April 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

ICANN Wraps Up Prague Meeting on Thursday
by Glen de Saint Géry April 30, 2012

April 30, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30apr12-en.htm ICANN Wraps Up Prague Meeting on Thursday 30 April 2012 On behalf of our Chairman of the Board, Steve Crocker: "In our ongoing efforts to improve the ICANN Meeting experience for all participants, we are implementing some changes for the June meeting in Prague. The Friday morning program, which in the past has comprised AC/SO committee reports, Board committee reports, and the public Board meeting, has been removed. AC/SO committee reports and Board committee reports will now be published for review on the ICANN website. The public Board meeting has been replaced with a one-hour session following the Public Forum on Thursday afternoon. In this session the Board will outline what they have heard during the week from their meetings with AC/SOs and their constituent parts and will identify those matters they expect to be dealing with between the Prague and Toronto Meetings. The close of this session (expected to be around 18:00) will mark the official end of the ICANN meeting and will be immediately followed by a two-hour farewell reception for all ICANN Meeting participants. It is intended that at the beginning of the Toronto meeting there will be a Board community session where the Board will report to the community on what they have dealt with since Prague. We believe that the removal of the Friday public Board meeting and its replacement with two Board community sessions will improve the effectiveness of both the Board and the staff and increase the time that the Board has to interact with the community. We hope you find these changes also make more effective use of your time and enhance the overall ICANN Meeting experience. The Public Participation Committee will hold a public session in Toronto to discuss and review them." Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Announcement of research Firm to conduct gTLD WHOIS Proxy and Privacy Abuse Study
by Liz Gasster April 30, 2012

April 30, 2012

Dear all, I just wanted to inform you of the following announcement that is being posted today on the ICANN blog. I'm excited to be starting this "final" study at last, and I'm happy to provide more information on this or any of the GNSO WHOIS studies at your request. Best regards, Liz http://blog.icann.org/2012/04/national-physical-laboratory-of-the-uk-select… National Physical Laboratory of the UK Selected to Conduct a gTLD Whois Privacy and Proxy Abuse Study By Liz Gasster on 30 April 2012 I am delighted to report that ICANN has engaged the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) of the United Kingdom to conduct a study of Whois Privacy and Proxy Abuse. Guided by Richard Clayton, NPL has established a collaborative study team of domain specialists from three universities. Together, this team will examine the extent to which gTLD domain names involved in illegal or harmful Internet activities are registered via Privacy or Proxy services to obscure the perpetrator's identity. Study results are expected in early 2013. This study is being launched to help the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and ICANN community better understand how often alleged bad actors obscure their identities using several common methods, including (but not limited to) Privacy/Proxy registration. By examining a variety of illegal or harmful Internet activities, including phishing, malware distribution, money laundering, unlicensed pharmacies, typosquatting, child sexual abuse images, spam, and cybersquatting, NPL will measure the percentage of associated gTLD domain names registered via Privacy or Proxy services, as well as the proportion of those registered with inaccurate or incomplete WHOIS details or stolen identities. To determine whether Privacy/Proxy use is significantly greater among domains involved in illegal or harmful activities, NPL will compare alleged bad actor percentages to the 16-20% overall percentage found by ICANN's 2010 Study on the Prevalence of Domain Names Registered Using Privacy or Proxy Services among the top 5 gTLDs. Beyond placing bad actor percentages into context, this study will not attempt to analyze broader use of Privacy/Proxy services by domains registered for entirely lawful purposes. NPL is one of Europe's leading National Measurement Institutes (NMI). Along with other NMI's including the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), NPL works with industry and government to develop the latest state-of-the-art measurement techniques for all areas of science and technology. To learn more about the Whois Privacy and Proxy Abuse Study, visit http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/index.html

