recommendation (Fake Renewal notices). However there are still a number of RAPWG recommendations that are waiting for Council consideration (see project list -http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf) 4.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings). 4.2 Discussion. 4.3 Next steps. Item 5: Whois requirements (15 minutes) During the 28 April GNSO Council meeting, Avri Doria discussed possible next steps that she and Chuck Gomes have suggested for the Whois Service Requirements Report. Specifically, it was suggested that a drafting team be formed to develop a survey to estimate the level of agreement that the conclusions and assumptions in the Report have in the broader community. 5.1 Update from Staff (Liz Gasster). 5.2 Discussion. 5.3 Next steps. Item 6: Community Working Groups CWG (20 minutes) The activities of some recent CWGs have raised concerns among some in the ICANN community about whether CWGs should exist, and if so, the practices under which they should operate. Recently the number of cross-SO and AC working groups has increased and the GNSO is currently involved in more than six. The value and effectiveness of these groups might be enhanced if the community could build a common understanding of some high-level principles that would speak to when CWGs may be convened, and agree on some basic practices as to how CWGs should operate. As there has been a lot of discussion on this by the Council, this discussion item aims to focus that discussion and begin to formalise a possible Council position on CWGs. Here are some high level draft principles that have been discussed and that could serve as a baseline for this discussion: Draft Principles for Cross-SO/AC Working Groups (CWGs) 1. Scope of CWGs - 1.1. The purpose of CWGs should be limited to : 1) providing a discussion forum to achieve greater community understanding of issues of common interest; or 2) providing advice to the ICANN staff, community and/or ICANN Board on issues of common interest. 1.2. CWGs may not be used to develop new consensus policy. Each SO has its own rules for developing new policy. 2. Practices for CWGs -- 2.1. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (or similar defined) should apply to all CWGs whenever possible. Exceptions should be detailed, and explained, in the charter for the CWG. 2.2. All CWGs should be chartered by the applicable SOs and ACs (including those initiated by the Board) and each SO and AC should approve a single charter. 2.3. The Charter should speak to the outcomes expected of the group and the steps that must be followed for review of those outcomes by the chartering SOs and ACs. 2.4. CWGs should be expected to follow the approved charter. If a concern arises, it should be brought to all chartering organizations for resolution according to Working Group Guidelines. 2.5. The Final Reports and Outcomes of all CWGs should be communicated to the chartering organizations (only) for review and further action. 2.6. The participating SOs and ACs will make time commitments to finalize actions so as not to unreasonably delay action on a CWG report. 2.7. SOs and ACs should make all reasonable efforts to solicit and consider the views of other SOs and ACs and to try to accommodate diverging views where possible before finalizing their positions. 2.8. If the work of a CWG leads to a policy recommendation, that recommendation would still need to be considered and approved through the appropriate Policy Development Process. 6.1 Discussion 6.2 Next steps Item 7: Proposed GNSO Council teleconference schedule change (10 minutes) Last year, the Council opted to maintain the current (at the time) practice of holding a teleconference every 3 weeks, and planned to review that a year later. The Council Leadership team would like to propose a schedule change to 1 teleconference every 4 weeks. Recent efforts at reducing the pending projects and prioritizing the Council's workload have met with success, and make this schedule change possible. 7.1 Discussion 7.2 Next steps. Item 8. Singapore Schedule (10 minutes) 8.1 GNSO-selected Board , ccNSO and GAC topics 8.2 Key votes or discussion topics where briefing papers would be desired. Item 9. Any Other Business (5 minutes) 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 (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4 <http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-en.pdf> ) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting?s adjournment. 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 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 16:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 19:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com <http://www.timeanddate.com/> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Corrected time: Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 19 May 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council meeting to be held on Thursday, 19 May 2011 at 15:00 UTC. Please note that the latest updates are always found on the agenda on the Wiki. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 19 May 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19may11-en.htm https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+19+May+2011 The motions are posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+May+2011 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 7 April 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-08apr11-en.pdf 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 15:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:15:00 UTC - see below for local times (08:00 Los Angeles, 11:00 Washington DC, 15:00 London, 17:00 Brussels) Friday 20 May 00:00 Tokyo; 01:00 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. