November 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#104]
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 12, 2012

Nov. 12, 2012

FYI De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : jeudi 8 novembre 2012 19:22 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#104] Name of Officer: * Steve DelBianco Officer Email Address: * sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date Prepared: * Friday, November 9, 2012 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 will be unavailabje at time of the call Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Voting on noticed motions and all other business that comes before the Council 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, November 16, 2012 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

Regarding WHOIS
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 10, 2012

Nov. 10, 2012

Hello All, See attached for a recent press release associated with the Internet Governance Forum. Of interest to the GNSO will be the last sentence: "Also during the IGF in Baku, the ICANN Board of Directors convened a special meeting to discuss a report by the WHOIS Review team. WHOIS is a listing of web site registrants and their contact information. The Board said it would report the outcome of its course of action on WHOIS by 19 November." Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 9, 2012

Nov. 9, 2012

Actually, there is. Certainly within At-Large, there is a strong feeling that the RC Movement deserves such protection. There is FAR less support for the IOC. The belief has not centered on legal issues, but rather the nature of the organizations and their need for (financial) protection. In the case of the IOC, their reputation (whether deserved or not) of going after other organizations who use the Olympic names or symbols in unrelated businesses (ie your neighbourhood pizza restaurant) has left a bad taste in peoples' mouths. And the magnitude of their commercial interactions (broadcasting rights, etc) leaves many with the technically incorrect view that they are a commercial organization and not (as is the reality) a not-for-profit. But the question is more complex, since many people would consider Médecins Sans Frontières or OXFAM to be as worthy as the Red Cross, yet are not being considered at all in these discussions. Alan At 09/11/2012 11:54 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: > > Is there any dispute or question about the > global importance of these organizations to all internet users?

1 0

RE: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 9, 2012

Nov. 9, 2012

Jen, you didn't address the question to me, but perhaps I can give my views on your questions below. At 09/11/2012 10:36 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: >Hi Jeff & Volker, > >I apologize if I am asking an overly simplistic question as one of >the new GNSO Council members, but isn't the purpose of this motion >and PDP to ensure that internet users are not misdirected when >looking for the one true Red Cross or IOC? Not really. The Drafting Team could not come to closure of wether the names should be permanently reserved (perhaps to protect users, perhaps to save the parties money in reserving or registering the names so that others could not get them). That question will be dealt with under the PDP that has just started. This motion protects them until the PDP is complete, so that IF the PDP recommends long-term protection, the names will not have been registered (or protected under TLD-specific rules) in the interim. > If I am reading the motion correctly, the intention is to reserve > only exact matches. How is Olympic paints impacted negatively by > this reservation? Well, currently Olympic Paints uses olympic.com. The IOC or national olympic committees seems to have control over that name in most of the other common TLDs. With the temporary reservation, Olympic Paints could not register olympic.home, olympic.build or olympoic.repair (and many others). > They chose their brand knowing there is a one true IOC and, most > likely, intended to leverage the goodwill associated with the Olympic name. Not sure we can attribute motive, but given that in their logo, the I is a paintbrush clearly resembling an olympic torch, the linkage has not escaped them. > It would seem it is in the interest of the greater internet > community to protect the IOC and Red Cross versus brand owners in > terms of reservations of rights. That indeed is one of the main questions. Since protection close to a reserved name might also be available through the various launch processes, a related rationale is to save these organization from the cost and work required to take advantage of such protections. And in the larger picture who else needs or deserves such protection over and above that given to traditional trademarks. >But again, I'm new to the council, so I apologize if I am missing >any history here that has already addressed this issue. Sometimes a fresh review can be very useful for all! Alan > > >With kindest regards, > >Jennifer

1 0

RE: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES
by john＠crediblecontext.com Nov. 9, 2012

