October 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] RE: [council] GAC Communiqué from Toronto
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 21, 2012

Oct. 21, 2012

I will help with this one. My explanation during the Council meeting and then again during the public forum should be of some assistance here. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 06:00 PM Eastern Standard Time To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: [council] GAC Communiqué from Toronto All, Please be particularly aware of the paragraphs in Section IV, item 3 on page 5 including the following: "The GAC will seek clarification from the GNSO as to its rationale for initiating a PDP." Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: 21 October 2012 01:18 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] GAC Communiqué from Toronto Hello All, Attached for information is the GAC Communiqué from Toronto. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] FW: URS follow-up
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 21, 2012

Oct. 21, 2012

I believe we should find out: 1. when the rfi responses are due and when they will be published, and 2. Get a list of all of the issues NAF, WIPO, CAC and the new entrant have with the current system. This is in the critical path before we work on any changes to the language. >From what I recall, there was very little that the new entrant needed changed. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 05:46 PM Eastern Standard Time To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] FW: URS follow-up All, Please be aware of the following note from Olof Nordling when we next consider the URS and associated issues. Jonathan From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] Sent: 21 October 2012 15:33 To: jonathan.robinson(a)iprota.com Cc: Kurt Pritz Subject: URS follow-up Dear Jonathan, Congratulations to your recent election as GNSO Council Chair and many thanks to you and to all Council members for the constructive discussions we had on URS matters on 18 October! The willingness to consider a drafting team to address URS implementation questions and issues is much appreciated. The subsequent URS session the same day in Toronto proved most interesting. In addition to presentations from NAF and WIPO as potential URS providers, we had the advantage of a very late addition to the agenda – a presentation from a “new entrant”, Intersponsive, intending to respond to the RFI with a proposal within the target fee, although with some adjustments of the URS provisions. Also NAF clarified that they would be able to stay within the target fee, provided reasonable limitations could be established to the current translation requirements and to the number of domain names covered by a single complaint. I realize that you and other Council members couldn’t attend this session, as it partially overlapped with the GNSO Council session, but the recording is available at http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3. Furthermore, there are a number of relevant documents posted on our recently established URS web page at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs, notably contributions from NAF, WIPO and CAC, with considerations, proposals, some costing aspects and, most importantly, questions needing to be resolved (the NAF contribution is of particular interest in that regard). I believe these recent developments further clarifies the need for a drafting team to establish realistic implementation measures based on the URS text. I look forward to further contacts with you and the Council on this matter in the near future. Very best regards Olof

1 0

GAC Communiqué from Toronto
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 21, 2012

Oct. 21, 2012

Hello All, Attached for information is the GAC Communiqué from Toronto. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

FW: URS follow-up
by Jonathan Robinson Oct. 21, 2012

Oct. 21, 2012

All, Please be aware of the following note from Olof Nordling when we next consider the URS and associated issues. Jonathan From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] Sent: 21 October 2012 15:33 To: jonathan.robinson(a)iprota.com Cc: Kurt Pritz Subject: URS follow-up Dear Jonathan, Congratulations to your recent election as GNSO Council Chair and many thanks to you and to all Council members for the constructive discussions we had on URS matters on 18 October! The willingness to consider a drafting team to address URS implementation questions and issues is much appreciated. The subsequent URS session the same day in Toronto proved most interesting. In addition to presentations from NAF and WIPO as potential URS providers, we had the advantage of a very late addition to the agenda - a presentation from a "new entrant", Intersponsive, intending to respond to the RFI with a proposal within the target fee, although with some adjustments of the URS provisions. Also NAF clarified that they would be able to stay within the target fee, provided reasonable limitations could be established to the current translation requirements and to the number of domain names covered by a single complaint. I realize that you and other Council members couldn't attend this session, as it partially overlapped with the GNSO Council session, but the recording is available at http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3. Furthermore, there are a number of relevant documents posted on our recently established URS web page at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs, notably contributions from NAF, WIPO and CAC, with considerations, proposals, some costing aspects and, most importantly, questions needing to be resolved (the NAF contribution is of particular interest in that regard). I believe these recent developments further clarifies the need for a drafting team to establish realistic implementation measures based on the URS text. I look forward to further contacts with you and the Council on this matter in the near future. Very best regards Olof