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Updated statement of interest received from Bill Drake http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/drake-soi-05may11-en.htm John Berard http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/berard-soi-current-en.htm 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 28 April 2011 Council minutes <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg11235.html> –approved on May 20 2011 Item 2: Pending Projects – GNSO Constituency reconfirmations and review of Stakeholder Group (SG) charters (15 minutes) Standard agenda item to update the Council on the GNSO's Pending Projects. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2.1 Update (Rob Hoggarth) 2.2 Discussion • Where are we now on this? • If SIC now holds token, should this still be on the GNSO's Pending Projects (PP) List? 2.3 Next steps? 2.4 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) Item 3: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) (20 minutes) Second "milestone motion" was sent to the Council by the JAS group on May 8. Refer to motion made following receipt of that report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/second-milestone-report-jas-08may11-en.pdf 3.1 Update and reading of the motion (Rafik Dammak). 3. 2 Discussion 3.3 Vote 3.4 Next steps? Item 4: Registration Abuse (RAP) outstanding recommendations ( 15 minutes) At its meeting on 3 February 2011, the GNSO Council moved forward with two recommendations of the RAP WG (UDRP Issue Report and Discussion paper on best practices to address abusive registrations of domain names) and started deliberations on a third recommendation (Fake Renewal notices). However there are still a number of RAPWG recommendations that are waiting for Council consideration (see project list -http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf) 4.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings). 4.2 Discussion. 4.3 Next steps. Item 5: Whois requirements (15 minutes) During the 28 April GNSO Council meeting, Avri Doria discussed possible next steps that she and Chuck Gomes have suggested for the Whois Service Requirements Report. Specifically, it was suggested that a drafting team be formed to develop a survey to estimate the level of agreement that the conclusions and assumptions in the Report have in the broader community. 5.1 Update from Staff (Liz Gasster). 5.2 Discussion. 5.3 Next steps. Item 6: Community Working Groups CWG (20 minutes) The activities of some recent CWGs have raised concerns among some in the ICANN community about whether CWGs should exist, and if so, the practices under which they should operate. Recently the number of cross-SO and AC working groups has increased and the GNSO is currently involved in more than six. The value and effectiveness of these groups might be enhanced if the community could build a common understanding of some high-level principles that would speak to when CWGs may be convened, and agree on some basic practices as to how CWGs should operate. As there has been a lot of discussion on this by the Council, this discussion item aims to focus that discussion and begin to formalise a possible Council position on CWGs. Here are some high level draft principles that have been discussed and that could serve as a baseline for this discussion: Draft Principles for Cross-SO/AC Working Groups (CWGs) 1. Scope of CWGs – 1.1. The purpose of CWGs should be limited to : 1) providing a discussion forum to achieve greater community understanding of issues of common interest; or 2) providing advice to the ICANN staff, community and/or ICANN Board on issues of common interest. 1.2. CWGs may not be used to develop new consensus policy. Each SO has its own rules for developing new policy. 2. Practices for CWGs -- 2.1. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (or similar defined) should apply to all CWGs whenever possible. Exceptions should be detailed, and explained, in the charter for the CWG. 2.2. All CWGs should be chartered by the applicable SOs and ACs (including those initiated by the Board) and each SO and AC should approve a single charter. 2.3. The Charter should speak to the outcomes expected of the group and the steps that must be followed for review of those outcomes by the chartering SOs and ACs. 2.4. CWGs should be expected to follow the approved charter. If a concern arises, it should be brought to all chartering organizations for resolution according to Working Group Guidelines. 2.5. The Final Reports and Outcomes of all CWGs should be communicated to the chartering organizations (only) for review and further action. 2.6. The participating SOs and ACs will make time commitments to finalize actions so as not to unreasonably delay action on a CWG report. 2.7. SOs and ACs should make all reasonable efforts to solicit and consider the views of other SOs and ACs and to try to accommodate diverging views where possible before finalizing their positions. 2.8. If the work of a CWG leads to a policy recommendation, that recommendation would still need to be considered and approved through the appropriate Policy Development Process. 6.1 Discussion 6.2 Next steps Item 7: Proposed GNSO Council teleconference schedule change (10 minutes) Last year, the Council opted to maintain the current (at the time) practice of holding a teleconference every 3 weeks, and planned to review that a year later. The Council Leadership team would like to propose a schedule change to 1 teleconference every 4 weeks. Recent efforts at reducing the pending projects and prioritizing the Council's workload have met with success, and make this schedule change possible. 7.1 Discussion 7.2 Next steps. Item 8. Singapore Schedule (10 minutes) 8.1 GNSO-selected Board , ccNSO and GAC topics 8.2 Key votes or discussion topics where briefing papers would be desired. Item 9. Any Other Business (5 minutes) 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 (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. 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 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 16:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 19:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Our meeting on Thursday
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