Nov. 9, 2012

Jennifer, Olympic as a brand has a history that recedes deeper into history than 1896 and the launch of the first games under the IOC. The ancient Olympic games probably had no trademark, but even here in San Francisco, the Olympic Club was founded in 1860 or so. That's why there has been no problem with Olympic Paints holding Olympic.com and the IOC holding Olympic.org. The launch of new gTLDs makes that all less definable. This is what make action necessary and more difficult. Welcome to the GNSO Council! Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES From: Jen Wolfe <jwolfe(a)wolfe-sbmc.com> Date: Fri, November 09, 2012 7:36 am To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-Systems.net>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Cc: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi Jeff & Volker, I apologize if I am asking an overly simplistic question as one of the new GNSO Council members, but isn’t the purpose of this motion and PDP to ensure that internet users are not misdirected when looking for the one true Red Cross or IOC? If I am reading the motion correctly, the intention is to reserve only exact matches. How is Olympic paints impacted negatively by this reservation? They chose their brand knowing there is a one true IOC and, most likely, intended to leverage the goodwill associated with the Olympic name. It would seem it is in the interest of the greater internet community to protect the IOC and Red Cross versus brand owners in terms of reservations of rights. But again, I’m new to the council, so I apologize if I am missing any history here that has already addressed this issue. With kindest regards, Jennifer jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy ADVISORY firm managing partner, Wolfe, Sadler, Breen, Morasch & Colby, a law firm serving global clients IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: Blog: Moneyball changed baseball – will gTLDs change the internet? 4430 Carver Woods Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45242 513 746 2801 direct line | 513 746 2828 fax Privileged/confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 8:52 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES Hi Jeff, even if the reservation is temporary this will result in that the potential applicants are effectively disenfranchised from the opportunity to participate in the Sunrise periods of any given TLD. I don't think that registry operators and registrars will be willing to entertain a second sunrise in each and every new TLD just for these strings, which would mean that rights holders would have to compete with other third parties once the reservation were lifted. While the IOC and RCRC have internationally established protections in place, these protections are not all-encompassing and allow for other legitimate uses of these terms. Consequently, any protections for these strings we implement in addition to the existing protections should also take into consideration other legitimate rights. I am not opposed to additional protections in general, however these should be fair and balanced. I agree that the worst case scenario you detail is a distinct problem, but there should be possible solutions for that issue, such as a specific warning for registering parties at the time of application for sunrise validation, or the right to participate in the sunrise despite the reservation (i.e. the sunrise application would not automatically fail as with standard reservations, but either remain pending until the PDP is done, or be processed as usual but lead to a right to register upon availability instead of instant registration). I agree that we should avoid being cornered by our current decision if the PDP comes out differently, I am just looking for more flexibility to allow for alternative solutions that would achieve the same goal. Best, Volker Greimann Volker, Please note that the recommendations are for temporary reservations pending the outcome of the PDP. You may be correct in your ultimate conclusion and that may be the way the PDP comes out. But out of practicality, if the PDP comes out the other way (that the names should be protected), then the only way to realistically implement that would be if the names were reserved in the first place. It would be impossible to take back the names once they are registered by third parties. Therefore, the Drafting Team believes that the names should be reserved initially until the PDP is completed. Worst case scenario if we adopt this measure is that the PDP comes out that the names should not be protected and then we allow for the release of the names at that time. If we took your approach and the names should have been protected (assuming the PDP comes out that way), we are stuck. I hope this helps explain the Drafting Team position without in any way downplaying your opposition to the ultimate reservation. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 7:49 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES Dear Jeff, dear fellow councillors, not trying to ruffle any feathers here, especially at this late stage, but I have strong objections to the concept of implementing blanket mandatory restrictions to the legitimate rights of potential domain owners to apply for certain strings on the second level based solely on the lobbying power of the IOC and the Red Cross/Red Crescent. The proposed reserving of the listed terms effectively removes the ability of other potential rights holders in these strings to apply for their trademarks or other name rights in the sunrise phase of any newly launched gTLD, especially since the TMCH warning process would provide the protected entities and the applicant with ample warning of the potential conflict during the launch. Only once the minimum duration of the TMCH protection in newly launched TLDs expires does further protection become necessary. A quick search shows numerous such potential applicants for the string "Olympic" alone: restaurants, an airline, a paint company, a travel agency, hotels, a college, a dairy company and many more, none of which infringe upon the legally protected rights of the above organizations by use of the string "olympic". The blanket restriction therefore seems as an overreach, especially since effective protection mechanisms are already implemented during the launch. A more differentiated approach therefore seems appropriate, such as a requirement for new gTLD registries to add the affected strings to the reserved list only after the TMCH is no longer effective for the TLD, or allowing Sunrise applications despite the restriction. While I understand and agree with the need to implement some form of protections for the above organizations, such protections should not infringe on third party rights to apply for the registration of domain names that match their legal rights in an undue manner. Best, Volker Greimann All, On behalf of the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team, I am pleased to present the following motion which was supported by the Drafting Team. For the record, I will note that the recommendations were not supported by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group and Thomas Rickert, but were supported by the Registries Stakeholder Group, the, Intellectual Property Constituency, Business Constituency and ISP Constituency, the representative from the ALAC, and those representatives from the International Olympic Committee and the Red Cross/Red Crescent. The Registrars Stakeholder group did not participate on the Drafting Team. Thanks. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES Made by: Jeff Neuman Seconded by: WHEREAS: The Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized “the President and CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . 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, . . ." (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm) The IOC/RC Drafting Team established [Date] by the GNSO Council has considered a number of different options with respect to protections of both the IOC and the RCRC terms in response to the GAC proposal to provide permanent protection for such terms including at the second level in new gTLDS; The solution proposed by the IOC/RC Drafting Team, to initiate a PDP and to provide temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names, was posted for public comment on 28 September 2012 and closed on 9 November 2012; The GNSO has now [Date] initiated a policy development process (PDP) to evaluate possible protections for certain international organization names in all gTLDs, including, specifically, whether to recommend policies to protect IOC/RCRC names; and Therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council recommend to the Board that it adopt the second recommendation of the IOC/RC Drafting Team, providing for temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names, prior to the delegation of the first round of new gTLDs. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC Drafting Team’s recommendation to temporarily reserve the exact match of IOC and RCRC second level domain names listed in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook and per the GAC recommendation of 14 September 2011pending the outcome of the recently launched policy development process involving International Governmental and Non-governmental Organizations. That the GNSO Council thanks the members of the IOC/RC Drafting Team for their efforts in producing these recommendations, and hereby disbands the IOC/RC Drafting Team; and That the Chair of the GNSO Council is authorized to forward these recommendations to the ICANN Board. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.key-systems.net/facebook www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.key-systems.net/facebook www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.key-systems.net/facebook www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.key-systems.net/facebook www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