1 0

GNSO Council resolutions 17 0ctober 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 19, 2012

Oct. 19, 2012

Dear All, On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council unanimously passed the following resolutions: Motion to Request an Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in its Final Report the need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports; Whereas the RAPWG as a result recommended in its Final Report that the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes. Whereas the GNSO Council at its meeting on 6 October 2011 requested ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage; Whereas the ICANN Compliance Department provided a response to the GNSO Council on 18 March 2012 and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 April 2012 (see <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-un iformity-16mar12-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uni formity-16mar12-en.pdf); Whereas the GNSO Council discussed the RAPWG recommendation in light of the feedback received from the ICANN Compliance Department and Mikey OConnor volunteered to provide some further thoughts on how the RAPWG recommendation could be implemented; Whereas Mikey OConnor submitted his proposed approach to the GNSO Council on 3 September 2012 (see <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13484.html> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13484.html) Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the proposed approach at its meeting on 13 September 2012. RESOLVED, The GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports. This issue report should consider the issues highlighted in: * The RAPWG Final Report, section 9.1 ( <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) * The ICANN Compliance Department Report ( <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-un iformity-16mar12-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uni formity-16mar12-en.pdf) * Thought paper from Mikey OConnor ( <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13484.html> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13484.html) In addition to covering the required elements of an Issue Report, ICANN Staff is also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement. Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of international organizations at the first and second levels in the New gTLD Program. Whereas ICANN Staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs in a <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-04jun12-en.htm> public comment forum that opened on 4 June, 2012, and closed on 26 July 2012; Whereas ICANN Staff reviewed the comments received and updated the report accordingly; Whereas the Final Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDS was published on 1 October 2012 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o ct12-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01oc t12-en.pdf; Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. THEREFORE BE IT: Resolved, the GNSO hereby initiates a PDP to evaluate (ii) whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs for the names of the following types of international organizations: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions, and specifically including the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and (ii) if so, to develop policy recommendations for such protections. Further resolved, that in conducting this PDP, the GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible to fulfill the requirements of this PDP in an expedited manner. Motion to approve the Charter for the thick Whois PDP Working Group Whereas on 14 March 2012 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on thick Whois and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP (see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#201203> http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#201203) Whereas, following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council; Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting team. RESOLVED, The GNSO Council approves the charter and appoints Volker Greimann as the GNSO Council Liaison to the thick Whois PDP Working Group. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of thick Whois PDP Working Group be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair. Charter <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/thick-whois-charter-08oct12-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/thick-whois-charter-08oct12-en.pdf Motion on the Adoption of the IRTP Part C Final Report and Recommendations WHEREAS on 22 September 2011, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part C addressing the following three charter questions: 1. "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security. 2. Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed. 3. Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs. WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 October 2012; WHEREAS the IRTP Part C WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the three issues outlined above; WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations. Resolved RESOLVED (A), the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of the IRTP Part C recommendations (#1, #2 and #3) as detailed in the IRTP Part C Final Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/irtp-c-final-report-09oct12-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/irtp-c-final-report-09oct12-en.pdf RESOLVED (B), The GNSO Council shall convene an IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy. If the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy or new IRTP Part C policy recommendations, the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for an IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team to the members of the IRTP Part C Working Group. RESOLVED (C), the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on IRTP Part D, which should include all the remaining issues identified by the original transfers WG as well as the additional issue identified by the IRTP Part C WG, namely: * Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions; * Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred; * Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf); * Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrant; * Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy; Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs. GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report WHEREAS, on 21 April 2009, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac037.pdf> SAC037 "Display and usage of Internationalized Registration Data" (SAC037). WHEREAS, on 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board approved a <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#6> resolution requesting that the GNSO and SSAC, in consultation with Staff, convene an Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) comprised of individuals with knowledge, expertise, and experience in these areas to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of registration data. WHEREAS, on 03 October 2011 the IRD-WG published a draft <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ird/ird-draft-final-report-03oct11-en.pdf> Final Report in the public forum for comment. WHEREAS, on 06 March 2012 the IRD-WG sent a <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/11141574/Final+Internation alized+Registration+Data+Working+Group+Report+06+Mar+2012.pdf?version=1&modi ficationDate=1333659631000> Final Report that addressed issues raised in the forum to the GNSO Council and the SSAC for consideration. WHEREAS, on 10 May 2012 the IRD-WG sent a <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/11141574/May+7+Internation alized_Registration+Data+Working+Group+Report+CLEAN.pdf?version=1&modificati onDate=1337981336198> revised Final Report that addressed changes requested by the SSAC to the GNSO Council for consideration. WHEREAS, on 27 June 2012 the GNSO Council approved a <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+27+June+201 2> motion to deliver the Final Report to the ICANN Board. WHEREAS, on 13 September 2012 the GNSO Council approved a <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/van-gelder-faltstrom-to-icann-board -redline-06aug12-en.pdf> joint letter from the GNSO Council and the SSAC to the ICANN Board to deliver the Final Report. WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and considers that while expecting the ICANN Board to respond to the SSAC-GNSO joint letter, the Recommendation 2, translation and transliteration of contact information of IRD, of the Final Report requires timely action at the policy level which involves collaboration among domain name registrant, registrar, and registry. RESOLVED, the GNSO approves the Final Report and requests the ICANN Staff to prepare the IRD Issues Report on translation and transliteration of contact information (IRDIR-Rec2). The Issue Report should consider 1) whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script; 2) who should bear the burden and who is in the best position to address these issues; and 3) whether to start a policy development process (PDP) to address those questions. RESOLVED FURTHER, the ICANN Staff shall provide regular updates to the GNSO Council on relevant technical development of the IRD, including the estimated time-line or roadmap of such technical development so that the GNSO Council and the rest of the ICANN community, particularly the IDN gTLD applicant, can fully prepare for implementing the IRD features in its operation. Should there be any policy implication arising from such updates, the GNSO Council shall consider, in consultation with SSAC and technical communities, requesting one or more issue reports as appropriate to initiate separate PDP processes based on all available technical recommendations or standards. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Action Items From Today's Meeting
by Margie Milam Oct. 18, 2012

