May 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
by Tim Ruiz 23 May '11

23 May '11

Ok. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 11:36 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report All, I have now had time to listen to most of the Council call. I would like to congratulate Jeff on doing such a good job of chairing the meeting in my stead, not that I had any doubt ;) My thanks Jeff for stepping in like that. I have listened to the Council discussions on the JAS. Let me add just a few words to your discussions. It is very clear to me that the Council chair may send an information message to the Board if he or she feels it is required. The onus here is on the word "information". The message should be factual only and contain nothing which could be construed as opinion. I was very comfortable with sending such a message to the Board in this case. However, once we started discussing, it became clear that some thought the proposed message not to be only informational. Also, one Councillor called for a vote. That being the case, I did not feel I could just brush these concerns aside and instead I proposed a vote on the list. The results of that vote are as follows: 6 in favor of message version A, 7 in favor of message version B and 1 in favor of "none of the above". To that tally we should add my vote, which would be for version B. So where does this leave us. Well, from both your discussions during the Council meeting and the vote and the discussion on the list, it is clear that there is an overwhelming majority for at least one thing: sending a message (Andrei's vote is really the only one that goes against this). In that regard, I concur with Jonathan who said on the call that we've probably done too much work on this already to just not do anything now. As for what message to send, that is not quite so easy. The Council is split, with a small majority leaning towards version B. On the call you all discussed adding the fact that the GNSO Council will vote on the JAS report at its next meeting, on June 9. I think this is once again purely factual so I would suggest we add this to the message. In fact, it seems to me that this new bit of information actually helps make the message more factual and less controversial. It helps do away, for example, with considerations of who chartered what and just keeps the message grounded in facts. So I would like to propose this draft, where we just tell the Board where we're at now and when they can expect something from us. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. A motion to do this was proposed at our May 19 teleconference and tabled until our next meeting, on June 9. I will therefore look to get back to you after this meeting to provide you with an update on the GNSO Council's decision re the JAS report. I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair

4 4

GNSO Council teleconference schedule
by Stéphane Van Gelder 21 May '11

21 May '11

FYI Following on from agenda item 9 of our last meeting and your discussions on that item, I am instructing Glen to look at scheduling the GNSO Council's meetings at 4 (instead of 3) week intervals from September on. I do want to say that I think we should all give ourselves a pat on the back for getting to the point where this is possible. Those of you who were on the Council a year and a half ago, when Chuck became chair, will remember that he initiated discussions around the meeting schedule at our wrap-up meeting in Seoul in 2009. At the time, the Council felt that its workload was just too heavy to change the one-meeting-every-3-week schedule. We decided to focus on prioritization and work to decrease that schedule, and then commit to revisiting the meeting schedule. So I think we should all be proud of the fact that we have now achieved enough on this issue that a schedule change becomes plausible. Our last 2 Council meetings have ended more than 10 minutes early, and that to me is the last sign, if any was needed, that we can safely look at a schedule change. So thanks to everyone for the hard work since that 2009 Seoul meeting on reaching our stated objectives. Stéphane

1 0

Change to Sunday schedule in Singapore
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu 21 May '11

21 May '11

Hello everyone, Just a note that we've had to make a couple of changes to the schedule that Glen emailed to everyone a short while ago: (1) the customary GNSO-GAC meeting has had to be moved to Wednesday at 11 a.m. We understand that this is because the GAC has requested a meeting with the Board on Sunday afternoon. (2) In place of the meeting with the GAC, we will be meeting with the WHOIS Review Team, on Sunday from 1630-1730. Can we also ask for suggestions as to appropriate topics we can discuss with the ccNSO, Board and GAC at our respective meetings with them? If topics are suggested and agreed upon early enough, it may be possible for ICANN staff to prepare short briefing papers on the background to those topics for us. Thanks and cheers, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

2 1

RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
by john＠crediblecontext.com 20 May '11