1 0

Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 15 November 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 9, 2012

Nov. 9, 2012

Dear Councillors, Please find the draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 15 November 2012 at 11:00 UTC posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-15nov12-en.htm And on the Wiki (where you will find the latest updates) <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+15+November+ 2012> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+15+November+2 012 Motions are posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+15+November+ 2012 Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 15 November 2012 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-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 Times 11:00 UTC <http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx> http://tinyurl.com/8swe78k Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC 03:00 Los Angeles; 06:00 Washington; 11:00 London; 12:00 Paris; 00:00 Wellington 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 audio cast <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 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: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 17 October 2012 <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13789.html> will be approved on 15 November 2012. The minutes of the New GNSO Council meeting 17 October 2012 <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13798.html> will be approved on 16 November 2012. 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf * Review main changes. * Comments and/or questions. Item 2: Introductory Remarks from New Chair (10 minutes) Item 3: Consent agenda (5 minutes) IRTP Part C GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board Approval - Following the approval of the IRTP Part C Recommendations at the GNSO Council meeting in Toronto, ICANN Staff has now prepared the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board for the GNSO Council's approval. <include a link to the document> Item 4: MOTION - RAP recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse (10 minutes) The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) recommended that an Issue Report evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for ICANN agreements. The Final Issue Report, which was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 September 2012, recommends the initiation of a PDP (see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/registration-abuse/uofc-final-issue-report- 20sep12-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/registration-abuse/uofc-final-issue-report-2 0sep12-en.pdf). The Council must now consider a motion to initiate a PDP. Refer to motion 1: http://tinyurl.com/chw8ooo 4.1 Reading of the motion (Jonathan Robinson or Zahid Jamil). 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote (PDP threshold: 1/3rd of each house, or 2/3 of one house). Item 5: MOTION Second Level Protections for certain IOC / RCRC names in the first round of New GTLDs (10 minutes) The IOC/RC Drafting Team has forwarded its recommendations that the GNSO Council recommend to the Board that it adopt the IOC/RC Drafting Teams recommendations [insert link to recommendation] providing for temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names at the second level, prior to the delegation of the first round of new gTLDs. The GNSO Council is now asked to consider approval of this. Refer to motion 2: http://tinyurl.com/chw8ooo 5.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman). 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote (Standard threshold: simple majority of each house). Item 6: MOTION: Approval of INGO/INGO Protection PDP WG Charter (10 Minutes) Pursuant to its 17 October 2012 motion, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP and created a Working Group on an expedited basis to evaluate the protection of names and acronyms of certain international organizations including, International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and Non- Governmental Organizations such as the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The Working Group has developed a charter for this PDP {link to proposed charter} and the Council must now consider a motion to approve the charter. Refer to motion 3: http://tinyurl.com/chw8ooo 6.1 Reading of the motion (Lanre Ajayi) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Vote (PDP threshold: 1/3rd of each house, or 2/3 of one house). 6.4 If motion carries, selection of Council Liaison to WG. Item 7: UPDATE - Consumer Trust (10 minutes) The GNSO's Consumer Choice, Trust, and Competition WG has worked on an Advice Letter for consideration by ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. Following withdrawal of the motion to approve the Advice Letter, the WG is working on an updated Advice Letter. This is a discussion item. 7.1 Update from [John Berard] 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps Item 8: UPDATE - Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) (10 minutes) On September 18, 2012, Kurt Pritz wrote to the GNSO Council Chair to inform the Council of ongoing discussions on the implementation of the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system. This was discussed in Toronto and has now been followed up by an email update to the Council (November 06, 2012). The Council agreed on a course of action in Toronto and the purpose of this discussion is to ensure the Council is up-to-date and to consider whether or not any other or different course of action is required. This is a discussion item. 8.1 Discussion 8.2 Next steps (If any). Item 9: UPDATE - Whois Review Team Final Report Recommendations (10 min.) The GNSO Council sent a letter to the Board commenting on the WHOIS RT Final Report recommendations, in advance of the Boards meeting on 8 November 2012. Staff will update the Council on the results from this Board Meeting, including any resolutions adopted, and any next steps with respect to this issue. 9.1 Update on the Board Meeting (Margie Milam) 9.2 Discussion 9.3 Next steps [Item 10: Defensive Registrations Discussion (10 Minutes) Staff has delivered a briefing paper http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/32287 to the GNSO Council on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level in response from a request from the New GLTD Committee (2012.04.10.NG2). The New GTLD Committee requests the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken. The Council to discuss whether to undertake any additional work on this topic, especially in light of the continued discussions in Toronto on this topic. 10.1 Update from Staff (Brian Peck) 10.2 Discussion 10.3 Next Steps Item 11: GNSO Council Review and SIC Update (15 minutes) In Toronto, the Chair of the SIC provided an overview of a new framework for future independent review efforts at ICANN. The GNSO was used as a case study to describe the effort because it is the first Supporting Organization lined-up in the next review cycle. Staff will brief the Council on the set of criteria metrics for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and the work underway to develop metrics for the Council and the Working Group Model of policy. 11.1 Update from Staff (Rob Hogarth) 11.2 Discussion 11.3 Next Steps Item 12: Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) Selection Process and Timeline Discussion (5 minutes) There is a pending call for applications to serve on the ATRT 2 as independent expert or as volunteer team member in representation of an ICANN SO/AC, as reflected in the announcement - <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-05oct12-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-05oct12-en.htm - and Call for Applicants - <http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/call-for-volunteers-05oct12-e n.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/call-for-volunteers-05oct12-en .htm. As part of this process, the GNSO Council will be asked to endorse candidates. 12.1 Update from Wolf-Ulrich Knoben 12.2 Discussion 12.3 Next Steps Item 13: Any Other Business (5 minutes) 13.1 Liaison to ccNSO to replace Rafik Dammak 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: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA> Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. 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. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. 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. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures ( <http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf> GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4) 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 meetings 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 October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 11:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html> ) UTC-8+0DST 03:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 06:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 09:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html> ) UTC-3+1DST 09:00 Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 11:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 11:00 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html> ) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel. html> ) UTC+2+0DST 13:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Perth, Australia (WST <http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html> ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.htm l> ) UTC+12+1DST 00:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/8swe78k 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