Oct. 18, 2012

Dear All- Here are the action items from today's wrap up session: * URS - ICANN requested to get/provide cost breakdown from providers responding to RFI to Council; Council to identify members of group to review URS when this information is provided; call for volunteers to be circulated shortly. * WHOIS RT Final Report- Staff & Brian Winterfeldt to prepare summary chart of submissions to the Public Comment on the substance of the Whois RT recommendations to be included with the other materials. Comments on the initial draft of the letter and chart indicating whether a PDP should be initiated on the recommendations or not are due by COB tomorrow (Friday 19 October) * IGO PDP- Staff to send call for volunteers, circulate draft charter, initiate first outreach steps requesting input from GNSO SG/C and ICANN SO/ACs, set up first meeting from the DT. Staff awaiting request from Council for legal analysis for the PDP on international law, but will begin internal work in anticipation of request * IOC/RC Drafting Team- to communicate with GAC once the public comment has closed and its recommendations finalized * Items not covered today to be pushed to next GNSO Council meeting * Thomas Richert to replace SVG on the ICANN Academy WG * Mason Cole to handle Beijing meeting schedules * Volker Greimann to be liaison for WHOIS Thick WHOIS PDP * Mason Cole to be liaison for the IGO Issue Report Please let me know if I missed anything. Best Regards, Margie ________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ________

1 0

Moving on
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 18, 2012

Oct. 18, 2012

Hi Glen, For full transparency, I am copying the Council on this message, my last as an authorized subscriber to the Council list. As of today, please de-subscribe me from the Council list, the Council Leadership list and all GNSO WG or DT lists to which I am subscribed as an observer in my capacity as Chair. Please also inform the new Leadership team that they will have to seek a replacement for me in my position as Council Liaison to the ICANN Academy WG. Councillors, as my last official act as Chair, please find attached the GNSO Chair's report for Toronto. It has been a real pleasure working with you all, and I wish the new leadership team the best of luck. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM NetNames France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director NetNames T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51 F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61

8 13

Re: [council] Moving on
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 18, 2012