Councillors, Regretfully I will be unable to participate in our call on Thursday as I will be on a plane at that time. Jeff Neuman has kindly agreed to chair the meeting in my stead. Please accept my apologies for missing the meeting. Stéphane

1 0

Re: Response to Stephane's Request for Comment - Second Milestone Report
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

Thanks Carlton, most helpful. Just a few additional comments embedded in the text below. Stéphane Le 13 mai 2011 à 21:43, Carlton Samuels a écrit : > Dear Stephane: > > Rafik and I have conversed and offer our responses to your queries inline. > > Hi Rafik, Carlton, > > Having read the JAS WG report, I want to congratulate you and the group on the impressive amount of work that has been achieved. > Many thanks for your recognition. The drafting team of Evan Leibovitch, Cintra Sooknanan and Andrew Mack were especially taxed to produce it. I am personally pleased to note that despite the herculean task, they never faltered in their commitment to the group. (SVG) Please convey my and the GNSO Council's thanks to Evan, Cintra and Andrew. > > I have several questions which I thought I'd put to the list so that they might benefit any discussion we might have on this during our next Council meeting. These are to help my personal understanding of the report and what the group is recommending. > > On page 3, it says that the group is responding to requests from its charters and the Board and the GAC. Should we understand by this statement that the group has been taking input directly from the Board and the GAC, on top of its chartering organisations? > > Not exactly. Recall the Brussels and SFO ICANN meetings. Requests were made in PUBLIC sessions and specifically addressed to the CO's by the GAC and members of the Board, including the leadership. These calls established the referential integrity that you query and formed the basis for the WG's response. As a member of one of the chartering organisations, I can tell you the ALAC resolved that these were indeed actionable, even if the answers tended to a requirement for additional focus of the WG. The ALAC itself voted to extend the charter of the WG. In subsequent correspondence, the GAC publicly declared its intent to await the WG's report to further their interest in seeking support for LDCs and governmental entities that might have needs similar to those being addressed by the WG. > > > As a group belonging to what is peddled to be an open, multi-stakeholder and transparent body, the WG welcomed input from anyone who cared to offer it. For to refuse input is to deny the diversity of opinions that we seek in order to reach the best possible consensus. You might also wish to know my personal guiding philosophy is to give all heresies the same weight, regardless of provenance, high or low church. > > On page 4 it says "This WG is comprised of members who support these aims and are committed to lowering the barriers to full participation in the gTLD program by a truly global and inclusive community." As co-chairs, do you feel the group's membership was representative of a sufficiently diverse set of views, opinions and approaches? > > We can acknowledge that the group represents a lively and diverse set of opinions and approaches, as witnessed by the lively debate and sometimes apparent slow progress that the group exhibited. > > The active members were geographically dispersed and came with experiences not only from their own lives but as actors in various ICANN constituencies. > > All opinions and options presented were considered by the WG, though the challenges of reaching consensus certainly prevented some from making it through the process. > > While we cannot say for certain, we have a sense that all of our members subscribe to the principle of a truly global and interoperable Internet supporting a truly global and inclusive community. > > > We further did not detect the wish of any member to deny any group or party meaningful and full participation in the new gTLD program. > > Page 6 says that one criteria for eligibility is "Service in an under‐served language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited". This is further explained in 3.1.2. But I don't understand what the metrics for these criteria are? What makes a language under-served and how can we measure if its presence on the Internet is limited? > > In this area and specially with respect to IDNs, details such as these are amongst some topics for which research is ongoing and required. The principle has broad acceptance and the group remains in contemplation, seeking more precise metrics. This is but one basis for the WG's continued work. Your personal input - or by extension, the GNSO Council's - would be most welcome here. (SVG) I understand from your response that these metrics have not been set yet. My personal opinion is that this is required if the WG's recommendations re under-serve languages are to be enactable. Also, while I am sure that individual members of the GNSO Council would be happy to provide input here, it is not the Council's place as a whole to do so. The WG is tasked with working out the recommendations, and those then go to the Council, who can send them back to the WG and ask for extra work or clarifications if that is deemed necessary. This should not be reversed. > > > > Page 9, section 3.3 goes back to my earlier question about where and from whom the group has been getting input. Here it says that the group had agreed on one set of recommendations (govs not entitled to support) but are now working to change those after the GAC has asked them to. Do you, as co-chairs, feel comfortable with this? > > We reiterate our guiding operational principle: all input, regardless of source, the GAC included, is being welcomed and given due consideration by the WG. We feel this is the minimum baseline for transparency and open-ness to which we have subscribed as members of the ICANN community. With regard to an expansion of views by this WG, we believe it is not only appropriate but rational that they be noted and accommodated. > > Do remember that adoption of any view to the policy framework will come after a public comment phase. So there is ample time for the entire community to weigh in. You might also wish to know my personal philosophical view is to abhor all claims of inerrancy by any person or group in this environment. > > > All this aside, we assure you that you can be comforted that the WG has not demonstrated fealty to any single sourced point of view, be that source the GAC or the Business Constituency. As such, we hope and trust we have given every point of view an opportunity to be heard and, maybe, influence an outcome acceptable to most. > > Based on the input received, the current recommendation stands. However, the GAC was requested to provide and has promised additional information to fully air their concerns surrounding the eligibility of government and governmental entities for support. The WG will deal with them when they arrive as we would any submission from any area of our global community. That is, to consider them soberly and decide whether they are embraceable, in context. > > Page 12, section 4.2 Do you not feel the deferment of DNSSEC is not in keeping with ICANN's mission of ensuring a stable and secure Internet? As DNSSEC is such a clear security feature, would it not be better to seek (financial) support for applicants that find the cost of implementing it too high, rather than suggesting they need not implement it upon start-up (with the risk that it may then be years before they actually do implement it)? > > We agree with your position here. A stable and secure Internet is a fundamental principle to support in the public interest. We take it that the security features of DNSSEC are no longer controversial. So we are in favour of implementing DNSSEC from inception and without exceptions. In this respect, such support as is necessary to allow applicants to comply with DNSSEC implementation is rightly considered part of the basket of support for needy applications. We are sure that as a member in good standing of the registrar/registry constituency, your personal endorsement will serve to invigorate their support in this area. > > > On the same section, what does the group mean by "relaxed VI rules" in the light of the latest Board resolution on VI? > > To our minds, a close reading of the text of the latest contextual Board resolution renders "relaxed VI rules" as settled ICANN policy. This reference also builds on the first Milestone Report. The WG consensus was for VI-related restrictions to be relaxed for suitable applications. If the Board wishes them relaxed for all applications, that also accomplishes our objective. > > Kind regards, > > Carlton > >