2 1

Regarding Board meeting on WHOIS
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 8, 2012

Nov. 8, 2012

Hello All, Just a note that the Board had a 2.5 hour call on the WHOIS review today. A resolution was passed, but the Board requested further work on the rationale before it is published. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 15 November 2012
by john＠crediblecontext.com Nov. 8, 2012

Nov. 8, 2012

Glen & Councillors: Note that, even though I am listed on the agenda speaking for Consumer Metrics, I will not be on the call next week. Zahid has my proxy, but Jonathan is in a better position to speak to the work product. If Mr. Cobb is on the staff line-up, it could fall to him. Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 15 November 2012 From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, November 08, 2012 6:57 am To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear Councillors, Please find the draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 15 November 2012 at 11:00 UTC posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-15nov12-en.htm And on the Wiki (where you will find the latest updates) https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+15+November+… Motions are posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+15+November… Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 15 November 2012 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-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 Times 11:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/8swe78k Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC 03:00 Los Angeles; 06:00 Washington; 11:00 London; 12:00 Paris; 00:00 Wellington 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 audio cast 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: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 17 October 2012 will be approved on 15 November 2012. The minutes of the New GNSO Council meeting 17 October 2012 will be approved on 16 November 2012. 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf Review main changes.Comments and/or questions. Item 2: Introductory Remarks from New Chair (10 minutes) Item 3: Consent agenda (5 minutes) IRTP Part C GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board Approval - Following the approval of the IRTP Part C Recommendations at the GNSO Council meeting in Toronto, ICANN Staff has now prepared the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board for the GNSO Council's approval. <include a link to the document> Item 4: MOTION - RAP recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse (10 minutes) The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) recommended that an Issue Report evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for ICANN agreements. The Final Issue Report, which was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 September 2012, recommends the initiation of a PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/registration-abuse/uofc-final-issue-report-…) The Council must now consider a motion to initiate a PDP. Refer to motion 1: http://tinyurl.com/chw8ooo 4.1 Reading of the motion (Jonathan Robinson or Zahid Jamil). 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote (PDP threshold: 1/3rd of each house, or 2/3 of one house). Item 5: MOTION – Second Level Protections for certain IOC / RCRC names in the first round of New GTLDs (10 minutes) The IOC/RC Drafting Team has forwarded its recommendations that the GNSO Council recommend to the Board that it adopt the IOC/RC Drafting Team’s recommendations [insert link to recommendation] providing for temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names at the second level, prior to the delegation of the first round of new gTLDs. The GNSO Council is now asked to consider approval of this. Refer to motion 2: http://tinyurl.com/chw8ooo 5.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman). 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote (Standard threshold: simple majority of each house). Item 6: MOTION: Approval of INGO/INGO Protection PDP WG Charter (10 Minutes) Pursuant to its 17 October 2012 motion, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP and created a Working Group on an expedited basis to evaluate the protection of names and acronyms of certain international organizations including, International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and Non- Governmental Organizations such as the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The Working Group has developed a charter for this PDP {link to proposed charter} and the Council must now consider a motion to approve the charter. Refer to motion 3: http://tinyurl.com/chw8ooo 6.1 Reading of the motion (Lanre Ajayi) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Vote (PDP threshold: 1/3rd of each house, or 2/3 of one house). 