March 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Internationalized Registration Data Working Group Final Report
by Julie Hedlund May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012

Dear GNSO Council Members, On behalf of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG), please find attached its Final Report for GNSO Council consideration. The report was agreed to by rough consensus according to the IRD-WG Charter with two-thirds of the members agreeing with the report and no members disagreeing with it. See the details below. Please note that since this is a joint working group established by the GNSO and the SSAC, the attached report also is being sent today to the SSAC for consideration. In addition, please note that prior to this Final Report the IRD-WG published a draft Final Report for public comment for 45 days on 03 October 2011 at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ird-draft-final-report-03oct11-… and presented the draft report at the ICANN meeting in Dakar. The IRD-WG analyzed the comments received in the forum and addressed them in its Report of Public Comments at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-ird-draft-final…. The comments resulted in minor and non-substantive changes to the final report. Please let me know if you have any questions that I can convey to the IRD-WG members as you consider this report. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund Policy Director ICANN IRD-WG Members who agreed to the report (11 of 16 members). For the list of members, charter and activities see the wiki at: wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/Internationalized+Registration… 1. Scott Austin -- GNSO Intellectual Property Interests Constituency, Commercial Stakeholder Group, Gordon & Rees LLP 2. Edmon Chung -- GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group, .ASIA 3. Rafik Dammak -- GNSO Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, Tunisia 4. Avri Doria -- GNSO Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group 5. Jim Galvin -- SSAC, Afilias 6. Bob Hutchinson 7. Andrei Kolesnikov -- Nominating Committee Appointee, .RU 8. Mark Kosters – SSAC, ARIN 9. Steven Metalitz -- GNSO Intellectual Property Interests Constituency, Commercial Stakeholder Group 10. Ram Mohan, Board Liaison, SSAC, Afilias 11. Owen Smigelski, Sunrider International, Intellectual Property Interests Constituency, Commercial Stakeholder Group

1 1

Batching of New gTLD Applications: Secondary Timestamp
by Glen de Saint Géry March 31, 2012

March 31, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28mar12-en 28 March 2012 Batching of New gTLD Applications: Secondary Timestamp Whereas, the window for applying for new gTLDs opened on 12 January 2012, and is scheduled to close on 12 April 2012. Whereas, the New gTLDs Applicant Guidebook (section 1.1.2.5) <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb> indicates that if the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, then applications will be processed in batches. Whereas, on 8 December 2011, the Board adopted a resolution (#2011.12.08.4a<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08dec11-en.htm#1…>) authorizing the development of a plan to use a "secondary time stamp" for determining the processing order in the event that multiple batches are required. Whereas, the New gTLDs program team has developed proposed operational details of a plan for implementing a secondary time stamp, now referred to as "digital archery". Whereas, some members of the community have expressed concerns about whether the digital archery proposal is sensible and fair, and an informal subgroup of the Board has studied the feasibility, benefits, and risks of the proposal as well as alternative batching mechanisms such as auction. Resolved (2012.03.28.01), the Board confirms the approval of secondary timestamp/digital archery as the mechanism for sorting new gTLD applications into batches, and directs that the operational details of the mechanism be communicated to applicants and the public as necessary and appropriate. Rationale for Resolution 2012.03.28.01 The reaffirmation of the Board's commitment to the secondary timestamp/digital archery is taken after an review of alternate proposals for batching processes considered after hearing the community's comments and concerns as raised at the ICANN meeting in San Juan, Costa Rica. A small group of the Board intensively looked at the digital archery solution, a potential auction solution, and considered the prioritization comments provided by the community. For the ongoing application round, affirming the digital archery process is the fairest way to achieve a non-random batching solution that accounts for diversity across all regions of ICANN. The Board also reaffirms the Rationale for Resolutions 2011.12.08.04 - 2011.12.08.06. The batching selection process determines how applications will be divided into batches and prioritized for evaluation analysis. Conceptually, the batching selection process is relatively straightforward and includes the following four steps: 1. Applicants register in an online batching system to select their batching preference (i.e., earliest or any batch) and select a target date and time (e.g., Target Date: 10 May 2012 and Target Time: 12:00:00 UTC); 2. Applicants re-enter the online batching system and generate a message that is sent from their computer/system to the online batching system. The online batching system records the date and time the applicant's message is received. (e.g., Message Received Date: 10 May 2012 and Message Received Time: 12:00:01); 3. The system calculates the time variance between the applicant's Target Date/Time from step 1 and the Message Received Date/Time from step 2. This time variance is known as the applicant's "secondary timestamp" Based on the example in steps 1 and 2 above the secondary timestamp is 1 second. The closer to zero the secondary timestamp is the more likely the application will be processed in the earliest batch, assuming the applicant has opted in to the earliest batch. 4. The batching selection process then combines the applicant's batching preference (i.e., earliest or any batch), the "secondary timestamp" (e.g., 1 second), and the geographic region to determine the batch/processing order for the specific application. However, the implementation of the online batching system must be undertaken with care and it must ensure that a secure, consistent, and objective process is available for all applicants. The operational details of the online batching system have considered and addressed a number of concerns. Those concerns include ensuring that: 1. The details of the batching selection process are clear to applicants, through direct communications with them; 2. Only authorized applicants can enter the online batching system to perform the specific tasks necessary to complete the batching selection process; 3. An opt-out mechanism is available so applicants can designate their batching preference (i.e. earliest or any batch); 4. The online batching system allows applicants to perform their tasks without hindrance (i.e., system remains available during appropriate times); 5. Latency concerns are addressed in a fair manner so that applicants are not put at an advantage or disadvantage based on their geographic location; 6. The target time variance is measured at a level that allows ICANN to adequately determine batches; and 7. Applicants are allowed to practice portions of the process to understand how the target time variance will be calculated. 8. The goals of geographical diversity and fairness are taken into account. Accordingly, to ensure that applicants and prospective applicants are aware of the batching selection process the Board has determined that it is appropriate to take this action now. The Board is therefore approving the operational details of the batching selection process and is authorizing the CEO to release the details of this plan. Providing for this now will allow the community and applicants to understand when applications will be processed if a large number of applications (i.e., significantly more than 500 applications) are received by ICANN. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Board resolution on Batching from meeting of 28 March 2012
by Bruce Tonkin March 31, 2012

