September 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 15, 2011

Oct. 15, 2011

Dear All, As you know, the Nominating Committee (Nom Com) has selected two Nom Com Appointees (NCAs), Lanre Ajayi and Thomas Rickert, to serve on the GNSO Council for the upcoming year. Thomas Rickert has requested to be assigned to the Contracted Parties House (CPH) and the CPH has formally agreed that Thomas is a voting member in the CPH. As it has traditionally been the norm that the previous year's non-voting NCA becomes a voting NCA, we expect that Carlos Aguirre will be assigned to the NCPH this year, and Lanre Ajayi will be assigned the non-voting seat. Is this correct? Due to the close proximity of the Dakar meeting and the need to finalize organizational aspects of the meeting, the GNSO Council Secretariat would appreciate being informed of the NCPH NCA assignment no later than 30 September 2011 at 22:00 UTC. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

7 11

Regarding Ethics and conflicts of interest
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 5, 2011

Oct. 5, 2011

Hello All, I have noticed a few newspaper articles and posting on forums like CircleID on how ICNAN is reviewing its policies for Conflicts of Interest and Ethics. I just want to let you know that this is a topic of active discussion on the Board. For example, at the Board Governance Committee meeting on 15 August 2011: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-bgc-15aug11-en.htm " 5.Ethics and Conflicts of Interest - The BGC began a discussion on the issues surrounding Board and staff ethics issues. The BGC discussed that as a private sector organization, ICANN is limited in its ability to place restrictions on future employment, though there are many things that ICANN can do to address these concerns, such as continued strict adherence and enforcement of confidentiality provisions. The BGC noted that the conflicts/ethics discussion has been going on within ICANN prior to the approval of the new gTLD program. The BGC agreed that community discussion should occur in Dakar about this issue. Action: Staff to draft proposed guidelines for Board members and staff members, to provide additional information and guidance through the use of examples, for BGC consideration at its September workshop, in preparation for community discussion in October. " This was topic discussed further in the Board Governance Committee last week on Thursday 15 September (I will post information on the resolutions once they are posted on the Board Governance Committee website), and with the Board as a whole on Saturday 17 September. You will see from the minutes above - that this will be a discussion item in Dakar. So just want to reassure that the concerns raised by members of the GNSO Council in Singapore are being followed up, and there will be more to report in Singapore. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 2

RE: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for amendments to sTLD charters?
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 30, 2011

Sept. 30, 2011

Understood. Not sure it was ever communicated that way to the Council as a whole, and since it doesn't even mention sTLDs it's difficult to see how it even comes close to fulfilling what was asked for. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the > process for amendments to sTLD charters? > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Date: Fri, September 30, 2011 8:17 am > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: "krosette(a)cov.com" <krosette(a)cov.com>, > "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > You are not going to get a disagreement from me that this paper is fundamentally flawed, but I am only conveying the answer I got when I asked the question back in March, that staff thought this paper addressed the particular resolution Kristina pointed to. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 8:33 AM > To: Neuman, Jeff > Cc: krosette(a)cov.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for amendments to sTLD charters? > > > Jeff, > > That is not the briefing paper for amending sTLD charters. It refers > only to the new Community gTLDs. There are some similarities between > sTLDs and Community gTLDs, but there are major differences in their > structure and how they were/are allocated. IMO, amending a sTLD charter > is a fundamentally different issue than the Community gTLD Change > discussed in the paper you refer to. > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the process > > for amendments to sTLD charters? > > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > > Date: Thu, September 29, 2011 5:04 pm > > To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, > > "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > Kristina, > > Ã� > > A paper was posted on February 21, 2011 (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explantory-memo-community-change-r…) which was heavily objected to on a number of grounds by the RySG.Ã� In our view, there were a number of flawed assumptions in there as well as too heavy a hand by ICANN.Ã� > > > > I am not sure if someone from staff forwarded this to you, so I thought I would and send it to the Council. Ã� At a few of the meetings, I brought this up at the council level (in San Francisco in particular), but the Council did not seem interested in taking it up at the time (or maybe they weren’t paying attention J) > > Ã� > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > > > > Ã� > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > Ã� > > > > Ã� > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina > > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:48 AM > > To: 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' > > Subject: [council] Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for amendments to sTLD charters? > > > > > > Ã� > > Ã� > > > > All, > > > > Ã� > > > > I was just reading the BGC's December 9, 2010 recommendation on the .jobs Charter Compliance Coalition reconsideration request and came across this footnote on page 12:Ã� > > > > Ã� > > > > Ã� > > > > 4 The BGC also thinks that the Board should address the need for a process to evaluate amendments that may have the effect of changing, or seeking to change, an sTLD Charter or Stated Purpose of a sponsored, restricted or community-based TLD. Because such a process may impact gTLDs greatly and is a policy issue, the GNSO is the natural starting point for evaluating such a process. We therefore further recommend that the Board direct the CEO to create a briefing paper for the GNSO to consider on this matter, and for the GNSO to determine whether a policy development process should be commenced.Ã� > > > > Ã� > > > > I don't recall receiving any such briefing paper.Ã� Did we receive one?Ã� If so, would the relevant staff person mind sending me a copy of it?Ã� Thanks! > > > > Ã� > > > > K > > > > Ã� > > > > > > > >