1 0

TAS Interruption - Update (27 April 2012)
by Glen de Saint Géry April 29, 2012

April 29, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27apr12-en.htm TAS Interruption - Update (27 April 2012) Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 27 April 2012 ICANN will notify all applicants within the next seven business days whether our analysis shows they were affected by the technical glitch in the TLD application system. In order to make these notifications, we are identifying each applicant file name and user name that might have been viewed, and who might have viewed them. To do that, we are reviewing internal system logs and full packet-level capture of all traffic to and from the application system from 12 January through 12 April. Our analysis continues to show that a limited number of applicants were affected. Shortly after the notification process has been completed, we will announce the schedule for reopening the application system and completing the application period. We are mindful of the need to allow sufficient time during the reopening period for applicants to confirm the completeness of their submissions. We are also continuing to test the fix and enhance system performance in preparation for reopening. We fully understand the frustration and inconvenience caused by the continuing suspension of the application system and will provide further updates as new information becomes available. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

TAS Interruption - Update (26 April 2012)
by Glen de Saint Géry April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-26apr12-en.htm TAS Interruption - Update (26 April 2012) Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 26 April 2012 Many users have expressed concern that they are currently unable to view their applications in the TLD application system that has been temporarily suspended due to a technical issue. We can confirm that when the application system reopens, users will be able to review their applications, including those already submitted, to assure themselves that their information remains as they intended. We expect that demands on the system will be high when it reopens, and we are enhancing system performance as part of our preparations for the reopening. Ongoing testing continues to show that this issue did not cause any loss or corruption of user data. Please check our website regularly for updates. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Period of 26 April - 06 May 2012: Public Comment Periods Approaching Closing Date
by Glen de Saint Géry April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-26apr12-en.htm Period of 26 April - 06 May 2012: Public Comment Periods Approaching Closing Date 26 April 2012 The Following Public Comment periods are approaching their Comment or Reply Period Close dates, 26 April - 06 May 2012. As a member of the ICANN community, your timely feedback is critical to our accountability and transparency efforts. For your convenience, we have included direct links below to comments that will soon close. During the Reply period for Public Comments, participants should only address previous comments submitted and new posts concerning the topic should not be introduced. When constructing Replies, contributors are asked to cite the original poster's name, comment date, and any particular text that is pertinent. Please note that comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once that period ends. For more information please refer to the ICANN Public Comments page at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment Title Comment Period Close Date [UTC Time] Reply Period Close Date [UTC Time] Review of the ASO<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/aso-review-16mar12-en.htm> 6 April 2012 [23:59] 30 April 2012 [23:59] IDN Variant Issues Project - Proposed Project Plan for Next Steps<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/idn-vip-proposed-project-plan-2…> Extended to 8 April 2012 [23:59] Extended to 29 April 2012 [23:59] .com Registry Agreement Renewal<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/com-renewal-27mar12-en.htm> 26 April 2012 [23:59] 17 May 2012 [23:59] Second Annual IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Review<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/fast-track-review-2012-09apr12-…> 30 April 2012 [23:59] 21 May 2012 [23:59] Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline 2 May for GNSO Council meeting 10 May at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e. WEDNESDAY, 2 MAY 2012) of the GNSO Council meeting on 10 May 2012 at 15:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list. Thank you very 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

RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team
by Neuman, Jeff April 26, 2012