March 31, 2012

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28mar12-en.ht m Batching of New gTLD Applications: Secondary Timestamp Whereas, the window for applying for new gTLDs opened on 12 January 2012, and is scheduled to close on 12 April 2012. Whereas, the New gTLDs Applicant Guidebook (section 1.1.2.5) <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb> indicates that if the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, then applications will be processed in batches. Whereas, on 8 December 2011, the Board adopted a resolution (#2011.12.08.4a) authorizing the development of a plan to use a "secondary time stamp" for determining the processing order in the event that multiple batches are required. Whereas, the New gTLDs program team has developed proposed operational details of a plan for implementing a secondary time stamp, now referred to as "digital archery". Whereas, some members of the community have expressed concerns about whether the digital archery proposal is sensible and fair, and an informal subgroup of the Board has studied the feasibility, benefits, and risks of the proposal as well as alternative batching mechanisms such as auction. Resolved (2012.03.28.01), the Board confirms the approval of secondary timestamp/digital archery as the mechanism for sorting new gTLD applications into batches, and directs that the operational details of the mechanism be communicated to applicants and the public as necessary and appropriate. Rationale for Resolution 2012.03.28.01 The reaffirmation of the Board's commitment to the secondary timestamp/digital archery is taken after an review of alternate proposals for batching processes considered after hearing the community's comments and concerns as raised at the ICANN meeting in San Juan, Costa Rica. A small group of the Board intensively looked at the digital archery solution, a potential auction solution, and considered the prioritization comments provided by the community. For the ongoing application round, affirming the digital archery process is the fairest way to achieve a non-random batching solution that accounts for diversity across all regions of ICANN. The Board also reaffirms the Rationale for Resolutions 2011.12.08.04 - 2011.12.08.06. The batching selection process determines how applications will be divided into batches and prioritized for evaluation analysis. Conceptually, the batching selection process is relatively straightforward and includes the following four steps: 1.Applicants register in an online batching system to select their batching preference (i.e., earliest or any batch) and select a target date and time (e.g., Target Date: 10 May 2012 and Target Time: 12:00:00 UTC); 2.Applicants re-enter the online batching system and generate a message that is sent from their computer/system to the online batching system. The online batching system records the date and time the applicant's message is received. (e.g., Message Received Date: 10 May 2012 and Message Received Time: 12:00:01); 3.The system calculates the time variance between the applicant's Target Date/Time from step 1 and the Message Received Date/Time from step 2. This time variance is known as the applicant's "secondary timestamp" Based on the example in steps 1 and 2 above the secondary timestamp is 1 second. The closer to zero the secondary timestamp is the more likely the application will be processed in the earliest batch, assuming the applicant has opted in to the earliest batch. 4.The batching selection process then combines the applicant's batching preference (i.e., earliest or any batch), the "secondary timestamp" (e.g., 1 second), and the geographic region to determine the batch/processing order for the specific application. However, the implementation of the online batching system must be undertaken with care and it must ensure that a secure, consistent, and objective process is available for all applicants. The operational details of the online batching system have considered and addressed a number of concerns. Those concerns include ensuring that: 1.The details of the batching selection process are clear to applicants, through direct communications with them; 2.Only authorized applicants can enter the