Oct. 18, 2012

I want to express my special thanks to you David. I understand that you were instrumental in putting together last night's gifts and go-kart event. I was deeply, deeply touched by it all, and it is something that will stay with me for a long, long time. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM NetNames France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director NetNames T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51 F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61 Le 18 oct. 2012 à 18:04, "Taylor, David" <David.Taylor(a)hoganlovells.com> a écrit : > > > +2 Thanks Stephane, your hard work and dedication is an example to us all. You steered the GNSO Council as you steered your kart last night. Leading throughout. J > > Dr. David Taylor > Partner > Hogan Lovells International LLP > 6 avenue Kléber > 75116 Paris > > Tel: +33 1 53 67 47 47 > Fax: +33 1 53 67 47 48 > Email: drd(a)hoganlovells.com > www.hoganlovells.com > <image001.jpg> > <image002.jpg> > > > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert > Sent: 18 October 2012 11:16 > To: Winterfeldt, Brian > Cc: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Glen de Saint Géry; <council(a)gnso.icann.org> List > Subject: Re: [council] Moving on > > Brian +1 > > Thanks again, Stéphane, > > Thomas > > Am 18.10.2012 um 11:14 schrieb "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com>: > > > Thank you Stéphane for all your hard work and leadership! I really appreciate your service, as I know does the entire Council. > > Brian J. Winterfeldt > Partner > bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com > > Steptoe > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:04 AM > To: Glen de Saint Géry > Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> List > Subject: [council] Moving on > > Hi Glen, > > For full transparency, I am copying the Council on this message, my last as an authorized subscriber to the Council list. > > As of today, please de-subscribe me from the Council list, the Council Leadership list and all GNSO WG or DT lists to which I am subscribed as an observer in my capacity as Chair. > > Please also inform the new Leadership team that they will have to seek a replacement for me in my position as Council Liaison to the ICANN Academy WG. > > Councillors, as my last official act as Chair, please find attached the GNSO Chair's report for Toronto. > > It has been a real pleasure working with you all, and I wish the new leadership team the best of luck. > > > Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC353350, and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales. Registered office: Atlantic House, Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2FG. > Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP is an affiliated business of Hogan Lovells International LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales. "Hogan Lovells" is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP and their affiliated businesses. The word "partner" is used to describe a partner or member of Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP or any of their affiliated entities or any employee or consultant with equivalent standing. Certain individuals, who are designated as partners, but who are not members of Hogan Lovells International LLP, do not hold qualifications equivalent to members. For more information about Hogan Lovells, the partners and their qualifications, see 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

RE: [council] Draft Letter from GNSO to Board re WHOIS RT Recommendations
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 17, 2012

Oct. 17, 2012

Brian, and update on this? Alan At 16/10/2012 10:16 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian wrote: >Dear Alan thank you for your quick >feedback. I will circulate a new draft shortly >and be sure to include the additional >information as promised earlier as >appendices. I look forward to any additional feedback from the Council. > >Best, > >Brian > >Brian J. Winterfeldt >Partner ><mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com >Steptoe > >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:18 AM >To: Winterfeldt, Brian; 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' >Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter from GNSO to >Board re WHOIS RT Recommendations > >Brian, several comments: > >- does this imply that you will not be sending >any of the detailed breakdowns by SG/Const, >including the explanatory notes that > >- the use of the term SG is confusing, as it >normally stands for Stakeholder Group in the GNSO context. > >- Ignoring the possibly confusing abbreviation, >giving percentages of the SG without any >information about its constitution is not very informative. > >- the reference to the GNSO's 6 constituencies >is unclear, as the GNSO has (I think!) five >constituencies in two Stakeholder Groups, and >two Stakeholder Groups without constituencies. > >Alan > >At 16/10/2012 01:46 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian wrote: > >Dear Councilors, > >As was discussed in Saturdays session with >regard to the WHOIS RT work, attached please >find a draft letter to the ICANN Board detailing >our various constituencies recommendations as >to whether a PDP would be required for certain WHOIS enhancements. > >We appreciate your prompt attention to this >matter and look forward to hearing your views so >that we may move forward as soon as possible >with providing our communication to the Board. Thank you. > >Best regards, > >Brian > >Brian J. Winterfeldt

2 1

AC room for Council meeting
by Marika Konings Oct. 17, 2012

Oct. 17, 2012

All, we'll also be using our regular Adobe Connect room for this session to review the motions: http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/. With best regards, Marika

1 0