2 1

RE: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for amendments to sTLD charters?
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 30, 2011

Sept. 30, 2011

Jeff, That is not the briefing paper for amending sTLD charters. It refers only to the new Community gTLDs. There are some similarities between sTLDs and Community gTLDs, but there are major differences in their structure and how they were/are allocated. IMO, amending a sTLD charter is a fundamentally different issue than the Community gTLD Change discussed in the paper you refer to. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the process > for amendments to sTLD charters? > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Date: Thu, September 29, 2011 5:04 pm > To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, > "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Kristina, > > A paper was posted on February 21, 2011 (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explantory-memo-community-change-r…) which was heavily objected to on a number of grounds by the RySG. In our view, there were a number of flawed assumptions in there as well as too heavy a hand by ICANN. > > I am not sure if someone from staff forwarded this to you, so I thought I would and send it to the Council. At a few of the meetings, I brought this up at the council level (in San Francisco in particular), but the Council did not seem interested in taking it up at the time (or maybe they weren’t paying attention J) > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:48 AM > To: 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' > Subject: [council] Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for amendments to sTLD charters? > > > > > > All, > > > > I was just reading the BGC's December 9, 2010 recommendation on the .jobs Charter Compliance Coalition reconsideration request and came across this footnote on page 12: > > > > > > 4 The BGC also thinks that the Board should address the need for a process to evaluate amendments that may have the effect of changing, or seeking to change, an sTLD Charter or Stated Purpose of a sponsored, restricted or community-based TLD. Because such a process may impact gTLDs greatly and is a policy issue, the GNSO is the natural starting point for evaluating such a process. We therefore further recommend that the Board direct the CEO to create a briefing paper for the GNSO to consider on this matter, and for the GNSO to determine whether a policy development process should be commenced. > > > > I don't recall receiving any such briefing paper. Did we receive one? If so, would the relevant staff person mind sending me a copy of it? Thanks! > > > > K > > > > >

2 1

Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for amendments to sTLD charters?
by Rosette, Kristina Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

All, I was just reading the BGC's December 9, 2010 recommendation on the .jobs Charter Compliance Coalition reconsideration request and came across this footnote on page 12: 4 The BGC also thinks that the Board should address the need for a process to evaluate amendments that may have the effect of changing, or seeking to change, an sTLD Charter or Stated Purpose of a sponsored, restricted or community-based TLD. Because such a process may impact gTLDs greatly and is a policy issue, the GNSO is the natural starting point for evaluating such a process. We therefore further recommend that the Board direct the CEO to create a briefing paper for the GNSO to consider on this matter, and for the GNSO to determine whether a policy development process should be commenced. I don't recall receiving any such briefing paper. Did we receive one? If so, would the relevant staff person mind sending me a copy of it? Thanks! K

2 2

GNSO Council meeting agenda 6 October 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