online batching system to perform the specific tasks necessary to complete the batching selection process; 3.An opt-out mechanism is available so applicants can designate their batching preference (i.e. earliest or any batch); 4.The online batching system allows applicants to perform their tasks without hindrance (i.e., system remains available during appropriate times); 5.Latency concerns are addressed in a fair manner so that applicants are not put at an advantage or disadvantage based on their geographic location; 6.The target time variance is measured at a level that allows ICANN to adequately determine batches; and 7.Applicants are allowed to practice portions of the process to understand how the target time variance will be calculated. 8.The goals of geographical diversity and fairness are taken into account. Accordingly, to ensure that applicants and prospective applicants are aware of the batching selection process the Board has determined that it is appropriate to take this action now. The Board is therefore approving the operational details of the batching selection process and is authorizing the CEO to release the details of this plan. Providing for this now will allow the community and applicants to understand when applications will be processed if a large number of applications (i.e., significantly more than 500 applications) are received by ICANN.

1 0

29 March TAS Registration Deadline
by Glen de Saint Géry March 30, 2012

March 30, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-29mar12-en.htm 29 March 2012 29 March TAS Registration Deadline The window has closed for anyone planning to apply for a new gTLD to register and submit a TLD application request. As of 25 March there were 839 registered users in the TLD Application System. This number will be updated. Why can't registrations be submitted after 29 March, when applications are being accepted until 12 April? Registration in TAS is the step in the process that occurs before you apply for a TLD. As stated in the Applicant Guidebook and subsequent announcements, the 29 March deadline was put in place to ensure applicants have sufficient time before the deadline of 23:59 UTC on 12 April 2012 to submit an application, which includes the following steps (as of 29 March steps 1-2 had to be completed for all qualified applicants): Steps 1. Applicant completes TAS user account information (user profile and applicant profile) 2. Applicant completes a TLD application request 3. ICANN conducts the Legal Compliance check (see Applicant Guidebook section 1.2.1 - Eligibility) 4. Applicant submits USD 5000 registration fee 5. ICANN confirms receipt of the USD 5000 registration fee 6. Applicant completes and submits the full application and remaining evaluation fee amount of USD 180000 7. ICANN confirms receipt of the USD 180000 registration fee Once ICANN completes Step 3 we strongly encourage applicants to promptly complete Step 4 for all open application requests. Since no one can predict how long it may take for ICANN to receive wire transfers from your bank, you might experience delays in obtaining access to the areas within TAS necessary to complete your TLD application(s). Bank delays and the up to 5 business days it might take ICANN to reconcile your fee will impact how much time remains for you to complete and submit your final application, submit your final USD 180000 evaluation fee, and for ICANN to confirm receipt of that fee. Both the completed application and final fee must be received by ICANN no later than 23:59 UTC on 12 April 2012. Changes to Your Accounts or Applications 29 March was also the last day during the registration and application submission period to request any changes to your applicant profile. If you have a change to your profile (for instance, a new point of contact, or an updated address) it will not be processed until the end of the Administrative Completeness Check. The Administrative Completeness Check begins when the application window closes and lasts for approximately 8 weeks. At the end of Administrative Completeness Check (the beginning of the Initial Evaluation period) change requests will once again be processed. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

