January 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter
by Winterfeldt, Brian 01 Feb '13

01 Feb '13

Dear Jonathan: Thank you for picking up the pen for this final iteration to seek the middle ground. We have attached just a few very minor cleanup edits. Our only substantive amendment was to change the last few sentences at the end of the fifth paragraph that noted the IPC position and the need for a minority statement-which were not likely intended to remain in the final letter-into a very brief footnote acknowledging that position. Hopefully this slight adjustment is agreeable for everyone. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe +1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/> +1 212.506.3935 direct +1 212.506.3950 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - New York 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. ------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Robinson[SMTP:JONATHAN.ROBINSON@IPRACON.COM] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:07:23 AM To: Winterfeldt, Brian; 'Thomas Rickert' Cc: 'Mason Cole'; john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>; 'David Cake'; 'Neuman, Jeff'; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter Auto forwarded by a Rule All, I have made an attempt to produce what I will refer to as a final draft. I have based it on Jeff's original letter and made a good faith attempt to include a significant part of Brian's / the IPC input. Some key points: 1. I have not provided it in redline and clean versions. Apologies. 2. I have added (and made minor edits to) the agreed appendices 3. Please note carefully the last sentence in the second paragraph and provide any input on the accuracy of this. 4. I have retained paragraph 3 which attempts to define "policy" from past experience. 5. I have not made reference to the staff note on policy and implementation. Rationale: This is an important piece of work in a critical area but it has been subject to very limited community feedback so far. 6. I have not attempted to provide the rationale for why "... the Council thought it best to adopt a holistic approach to the issue of special protection ..." I think that's it. We have here a communication that we have worked hard on and the attempt to deliver a considered and reasonable response should be taken as that. I understand that it may not go far enough to accommodating the IPC's requirements and if so, we should consider a form of minority position. My preference is to work with and perhaps make a final refinement of a letter we can all sign off on. Please provide any final input as you see fit and I will use that to produce a final copy. I think we can get away with sending it tomorrow if necessary (and still date it today) but that's it as far as extending the deadline. Thanks for all the contributions and effort so far. Jonathan From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: 30 January 2013 22:01 To: 'Winterfeldt, Brian'; 'Thomas Rickert' Cc: 'Mason Cole'; john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>; 'David Cake'; 'Neuman, Jeff'; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter Thanks. I'll take the risk then with this contentious and high-profile issue! Jonathan. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Winterfeldt, Brian Sent: 30 January 2013 21:17 To: 'Thomas Rickert'; Jonathan Robinson Cc: 'Mason Cole'; john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>; 'David Cake'; 'Neuman, Jeff'; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter Mine as well. Best, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:10 PM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: 'Mason Cole'; john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>; 'David Cake'; 'Neuman, Jeff'; Winterfeldt, Brian; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter Well stated, Jonathan! You have my support for that. Thomas Am 30.01.2013 um 22:06 schrieb "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>>: I am wondering if I might have to pick up the pen for the final iteration and seek to find the middle ground? After all, my name is likely to be on the bottom of the letter. Jonathan From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mason Cole Sent: 30 January 2013 20:28 To: john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; 'David Cake'; 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Winterfeldt, Brian'; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter I too support #1. I didn't necessarily find Jeff's letter to be over-aggressive. That said if the council thinks it's a good idea to make the language relatively more diplomatic, I don't object, provided the content of the message isn't changed. On Jan 30, 2013, at 10:22 AM, john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: I am fully in support of #1. We need to respond substantively, just is a less flammable way. Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> Date: 1/30/13 10:02 am To: "'David Cake'" <dave(a)difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>>, "'Neuman, Jeff'" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>> Cc: "'Winterfeldt, Brian'" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>>,council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> All, I believe we are heading to one of two options: 1. Adopt the substance of Jeff's draft with agreed changes. I believe that we will need to reflect Brian's / the IPC input on this and so it may need some changes in order to do so. 2. Write to Heather / the GAC indicating that we are working on this but need a little more time. Consider also that want to limit the extent to which we go into the Policy vs Implementation issue here since this is the subject of a broader and longer term initiative. Thanks. Jonathan From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: 30 January 2013 17:49 To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: Winterfeldt, Brian; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter I am supportive of Jeff's position - I'm in favour of sending the letter as it was drafted (with the suggested changes from Thomas in the appendix). I believe Brian's suggestions would change the letter in such a way that it would no longer represent the views of the majority of council. Regards David On 30/01/2013, at 6:54 AM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>> wrote: Thank you for this Brian. I think we face a dilemma here because your revisions not only gut the letter that was written by us, but also in many respects represents a complete reversal of the positions taken by most of the members of council on the previous council calls. We can of course make some updates based on the new paper ICANN staff just released, but remember that that was not out when I initially sent the letter. So, we now have two versions of the letter which I do not believe cannot be reconciled. If it just the IPC that supports this new version, then we should send the original version and allow the IPC to include comments as a minority report. If, however, there is other support for this version, then we have an issue to work through. With respect to the comments raised in the e-mail below: o We disagree with the notion that "the impact of the