Dear All, Please find the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 6 October 2011 at 15:00 UTC posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+06+October+2… and on the GNSO website at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-06oct11-en.htm Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 6 October 2011. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-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 7 October 00:00 Tokyo; 02:00 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 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 22 September minutes –approved on October 2011. Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 minutes) Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending Projects list since the previous meeting. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2.1 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) • GNSO activities: 10 (9 – Open Council Meeting DT added). • Other activities: 9 (9 - no change) • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 – no change). • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2– no change). Item 3: Amendments to RAA (10 minutes) In its ongoing work on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), and more specifically to identify potential amendments to the RAA, the Council is considering a motion to approve an amended process to develop a new form of RAA termed "process B". Refer to motion 1 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 3.1 Reading of the motion (Kristina Rosette) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) (10 minutes) As part of the GNSO improvements, the PPSC's PDP WT has produced a final report on how the GNSO's policy develop process should be handled. Refer to PDP-WT Final Report This report has been put out for public comment and is now being presented to the Council for approval. Refer to motion 4 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 4.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Item 5: Registration abuse (RAP) (15 minutes) At its July 21 meeting, the Council was presented with a motion to address the remaining recommendations of the RAP WG. This motion was discussed at the meeting and should now be considered by Council. It should be noted that the motion made before the Council today has been slightly reworked as compared to the motion shown at the July 21 meeting (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+July+2011) Motion <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe…> deferred from 22 September Council meeting. Refer to motion 3 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 5.1 Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote Item 6: Law Enforcement assistance on addressing criminal activity (10 minutes) A motion is being made to recommend action by the ICANN Board with regards to addressing Internet-based criminal activity. Motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe…> deferred from 22 September Council meeting Refer to motion: 4 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 6.1 Reading of the motion (Tim Ruiz) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Vote Item 7: Whois Survey Drafting Team (10 minutes) A motion is being submitted to approve the formation of a Whois Survey Drafting Team. Motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe…> deferred from 22 September Council meeting Refer to motion: 5. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 7.1 Reading of the motion (Wendy Seltzer) 7. 2 Discussion 7. 3 Vote Item 8: June 20 Board resolution on new gTLDs (15 minutes) As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained the following excerpt (Resolved 1.b): Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm Incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest. The GNSO Council discussed this at its July 21 meeting. A letter was sent by Kurt Pritz to Heather Dryden & Stéphane van Gelder to provide some guidance: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/pritz-to-dryden-11aug11-en.pdf On September 18, the GAC sent a letter to the GNSO Council providing the following advice on this topic with regard to a possible UDRP<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-udrp-14sep11-en.p…> and the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names.<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-red-cross-14sep11…> During the Council's Sept 22 meeting, the following points were highlighted: • A request to Staff to confer with ICANN General Counsel on the status of the advice that the GNSO receives from the GAC? • This is a proposed topics to discuss with the GAC at the joint GAC- Council meeting in Dakar. • Identify questions or requests for clarification and communicate these to the GAC well in advance of the joint meeting so as to have a meaningful and constructive discussion. Item 9: Interaction with ccNSO (10 minutes) Action item from the Singapore ICANN meeting, deferred from the July 21 meeting: the ccNSO and the GNSO agreed to try and work together more closely on some projects of common interest. Two were discussed: the work the ccNSO is currently doing on ICANN's strategic plan and budget, and the work the GNSO is currently doing on CWGs. This is a discussion item to ascertain how to push these two initiatives forward. 9.1 Discussion 9.2 Next steps Item 10: Open Council Meeting Drafting Team (10 minutes) At its Singapore meeting, the Council decided to review the way it’s Open Meetings are organized. This is a discussion item to review the work of the team so far and identify any changes that might be made in time for the GNSO Council's next Open Meeting, in Dakar on October 26. 10.1 Update (XXX) 10.2 Discussion 10.3 Next steps Item 11: Review of proposed agenda for Dakar meeting (10 minutes) Discussion item on the GNSO's proposed agenda for the Dakar meeting week, including key points and meetings with other stakeholders and groups. 11.1 Review of draft agenda (Jeff Neuman) 11.2 Discussion 11.3 Next steps Item 12: Best practices discussion paper<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/discussion-paper-rap-best-practices-28sep1…> (10 minutes) Following a Council request, Staff has prepared a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices for registrars and registries<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/discussion-paper-rap-best-practices-28sep1…>. The best practices are to help address the abusive registrations of domain names. Staff suggests that the Council open a public comment period. A workshop could also be held on this topic during the Dakar ICANN meeting week. 12.2 Discussion 12.3 Next steps Item 13. 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-operating-procedures-22sep11-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 10:00 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 13:00 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 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 02:00 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 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] CCWG-DT: Final Charter and Draft Motion
by john＠crediblecontext.com Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

2 1

RE: [council] CCWG-DT: Final Charter and Draft Motion
by john＠crediblecontext.com Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

2 1

RE: [council] CCWG-DT: Final Charter and Draft Motion
by Neuman, Jeff Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

Jonathan - to clarify, you say below "It will be very helpful to have this motion tabled and, ideally, approved ahead of Dakar." Do you mean it will be helpful to NOT have the motion tabled. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ 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. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:16 PM To: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: [council] CCWG-DT: Final Charter and Draft Motion All, Please find attached, documents relating to a proposed motion for our forthcoming council meeting on 6th October 2011. It will be very helpful to have this motion tabled and, ideally, approved ahead of Dakar. In addition, I believe that it is a primarily administrative piece of business for the GNSO to deal with this motion. Accordingly, I respectfully request a waiver of the 8 day rule which this submission has breached by less than 24 hours. Best wishes, Jonathan

1 0

CCWG-DT: Final Charter and Draft Motion
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

All, Please find attached, documents relating to a proposed motion for our forthcoming council meeting on 6th October 2011. It will be very helpful to have this motion tabled and, ideally, approved ahead of Dakar. In addition, I believe that it is a primarily administrative piece of business for the GNSO to deal with this motion. Accordingly, I respectfully request a waiver of the 8 day rule which this submission has breached by less than 24 hours. Best wishes, Jonathan

1 0