.com Registry Agreement Renewal - Public comment period open to 26 April 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry March 28, 2012

March 28, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm .com Registry Agreement Renewal Executive Summary ICANN is posting today for public comment Verisign's proposed agreement for renewal of the 2006 .com Registry Agreement between ICANN and Verisign. This proposal is a result of discussions between ICANN and VeriSign, and will be considered by the ICANN Board after public comment. The current agreement will expire on 30 November 2012. Public comment may be submitted through April 26, 2012 and viewed at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/com-renewal-27mar12-en.htm This summary describes important aspects of the registry agreement renewal process, the content of the proposed agreement renewal, and certain background to the proposed agreement. This summary is accompanied by the "red line" version of the agreement and several documents that describe and summarize the proposal. Upcoming agreements due to be renewed in 2012 such as .biz, .info, .name and .org will follow a similar process. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council transcript, recording and resolution 26 March 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry March 27, 2012

March 27, 2012

Dear Councillors, The transcript of the GNSO Council Emergency Meeting on 26 March 2012 is available at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-council-26mar12-en.pdf the MP3 recording of the meeting is available at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120326-en.mp3 all posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar#mar and the resolution passed may be found at this url http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#20120326-1 Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

TR: Statement of interest
by Glen de Saint Géry March 26, 2012

March 26, 2012

FYI Below is a short statement of interest. Hopefully I will have editing rights to the wiki soon. Best, Robin _______________________ I am Executive Director of IP Justice an international civil liberties organization that promotes balanced intellectual property rights. I also run a private legal practice in which I represent a wide range of clients regarding their intellectual property rights, Internet and domain name legal matters. I have advised clients on trademark protection strategies for the Internet and have assisted clients with preparations for the new gTLD program. _______________________ On Mar 26, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: Dear Robin, I see that you have not been able to complete a statement of interest online, so would you please kindly provide me with a short statement which I will post to the Council mailing list, before the Council meeting in about half an hour. Thanks so much. Kind regards Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council resolution 26 March 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry March 26, 2012

March 26, 2012

Dear All, The GNSO Council passed the following motion at the meeting today, 26 March 2012. A recording of the meeting is available at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120326-en.mp3 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Motion to recommend to the Board a solution to protect certain Red Cross/Red Crescent (RCRC) and International Olympic Committee (IOC) names at the Top Level in New gTLDS 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) Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has considered a number of different options with respect to protections of both the IOC and the RCRC terms at the top level and has proposed a solution to modify the ICANN staff's implementation of the Board Resolution as reflected in the Applicant Guidebook dated January 12, 2012 (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb) Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team has collaborated with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) during its deliberations in an attempt to identify a solution that addresses GAC concerns; Whereas, this proposed solution was posted for public comment on 2 March 2012 on an expedited basis as a matter of urgency in order to enable the Board to consider its adoption for the first round of new gTLD applications, which is scheduled to close on 12 April 2012; Whereas, the GNSO is mindful that implementation of the Board's resolution is needed to be available before the end of the Application Window; Whereas, the GNSO intends that these recommendations be solely limited to the IOC and RCRC; Whereas, the GNSO recognizes that there might be a policy impact of the protection for the IOC/RCRC for future rounds and at the second level; and Whereas, therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council adopt this proposed solution as a recommendation for Board consideration and adoption at its meeting in Costa Rica for the application period for the first round of new gTLD applications'. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council adopts the following three recommendations of the IOC/RC Drafting Team: Recommendation 1: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "Modified Reserved Names," meaning: a) The Modified Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings to the International Olympic Committee (hereafter the "IOC"), International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter "RCRC") and their respective components, as applicable. b) Applied-for gTLD strings, other than those applied for by the IOC or RCRC, are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as confusingly similar to a Modified Reserved Name will not pass this initial review. c) If an application fails to pass initial string similarity review: i. And the applied-for TLD identically matches any of the Modified Reserved Names (e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other than the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable. ii. If the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the Modified Reserved Names, but fails initial string similarity review with one of Modified Reserved Names, the applicant may attempt to override the string similarity failure by: 1. Seeking a letter of non-objection from the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable; or 2. If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the applicant must: a. claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and demonstrate the basis for this claim; and b. explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC, RCRC or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent activity. 3. A determination in favor of the applicant under the above provision (ii)(2) above would not preclude the IOC, RCRC or other interested parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the determination. 4. The existence of a TLD that has received a letter of non-objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the applicable Modified Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD applications. Recommendation 2: Protect the IOC/RCRC Terms in as many Languages as Feasible The GAC has proposed that the IOC and RCRC "names should be protected in multiple languages---all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet...The lists of protected names that the IOC and RC/RC have provided are illustrative and representative, not exhaustive." The Drafting Team recommends that at the top level for this initial round, the list of languages currently provided in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook are sufficient. In addition, the Drafting Team also notes that even in the unlikely event that a third party applies for an IOC or RCRC term in a language that was not contained on the list, the IOC or RCRC, as applicable, may still file an applicable objection as set forth in the Applicant Guidebook. Recommendation 3: Protections must be reviewed after the first round and that review should include consideration of changing the language to general requirements rather than naming specific organizations. In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that the protections for the IOC and RCRC should not just apply during the first round of new gTLDs, but should be a permanent protection afforded for all subsequent rounds. The Drafting Team recognizes that permanently granting protection to the IOC and RCRC may have policy implications that require more work and consultation so that protections may be reviewed. Resolved, that the GNSO submits this proposed solution for Board consideration and adoption at its next meeting as a recommended solution to implement Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01 for implementation in the first round of new gTLD applications. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Monday 26 March 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry March 26, 2012