instant PDP is to challenge, or at least question, not only the GAC's proposed criteria for protection," or "the GAC's determination to advance protection for the specific two organizations that meet that criteria." This was carefully considered by the Council when it chose to implement the PDP and rejected by those voting in favor of the PDP. o I don't believe we said that the sole remit of the PDP was to look at exceptions, but rather, that was listed as an example. o I have no objection of including a footnote that the IPC did not support the PDP, but to change the entire letter simply because one constituency didn't agree to not seem to be the right approach. o The policy framework put out by ICANN staff is still under discussion and should not be used for any other purpose until that document has been thoroughly vetted. We appreciate the fact that the IPC believes that the definition of policy is overbroad, but we have taken this definition from what has been used in the past by ICANN in actual situations to look at actual issues to determine whether it is in scope for the policy process. It is the only community accepted definition that there is. o On the legal issue of intermediary liability, I could cite a number of legal cases in the US, including the Lockheed Martin case, Brookfield, etc. but we wanted to keep the letter short and to the point. I also have a case we litigated in Belgium that states the same thing that could be cited involving the droit.biz domain name. In short, we as a council need to decide what to do. The registries are in favor of sending the letter as it was drafted (with the tweaks from Thomas on the Appendix). The IPC comments would drastically change the letter in a way that defers to the GAC on everything policy-related, which we believe represents a contravention of the ICANN Bylaws (where the GNSO is charged with policy making for gTLDs) and a potential break down of the multi-stakeholder process. Don't get me wrong, the governments are vital for the multi-stakeholder process to work and we believe their opinions/advice should be weighed heavily. But they cannot be the "be-all-end-all" of policy with respect to gTLDs. This is not only an issue with respect to the IOC/RC and IGOs, but also Whois, law enforcement activities, etc. We need to find a way to all work together. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf OfWinterfeldt, Brian Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:16 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter Dear all: As you may already be aware, I have a different point of view on the Council's response to the GAC with respect to the ongoing IGO-INGO PDP. Having informally spoken to GAC representatives about this issue, here are some personal comments, that are shared by IPC leadership, as well as a proposed redline that I would like to have on record and I hope the Council will take into consideration. o The rather broad scope of the current IGO INGO PDP, which considers "whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second level" of all gTLDs, has the practical effect of second guessing GAC advice with respect to international legal norms and public policy. In other words, whether intentional or unintentional, the impact of the instant PDP is to challenge, or at least question, not only the GAC's proposed criteria for protection, but also the GAC's determination to advance protection for the specific two organizations that meet that criteria. o Please bear in mind that the GAC was careful to propose protections for Red Cross designations, Olympic words and a finite list of IGO acronyms for new gTLDs only. I cannot recall anyone ever recommending or requesting such protection in all existing gTLDs as well. Thus, the Council's response to the GAC needs to fully explain any underlying rationale for the unilateral decision to broaden the scope of the instant PDP well beyond GAC advice to include existing gTLDs. o The Council's current draft response to the GAC seems to suggest that the GNSO's primary remit of policy development relating to the IOC/Red Cross is "to determine what, if any, exceptions (i.e. for pre-existing, non-commercial, and/or geographical use) should apply in the domain name context-particularly at the second level and in both new and existing TLDs." If this is ultimately our position as a Council, then I believe it is best to gently back away from the current PDP, at least with respect to the Red Cross designations and Olympic words, in favor of something much more expeditious and narrow. o As you may recall, the original IPC position on this issue is that IOC/Red Cross protection should not be subject to a PDP. That position is not reflected in the letter, and it should be reflected, even if it is reflected as a minority view. o The proposed definition of "policy" in the letter is overbroad, subjective and particularly inappropriate in light of the recent policy versus implementation discussion framework published by ICANN policy staff. I believe it is better to simply admit that there is no bright line test and recognize that this issue is ripe for further discussion within the ICANN community. o To clarify, I do not believe that the GAC is asking for protection of the entire .INT list of names. Rather, it is my understanding that the list of IGOs that qualify under the GAC's criteria (i.e. are treaty-based organizations) is a discrete list of around only 200 acronyms. o Finally, the Council should not support anything, regardless of its substance, that may be interpreted as a legal opinion on intermediary liability, such as the statement that, "(To our knowledge, however, these laws would not create intermediary liability or impose affirmative obligations on ICANN, registries, and/or registrars with respect to third party registrations.)" Conclusions such as these should be fleshed out and substantiated with objective facts, research or citations. Please contact me if you would like to discuss any of these comments or proposed amendments further. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe +1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/> +1 212.506.3935 direct +1 212.506.3950 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - New York 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. ------------------------------------------- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson[SMTP:JONATHAN.ROBINSON@IPRACON.COM<smtp:JONATHAN.ROBINSON@IPRACON.COM>] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:32:24 AM To: 'Thomas Rickert'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter Auto forwarded by a Rule Many thanks Thomas, I'll certainly plan to review today. Jeff (as lead) and others, please note that this is due for completion this week since I told Heather we'd reply to her in January. Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: 27 January 2013 17:29 To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter All, as discussed, please find attached a text that could be used as an Annex to the draft letter prepared by Jeff in response to the GAC to illustrate the complexity of the matter. The intention was to keep it very brief (a bit over a page), but still show that there are some issues that need to be resolved. Thanks, Thomas