April 26, 2012

I was referring to your statement of facts where you say that the Drafting Team work is concluded. In fact, the drafting team has been meeting and has had a number of truly productive conversations. Other than the objections of some members of the NCSG, the board refusal to accept the GNSO recommendations at the top level has not affected the work of the Drafting Team at the second level. They are truly separate discussions relying on separate considerations. We are scheduled to meet again next Wednesday and it would be great to have you (or other registrars) on the call to get your viewpoint. Even if the Drafting Team is disbanded by the Council, we assume that the work done by the group to date could be used to inform any future work on these issues. Thanks. Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mason Cole [mailto:mcole@nameking.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 07:40 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Neuman, Jeff; William Drake; Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team No objection to the discussion at all, Jeff. I'm aware of the request re second level, though speaking personally the same philosophy holds for me. Looking forward to the discussion on the DT. -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Wed 4/25/2012 4:36 PM To: Mason Cole; 'William Drake'; 'Stéphane Van Gelder' Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team Mason, Your statement is true only at the top level and ignores the bulk of the GAC request which relates to the second level. The GNSO has yet to make any recommendations nor respond to the GAC with regards to second level protections. This is why I have asked for this item to be a "discussion". I am not saying that the GNSO should accept of reject the GAC recommendations at the second level, but we need to at least give those recommendations some analysis. Whether that is through the GNSO directly or through a drafting team is the real item up for discussion. I strongly suggest we lay the facts on the table at the Council meeting and have a productive conversation on the next call. Thanks. Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mason Cole [mailto:mcole@nameking.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 07:25 PM Eastern Standard Time To: William Drake; Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team All -- What I read is this: - The GAC asked for protections for IOC/RC - The GNSO Council voted to recommend to the board to provide protections in time for first round - The Board declined - The IOC/RC DT work is concluded UNLESS... - We want to keep the DT in place to a) communicate to the GAC on behalf of the GNSO, and b) pick up work on the now passed IGO motion OR... - We disband the IOC/RC DT and form a new DT to address the IGO issue later In any case, I believe we should communicate to the GAC. I would like the GNSO's position on record that we supported their request on the basis of their representation that IOC/RC have special protections above the level of those afforded IGOs and others. I don't know if others are willing to sign on to that position, but I believe it is important to get across. ICANN is already receiving other requests for all manner of protection, and boundaries should be clear. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of William Drake Sent: Sat 4/21/2012 1:46 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team I can't help noticing that this sounds rather similar to a statement that was described in SJ as a slap in the GAC's face, the end of the GNSO Council, and an impediment to life saving work.. Bill On Apr 20, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: Councillors, The Board rationale for the IOC/RC resolution has now been provided. Please see here: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10apr… Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 19 avr. 2012 à 04:26, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : Thanks to Mary for sending this note to the Council and I agree that clarification is needed. I do want to note a couple of points that were perhaps implicit in Mary's note, but not stated. Yes, a coup,e of people from the NCSG questioned whether this group should continue, others from other constituencies and SGs did believe that the DT could still continue. Even if ultimately a new group were formed in response to a PDP, the work of the DT could be used to inform the PDP process. So, one of the options included in Mary's e-mail is keeping the Drafting Team in place on the narrow issue of advising the GNSO on Its response to the GAC proposal dated September 14, 2011. Whether or not we keep the drafting team in place, we do owe the GAC a response to its proposal, which is now over 7 months old. The other thing to keep in mind is that a Preliminary Issue report will not be out until Prague and a final one by the Toronto meeting. This would be when the formal PDP would be launched and would also be over 12 months from when The GAC made its proposal to the GNSO regarding the IOC-RC names. So, let's get the discussion started at the Council to provide direction. Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com/> ) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team Dear Councilors, A question has arisen in the IOC-RC Drafting Team (DT), which as you'll recall was formed by the Council at the conclusion of the Dakar meeting to formulate an appropriate GNSO response to the GAC request of September 2011, regarding specific protections for the IOC and RCRC. In light of certain recent events, i.e. the April passage of a recent GNSO Council motion and two relevant Board resolutions, the DT requests clarification from the Council as to whether or not it is to continue with its discussions regarding second level protections for these two organizations. Since the DT is not a formal GNSO Working Group (WG), it does not have a formal charter that sets out clearly the scope of its work, which in any event may in the view of some have been superseded by these recent events anyway. While some in the DT believe there is no reason not to continue its deliberations for second level protections relating to the IOC and RCRC, others prefer that the Council (which was the body that formed it) provide further direction. Options include disbanding the DT in light of the pending Issue Report, forming a WG that would supersede it, or suspend the DT's work until either the Board's rationale for its resolutions is available or the conclusion of the Issue Report process (or both). Can the Council please provide some guidance on this question? FYI the language of our recent motion and the Board resolutions are: - The Council's recent passage of a motion to request an Issue Report on whether certain international organizations (to be defined/described) should be given additional protections at the top and second levels in the new gTLD program: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201204; - The Board's recent resolution not to make further changes to the AGB at this time despite the Council's earlier passage of a motion recommending the adoption of the DT's proposals for additional protections for the IOC and RCRC: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12… (GNSO Council motion: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201203) and - The Board's recent resolution to request a staff briefing paper on defensive registrations and second level protections as well as for the GNSO to consider whether "additional work on defensive registrations at the second level" should be undertaken: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12…. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