1 0

Re: [council] Applicant Guidebook comment period
by Kurt Pritz May 15, 2011

May 15, 2011

The comment forum will remain open at least until 15 May is over everywhere in the world. I hope this is sufficiently clear - I wanted to respond as quickly as possible. Kurt On May 14, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Taylor, David wrote: Kurt, Following on from this discussion, when does the applicant guidebook comment period close? On the site it merely says 15 May, so is this going to close at midnight UTC or through the entire day regardless of timezone as you mention below for .net agreement? I ask as I have been asked several times today, and I was not 100% sure of the response. Thanks David David Taylor Partner Hogan Lovells International LLP 6 Avenue Kléber, 75116 Paris, France Tel:+33 (0) 1 53 67 47 47 Fax:+33 (0) 1 53 67 47 48 Email:drd@hoganlovells.com www.hoganlovells.com<http://www.hoganlovells.com> From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 05:04 AM To: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org<mailto:kurt.pritz@icann.org>> Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>; Marc Salvatierra <marc.salvatierra(a)icann.org<mailto:marc.salvatierra@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] .net agreement comment period Thanks Kurt. I appreciate you addressing the issue so promptly and in my favour ;) I agree some clarity on the "timezone" would be helpful. Sent from my iPhone On 10/05/2011, at 19:40, "Kurt Pritz" <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org<mailto:kurt.pritz@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Adrian: Our current practice is to close at midnight UTC unless otherwise specified. We were following through to close as specified in the comment forum. The email to our web administrator to close was sent well in advance. Understanding your point, ICANN will reopen the forum to accept comments through the entire day regardless of timezone. We'll also make it clearer regarding time of closure in future fora. Thanks for pointing this out. Sincerely, Kurt From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 06:57 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] .net agreement comment period I note with great interest the comment period for the .net agreement has been cut off on the ICANN website at 6.50pm (PDT). I believe the timeline stated that it will end “10 May 2011”. The day is not over. Who, from staff, has the itchy finger over there? Is this so that the conspiracy theorists have some content? Folks may still want to submit comments at this late hour and I believe they would still have the right to do so within the allocated comment period. I also note that there are a number of comment periods that have supposedly passed yet remain opened on the ICANN website. Can staff respond to this please and confirm that members of the public have until midnight PDT to send their responses and open the website back up for comments? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis ________________________________ Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC353350. Hogan Lovells refers to the international legal practice comprising Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Hogan Lovells Worldwide Group (a Swiss Verein), and their affiliated businesses. Hogan Lovells International LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC323639. Registered office and principal place of business: Atlantic House, Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2FG. Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia. The word "partner" is used to refer to a member of Hogan Lovells International LLP or a partner of Hogan Lovells US LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications, and to a partner, member, employee or consultant in any of their affiliated businesses who has equivalent standing. A list of the members of Hogan Lovells International LLP and of the non-members who are designated as partners, and of their respective professional qualifications, is open to inspection at the above address. Further important information about Hogan Lovells can be found on www.hoganlovells.com<http://www.hoganlovells.com/>. CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the email is marked "officiel", it may also be privileged. If received in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments) from your system.

1 0