20 May '11

One more vote for B Berard > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant > Support Second Milestone Report > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 9:23 am > To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Cc: "'tim(a)godaddy.com'" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, > "'owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>, > "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > So that's one vote for version B, right? > > Stéphane > > > > > > Le 17 mai 2011 à 17:54, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : > > Unfortunately, I cannot commit on behalf of the rysg to that last sentence on "observance" and would prefer its deletion since on our last rysg call questions were raised and I am not sure it adds to the substance of the note. > > Thanks. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. > > Vice President, Law & Policy > > NeuStar, Inc. > > Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.biz > > > > > > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43 AM > To: tim(a)godaddy.com > > Cc: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org ; Council GNSO > > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report > > > > Thanks Tim, Jeff, Mary and Alan, > > This would be the proposed message then. Either (I call this version A): > > Dear Peter, > > > We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible. > > The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the GNSO-chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review. > > I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. > > > > Best regards, > Stephane van Gelder > GNSO Council Chair > > > Or (this my version B): > > > Dear Peter, > > > We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible. > > > I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. > > > > Best regards, > Stephane van Gelder > GNSO Council Chair > > > > As Olga had requested a vote, I would like to suggest that we give ourselves until Thursday's meeting to vote by return email to the list on either version A or B, and whichever has the most votes is the one I send. > > > Is that acceptable to everyone? > > > Thanks, > > > Stéphane > > > > > > > Le 17 mai 2011 à 14:12, tim(a)godaddy.com a écrit : > No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering process for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter should be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are being formed. > > > Tim > From: Stéphane Van Gelder > > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200 > To: Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report > > Councillors, > > Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO. > > Thanks Mary for providing this draft. > > Please let me have your comments. > > Stéphane > > > > > > Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, a écrit : > > Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it. > > We suggest the following draft: > > Dear Peter, > > > We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible. > > The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review. > > I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. > > > > Best regards, > Stephane van Gelder > > Cheers > Mary > > > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> > > > > > > > > > From: > Stéphane Van Gelder > > To: > Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , Council GNSO > > Date: > 5/14/2011 5:18 AM > > Subject: > [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone ReportThanks Olivier. > > > GNSO Council, FYI. > > > A good weekend to all. > > > Stéphane > > > > > Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit : > > > Dear Stéphane, > > please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including ALAC comments. > Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents. > Have a good week-end! > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > -------- Message original -------- > > > > Sujet: > Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report > > Date : > Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700 > > De : > ICANN At-Large Staff > > Pour : > Secretary > > Copie à : > ocl(a)gih.com , carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com , rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com , ICANN At-Large Staff > > Dear all, > > > The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC): > > The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled �Status of this Document�); and > The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report. > > We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board. > > The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011. Then, the At-Large staff, on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011. Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May. > > During the period 7�13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the At-Large Community. These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here. > > The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board. > > Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage. > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon > ICANN At-Large Staff > > email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org > website: www.atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

11 13

Revised Terms of Reference for a Whois Registrant Identification study for your consideration
by Liz Gasster 20 May '11

20 May '11

Dear Councilors, As I mentioned on yesterday's GNSO Council call, a small group of volunteers is proposing the attached revision to an earlier Whois Registration Identification study that was previously developed for Council consideration. (The previous version can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23oct09-en.htm ) As explained in the Rationale, which is also attached, major changes were made to the text of the Terms of Reference, so we are not providing a redline, instead there is a summary, also attached, of the key changes that were made. While the text of the Study Terms of Reference changed significantly to recast the framing of the study, the cost of the study will likely increase only slightly, and no more than 20% at the outside, which will be confirmed if the Council decides to proceed. The volunteer group recommends that Council members forward the documents to your respective groups right away for review and action in the June 9 Council meeting. The members of the volunteer group are: Don Blumenthal Steve DelBianco Kathy Kleiman Chuck Gomes (coordinator) Liz Gasster (ICANN staff) Lisa Phifer (ICANN consultant) Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Liz

1 0

Draft Principles for Cross-SO/AC Working Groups (CWGs)
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 May '11

20 May '11

Dear All, Further to the email below and as a base for further discussion, please find the link to, and a copy of the Draft Principles for Cross-SO/AC Working Groups (CWGs) that were discussed during the GNSO Council meeting yesterday, Thursday 19 May 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-cwg-principles-19may11-en.pdf 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. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -----Original Message----- From: Glen de Saint Géry Sent: vendredi 20 mai 2011 00:23 To: Council GNSO Subject: Community Working Groups Dear All, In response to the action item arising from Item 6: Community Working Groups on the GNSO Council agenda http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19may11-en.htm This is a reminder that the following people volunteered to work on this topic and are subscribed to the mailing list <Gnso-ccwg-dt(a)icann.org> with public archives at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ccwg-dt/ Jonathan Robinson Rosemary Sinclair Wendy Seltzer Bill Drake Jaime Wagner Jeff Neuman Tim Ruiz It was agreed that this topic will be on the 9 June GNSO Council agenda. Jonathan Robinson is to take the lead in stimulating discussions in view of presenting a report from the drafting team at the Singapore meetings. However it was cautioned that a busy time lies ahead with the new gTLD program as well as preparations for the Singapore meetings and this should not be taken as disinterest in the group. Thnak you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
by john＠crediblecontext.com 20 May '11