3 2

RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team
by Neuman, Jeff April 25, 2012

April 25, 2012

Mason, Your statement is true only at the top level and ignores the bulk of the GAC request which relates to the second level. The GNSO has yet to make any recommendations nor respond to the GAC with regards to second level protections. This is why I have asked for this item to be a "discussion". I am not saying that the GNSO should accept of reject the GAC recommendations at the second level, but we need to at least give those recommendations some analysis. Whether that is through the GNSO directly or through a drafting team is the real item up for discussion. I strongly suggest we lay the facts on the table at the Council meeting and have a productive conversation on the next call. Thanks. Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mason Cole [mailto:mcole@nameking.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 07:25 PM Eastern Standard Time To: William Drake; Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team All -- What I read is this: - The GAC asked for protections for IOC/RC - The GNSO Council voted to recommend to the board to provide protections in time for first round - The Board declined - The IOC/RC DT work is concluded UNLESS... - We want to keep the DT in place to a) communicate to the GAC on behalf of the GNSO, and b) pick up work on the now passed IGO motion OR... - We disband the IOC/RC DT and form a new DT to address the IGO issue later In any case, I believe we should communicate to the GAC. I would like the GNSO's position on record that we supported their request on the basis of their representation that IOC/RC have special protections above the level of those afforded IGOs and others. I don't know if others are willing to sign on to that position, but I believe it is important to get across. ICANN is already receiving other requests for all manner of protection, and boundaries should be clear. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of William Drake Sent: Sat 4/21/2012 1:46 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team I can't help noticing that this sounds rather similar to a statement that was described in SJ as a slap in the GAC's face, the end of the GNSO Council, and an impediment to life saving work.. Bill On Apr 20, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: Councillors, The Board rationale for the IOC/RC resolution has now been provided. Please see here: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10apr… Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 19 avr. 2012 à 04:26, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : Thanks to Mary for sending this note to the Council and I agree that clarification is needed. I do want to note a couple of points that were perhaps implicit in Mary's note, but not stated. Yes, a coup,e of people from the NCSG questioned whether this group should continue, others from other constituencies and SGs did believe that the DT could still continue. Even if ultimately a new group were formed in response to a PDP, the work of the DT could be used to inform the PDP process. So, one of the options included in Mary's e-mail is keeping the Drafting Team in place on the narrow issue of advising the GNSO on Its response to the GAC proposal dated September 14, 2011. Whether or not we keep the drafting team in place, we do owe the GAC a response to its proposal, which is now over 7 months old. The other thing to keep in mind is that a Preliminary Issue report will not be out until Prague and a final one by the Toronto meeting. This would be when the formal PDP would be launched and would also be over 12 months from when The GAC made its proposal to the GNSO regarding the IOC-RC names. So, let's get the discussion started at the Council to provide direction. Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com/> ) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team Dear Councilors, A question has arisen in the IOC-RC Drafting Team (DT), which as you'll recall was formed by the Council at the conclusion of the Dakar meeting to formulate an appropriate GNSO response to the GAC request of September 2011, regarding specific protections for the IOC and RCRC. In light of certain recent events, i.e. the April passage of a recent GNSO Council motion and two relevant Board resolutions, the DT requests clarification from the Council as to whether or not it is to continue with its discussions regarding second level protections for these two organizations. Since the DT is not a formal GNSO Working Group (WG), it does not have a formal charter that sets out clearly the scope of its work, which in any event may in the view of some have been superseded by these recent events anyway. While some in the DT believe there is no reason not to continue its deliberations for second level protections relating to the IOC and RCRC, others prefer that the Council (which was the body that formed it) provide further direction. Options include disbanding the DT in light of the pending Issue Report, forming a WG that would supersede it, or suspend the DT's work until either the Board's rationale for its resolutions is available or the conclusion of the Issue Report process (or both). Can the Council please provide some guidance on this question? FYI the language of our recent motion and the Board resolutions are: - The Council's recent passage of a motion to request an Issue Report on whether certain international organizations (to be defined/described) should be given additional protections at the top and second levels in the new gTLD program: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201204; - The Board's recent resolution not to make further changes to the AGB at this time despite the Council's earlier passage of a motion recommending the adoption of the DT's proposals for additional protections for the IOC and RCRC: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12… (GNSO Council motion: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201203) and - The Board's recent resolution to request a staff briefing paper on defensive registrations and second level protections as well as for the GNSO to consider whether "additional work on defensive registrations at the second level" should be undertaken: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12…. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