March 26, 2012

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Monday, 26 March, 2012 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120326-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar#mar Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] Amendments to IOC/RCRC Motion
by Alan Greenberg March 26, 2012

March 26, 2012

I have no rights to amend the motion, but I would like to suggest the following amendment if anyone else is prepared to formally propose it. The rationale is that it is now reasonably clear that: - There may be requests to widen the concept to other international organizations; - There have been recommendations that any such changes not mention particular organizations but be more generic; - There is concern in the community over the overall concept; - There is concern in the community about making permanent the Board Name reservation which did not have bottom-up input of community involvement. Replace: Recommendation 3: Protections should apply for all future rounds, but may be reviewed after the first round. In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that the protections for the IOC and RCRC should not just apply during the first round of new gTLDs, but should be a permanent protection afforded for all subsequent rounds. Although, the Drafting Team has not spent a lot of time discussing this topic, it does agree with the notion that it is making this recommendation as one intended to apply in all future rounds, but also recognizes that like all other aspects of the new gTLD program, these protections may be reviewed by the ICANN community should it desire to do so. With: Recommendation 3: Protections should apply to the first round only. In light of the possible need to consider other international organizations or make the above recommendations more generic, and light of unease in parts of the committee, it is recommended that the above changes to the Applicant Guidebook apply to the first round only. Alan At 26/03/2012 08:42 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >All, > >The Drafting Team discussed possible amendments to the IOC/RCRC >motion last week during its regularly scheduled meeting. I am not >sure if those will be proposed or not by some members of the >Council, so I guess we will just wait and see. There are two >changes I would like to see which is more of clean-up administrative >changes. Because of (i) the discussions in Costa Rica where changes >were made to recommendation 2 to limit the number of languages as >opposed to the version proposed on March 2nd, and (ii) the Board >already met on March 16th, I propose making the following changes: > >First Resolved Clause >Resolved, that the GNSO Council adopts the following three >recommendations from the IOC/RC Drafting Team's three >recommendations as described in its Proposal for the protection of >IOC and RCRC names at the top level as provided in ><http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.pdf; >namely: > >Last Resolved Clause >Resolved, that the GNSO submits this proposed solution for Board >consideration and adoption at its 16 March 2012 next meeting in >Costa Rica as a recommended solution to implement Board Resolution >2011.06.20.01 for implementation in the first round of new gTLD applications. > >Thanks. > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 >Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: >+1.703.738.7965 / ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz >

2 1