20 May '11

I am good with this. Berard > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant > Support Second Milestone Report > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Fri, May 20, 2011 8:36 am > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > All, > > I have now had time to listen to most of the Council call. I would like to congratulate Jeff on doing such a good job of chairing the meeting in my stead, not that I had any doubt ;) My thanks Jeff for stepping in like that. > > I have listened to the Council discussions on the JAS. Let me add just a few words to your discussions. It is very clear to me that the Council chair may send an information message to the Board if he or she feels it is required. The onus here is on the word "information". The message should be factual only and contain nothing which could be construed as opinion. I was very comfortable with sending such a message to the Board in this case. However, once we started discussing, it became clear that some thought the proposed message not to be only informational. Also, one Councillor called for a vote. That being the case, I did not feel I could just brush these concerns aside and instead I proposed a vote on the list. > > The results of that vote are as follows: 6 in favor of message version A, 7 in favor of message version B and 1 in favor of "none of the above". To that tally we should add my vote, which would be for version B. > > So where does this leave us. Well, from both your discussions during the Council meeting and the vote and the discussion on the list, it is clear that there is an overwhelming majority for at least one thing: sending a message (Andrei's vote is really the only one that goes against this). In that regard, I concur with Jonathan who said on the call that we've probably done too much work on this already to just not do anything now. > > As for what message to send, that is not quite so easy. The Council is split, with a small majority leaning towards version B. On the call you all discussed adding the fact that the GNSO Council will vote on the JAS report at its next meeting, on June 9. I think this is once again purely factual so I would suggest we add this to the message. In fact, it seems to me that this new bit of information actually helps make the message more factual and less controversial. It helps do away, for example, with considerations of who chartered what and just keeps the message grounded in facts. > > So I would like to propose this draft, where we just tell the Board where we're at now and when they can expect something from us. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > > > > Dear Peter, > > > We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. A motion to do this was proposed at our May 19 teleconference and tabled until our next meeting, on June 9. > > > I will therefore look to get back to you after this meeting to provide you with an update on the GNSO Council's decision re the JAS report. > > I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. > > > > Best regards, > Stephane van Gelder > GNSO Council Chair > > >

2 1

Re: Second Milestone Report of the JAS CWG
by Stéphane Van Gelder 20 May '11

20 May '11

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. 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? 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? 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? 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? 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)? On the same section, what does the group mean by "relaxed VI rules" in the light of the latest Board resolution on VI? Thanks for any help or any answers you can provide and once again, I would like to thank you for the hard work you have both put in to this group. Stéphane Le 8 mai 2011 à 01:51, Rafik Dammak a écrit : > Hello , > > I am sending the link to the second milestone report for the JAS WG to our respective chartering organizations: GNSO and ALAC for consideration and endorsement in order to show the progress done there acknowledging that we need to do more. > https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations > > @Stephane I am going to submit a motion in due time to be voted in the next GNSO council confcall and we are going to make update for GNSO council. > Thank you, > > Best Regards, > > Rafik >

4 7

Community Working Groups
by Glen de Saint Géry 19 May '11

19 May '11

Dear All, In response to the action item arising from Item 6: Community Working Groups on the GNSO Council agenda http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19may11-en.htm This is a reminder that the following people volunteered to work on this topic and are subscribed to the mailing list <Gnso-ccwg-dt(a)icann.org> with public archives at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ccwg-dt/ Jonathan Robinson Rosemary Sinclair Wendy Seltzer Bill Drake Jaime Wagner Jeff Neuman Tim Ruiz It was agreed that this topic will be on the 9 June GNSO Council agenda. Jonathan Robinson is to take the lead in stimulating discussions in view of presenting a report from the drafting team at the Singapore meetings. However it was cautioned that a busy time lies ahead with the new gTLD program as well as preparations for the Singapore meetings and this should not be taken as disinterest in the group. Thnak you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Invite for Volunteers to Form a Charter Drafting Team for the Outreach Task Force
by Glen de Saint Géry 19 May '11

19 May '11

Dear All, http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-19may11-en.htm One of the recommendations of the ICANN Board Governance Committee was to develop and implement a targeted outreach program to explore the formation of new constituency groups. The Operations Steering Committee developed recommendations on a global outreach program and submitted them to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council. (See http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf.) On 24 February 2011 the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the recommendations by the Operations Steering Committee and directed staff to post the document for forty-five (45) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum. On 28 April the GNSO Council directed the Operations Steering Committee 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. The Operations Steering Committee determined that no changes were necessary. Thus, on 19 May the GNSO Council directed ICANN staff to begin the process of seeking volunteers from the GNSO Council to form a Charter Drafting Team for the Outreach Task Force described in the recommendations as follows: "The GNSO Council should manage the development of the OTF [Outreach Task Force] through the creation of a Drafting Team to develop the OTF's [Outreach Task Force] Charter. The Charter shall include procedures for member recruitment, application, selection, terms and term limits. The Charter should also set goals for the completion of the membership selection process, establishment of a meeting schedule, and participation guidelines. The Charter should establish an initial term for the OTF [Outreach Task Force] of two years. After this period a review should be conducted to review the success of the OTF's [Outreach Task Force] initiatives and, if deemed successful, the OTF's charter could be extended annually." This invitation is extended to all members of the GNSO Community. We urge you to forward to this to all members of the community who may be interested in participating. Please contact the GNSO Council Secretariat at gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org by 01 June 2011 if you are interested in joining the Drafting Team. Please contact Julie Hedlund at julie.hedlund(a)icann.org if you have any questions about the Outreach Recommendations. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0