6.4 If motion carries, selection of Council Liaison to WG. Item 7: UPDATE - Consumer Trust (10 minutes) The GNSO's Consumer Choice, Trust, and Competition WG has worked on an Advice Letter for consideration by ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. Following withdrawal of the motion to approve the Advice Letter, the WG is working on an updated Advice Letter. This is a discussion item. 7.1 Update from [John Berard] 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps Item 8: UPDATE - Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) (10 minutes) On September 18, 2012, Kurt Pritz wrote to the GNSO Council Chair to inform the Council of ongoing discussions on the implementation of the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system. This was discussed in Toronto and has now been followed up by an email update to the Council (November 06, 2012). The Council agreed on a course of action in Toronto and the purpose of this discussion is to ensure the Council is up-to-date and to consider whether or not any other or different course of action is required. This is a discussion item. 8.1 Discussion 8.2 Next steps (If any). Item 9: UPDATE - Whois Review Team Final Report Recommendations (10 min.) The GNSO Council sent a letter to the Board commenting on the WHOIS RT Final Report recommendations, in advance of the Board’s meeting on 8 November 2012. Staff will update the Council on the results from this Board Meeting, including any resolutions adopted, and any next steps with respect to this issue. 9.1 Update on the Board Meeting (Margie Milam) 9.2 Discussion 9.3 Next steps [Item 10: Defensive Registrations Discussion (10 Minutes) Staff has delivered a briefing paper http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/32287 to the GNSO Council on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level in response from a request from the New GLTD Committee (2012.04.10.NG2). The New GTLD Committee requests the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken. The Council to discuss whether to undertake any additional work on this topic, especially in light of the continued discussions in Toronto on this topic. 10.1 Update from Staff (Brian Peck) 10.2 Discussion 10.3 Next Steps Item 11: GNSO Council Review and SIC Update (15 minutes) In Toronto, the Chair of the SIC provided an overview of a new framework for future independent review efforts at ICANN. The GNSO was used as a case study to describe the effort because it is the first Supporting Organization lined-up in the next review cycle. Staff will brief the Council on the set of criteria metrics for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and the work underway to develop metrics for the Council and the Working Group Model of policy. 11.1 Update from Staff (Rob Hogarth) 11.2 Discussion 11.3 Next Steps Item 12: Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) Selection Process and Timeline Discussion (5 minutes) There is a pending call for applications to serve on the ATRT 2 as independent expert or as volunteer team member in representation of an ICANN SO/AC, as reflected in the announcement - http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-05oct12-en.htm - and Call for Applicants - http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/call-for-volunteers-05oct12-e…. As part of this process, the GNSO Council will be asked to endorse candidates. 12.1 Update from Wolf-Ulrich Knoben 12.2 Discussion 12.3 Next Steps Item 13: Any Other Business (5 minutes) 13.1 Liaison to ccNSO to replace Rafik Dammak 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: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. 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. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. 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. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4) 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 October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 11:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 03:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 06:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 09:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 09:00 Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 11:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 11:00 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 13:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 00:00 – next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/8swe78k Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Joint Statement from ICANN, Verisign and NTIA on readiness for supporting new gTLDs in the root
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 8, 2012

Nov. 8, 2012

Hello All, Attached is a joint statement from ICANN, Verisign and NTIA on readiness for supporting new gTLDs in the root. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Motion to Adopt IGO-INGO PDP WG Charter for Submission to the Council
by Lanre Ajayi Nov. 8, 2012

Nov. 8, 2012

To the GNSO Council, On behalf of the IGO-INGO Protection PDP WG Charter Drafting Team, I am pleased to present the following motion and draft WG Charter (attached) which was approved by the Drafting Team. Motion to approve the Charter for the IGO-INGO Protection PDP Working Group Made by: Lanre Ajayi Seconded by: Whereas On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the protection of certain IGO and INGO names in all gTLDs, and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP; Following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council; The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting team. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The GNSO Council approves the charter and appoints [Name] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IGO-INGO Protection PDP Working Group. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of IGO-INGO Protection 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 [ATTACHED]

2 1