2 1

RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team
by Neuman, Jeff April 25, 2012

April 25, 2012

Thanks to Mary for sending this note to the Council and I agree that clarification is needed. I do want to note a couple of points that were perhaps implicit in Mary's note, but not stated. Yes, a coup,e of people from the NCSG questioned whether this group should continue, others from other constituencies and SGs did believe that the DT could still continue. Even if ultimately a new group were formed in response to a PDP, the work of the DT could be used to inform the PDP process. So, one of the options included in Mary's e-mail is keeping the Drafting Team in place on the narrow issue of advising the GNSO on Its response to the GAC proposal dated September 14, 2011. Whether or not we keep the drafting team in place, we do owe the GAC a response to its proposal, which is now over 7 months old. The other thing to keep in mind is that a Preliminary Issue report will not be out until Prague and a final one by the Toronto meeting. This would be when the formal PDP would be launched and would also be over 12 months from when The GAC made its proposal to the GNSO regarding the IOC-RC names. So, let's get the discussion started at the Council to provide direction. Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team Dear Councilors, A question has arisen in the IOC-RC Drafting Team (DT), which as you'll recall was formed by the Council at the conclusion of the Dakar meeting to formulate an appropriate GNSO response to the GAC request of September 2011, regarding specific protections for the IOC and RCRC. In light of certain recent events, i.e. the April passage of a recent GNSO Council motion and two relevant Board resolutions, the DT requests clarification from the Council as to whether or not it is to continue with its discussions regarding second level protections for these two organizations. Since the DT is not a formal GNSO Working Group (WG), it does not have a formal charter that sets out clearly the scope of its work, which in any event may in the view of some have been superseded by these recent events anyway. While some in the DT believe there is no reason not to continue its deliberations for second level protections relating to the IOC and RCRC, others prefer that the Council (which was the body that formed it) provide further direction. Options include disbanding the DT in light of the pending Issue Report, forming a WG that would supersede it, or suspend the DT's work until either the Board's rationale for its resolutions is available or the conclusion of the Issue Report process (or both). Can the Council please provide some guidance on this question? FYI the language of our recent motion and the Board resolutions are: - The Council's recent passage of a motion to request an Issue Report on whether certain international organizations (to be defined/described) should be given additional protections at the top and second levels in the new gTLD program: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201204; - The Board's recent resolution not to make further changes to the AGB at this time despite the Council's earlier passage of a motion recommending the adoption of the DT's proposals for additional protections for the IOC and RCRC: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12… (GNSO Council motion: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201203) and - The Board's recent resolution to request a staff briefing paper on defensive registrations and second level protections as well as for the GNSO to consider whether "additional work on defensive registrations at the second level" should be undertaken: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12…. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

5 5