3 3

RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter
by Winterfeldt, Brian 31 Jan '13

31 Jan '13

Dear all: As you may already be aware, I have a different point of view on the Council's response to the GAC with respect to the ongoing IGO-INGO PDP. Having informally spoken to GAC representatives about this issue, here are some personal comments, that are shared by IPC leadership, as well as a proposed redline that I would like to have on record and I hope the Council will take into consideration. o The rather broad scope of the current IGO INGO PDP, which considers "whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second level" of all gTLDs, has the practical effect of second guessing GAC advice with respect to international legal norms and public policy. In other words, whether intentional or unintentional, the impact of the instant PDP is to challenge, or at least question, not only the GAC's proposed criteria for protection, but also the GAC's determination to advance protection for the specific two organizations that meet that criteria. o Please bear in mind that the GAC was careful to propose protections for Red Cross designations, Olympic words and a finite list of IGO acronyms for new gTLDs only. I cannot recall anyone ever recommending or requesting such protection in all existing gTLDs as well. Thus, the Council's response to the GAC needs to fully explain any underlying rationale for the unilateral decision to broaden the scope of the instant PDP well beyond GAC advice to include existing gTLDs. o The Council's current draft response to the GAC seems to suggest that the GNSO's primary remit of policy development relating to the IOC/Red Cross is "to determine what, if any, exceptions (i.e. for pre-existing, non-commercial, and/or geographical use) should apply in the domain name context-particularly at the second level and in both new and existing TLDs." If this is ultimately our position as a Council, then I believe it is best to gently back away from the current PDP, at least with respect to the Red Cross designations and Olympic words, in favor of something much more expeditious and narrow. o As you may recall, the original IPC position on this issue is that IOC/Red Cross protection should not be subject to a PDP. That position is not reflected in the letter, and it should be reflected, even if it is reflected as a minority view. o The proposed definition of "policy" in the letter is overbroad, subjective and particularly inappropriate in light of the recent policy versus implementation discussion framework published by ICANN policy staff. I believe it is better to simply admit that there is no bright line test and recognize that this issue is ripe for further discussion within the ICANN community. o To clarify, I do not believe that the GAC is asking for protection of the entire .INT list of names. Rather, it is my understanding that the list of IGOs that qualify under the GAC's criteria (i.e. are treaty-based organizations) is a discrete list of around only 200 acronyms. o Finally, the Council should not support anything, regardless of its substance, that may be interpreted as a legal opinion on intermediary liability, such as the statement that, "(To our knowledge, however, these laws would not create intermediary liability or impose affirmative obligations on ICANN, registries, and/or registrars with respect to third party registrations.)" Conclusions such as these should be fleshed out and substantiated with objective facts, research or citations. Please contact me if you would like to discuss any of these comments or proposed amendments further. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe +1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/> +1 212.506.3935 direct +1 212.506.3950 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - New York 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. ------------------------------------------- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson[SMTP:JONATHAN.ROBINSON@IPRACON.COM] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:32:24 AM To: 'Thomas Rickert'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter Auto forwarded by a Rule Many thanks Thomas, I'll certainly plan to review today. Jeff (as lead) and others, please note that this is due for completion this week since I told Heather we'd reply to her in January. Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: 27 January 2013 17:29 To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter All, as discussed, please find attached a text that could be used as an Annex to the draft letter prepared by Jeff in response to the GAC to illustrate the complexity of the matter. The intention was to keep it very brief (a bit over a page), but still show that there are some issues that need to be resolved. Thanks, Thomas

9 20

Whois Privacy Proxy Reveal and Relay Study proposed resolution for February Agenda
by Barbara Roseman 31 Jan '13

31 Jan '13

All, As you may recall, at the ICANN Meeting in Toronto, Lyman Chapin presented the results of the survey that evaluated the feasibility of conducting a future in-depth study into communication Relay and identity Reveal requests sent for gTLD domain names registered using Proxy and Privacy services (see presentation attached). The Council may want to consider whether to go ahead with this study. To this end, we've prepared the attached draft motion that may help facilitate the discussions on this item. A proposed agenda item could read as follows: Item X For discussion - Whois Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal Study At the ICANN Meeting in Toronto, Lyman Chapin presented the results of the survey that evaluated the feasibility of conducting a future in-depth study into communication Relay and identity Reveal requests sent for gTLD domain names registered using Proxy and Privacy services (include link to presentation). The Council should consider whether to go ahead with the study. X.1 Update from Staff (Barbara Roseman) X.2 Review of draft motion X.3 Discussion X.4 Next steps I have also attached the Interisle presentation from Toronto on their findings. With best regards, Barbara Roseman Policy Director

1 0

Strategic Planning Update 28 January 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry 30 Jan '13

30 Jan '13

Strategic Planning Update 28 January 2013 Thank you for your continued interest and support of the ICANN strategic development process. We are energized by the productive dialogue that took place at ICANN45 in Toronto and are making plans for the next phase of strategy development. The purpose of this announcement is to provide an update on the strategic plan work conducted thus far and to outline the new approach to strategy introduced during the Toronto meeting. Recent executive changes give ICANN the opportunity to reinvent our vision and how we think about strategy. Considering the effects of the evolution of Internet operations, services and use, the introduction of new gTLDs, and the challenges to our multi-stakeholder model, this opportunity comes at an ideal time. In order to dedicate appropriate attention and focus to the formulation of ICANN strategy for the next five years, we propose to kick-off the planning process in June 2013. This delayed start will enable a more thorough preparation of the planning activities, a well-planned timeline to ensure full engagement of the Board and key stakeholders, and the formulation of the five-year strategy in time for the annual planning cycle for the fiscal year starting on July 2014 (the annual planning cycle typically begins in October). <http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic/strategic-plan-2012-2015-1 8may12-en> 2012-2015 Strategic Plan will remain intact for 2013 ICANN will continue to operate under the Board-approved 2012-2015 Strategic Plan as it begins the work of implementing a more strategic approach to planning for the next five years. The objectives and goals that the ICANN team is working on now stem from the current Strategic Plan and are closely integrated into the Operating Plan and Budget cycle in progress for the fiscal year which will begin on 1 July 2013. Discussions at the ICANN meeting in Toronto in October 2012 and subsequent input confirmed that community stakeholders recognize the importance of a new strategic approach and support the idea of operating under the current Strategic Plan until the new plan can be developed. The new plan will be developed with leadership from the Board and CEO and participation from the stakeholder community. ICANN will not take any further steps on the Draft 2013 2016 Strategic Plan. During the 2013 planning cycle, we noted several changes in environment that have an impact on ICANN's strategic objectives. These factors have been analyzed and will be considered in the development of the 2013 Operating Plan and Budget and ongoing strategic planning, along with community comments and feedback. Some examples include: * Internationalization - ICANN will work with the community to define principles to help guide ICANN's internationalization. This work will include steps to enhance: global engagement of stakeholders; integration of global and regional responsibility; clear communications; and government relationships internationally. * Demand for training, capability building and new governance structures - The expansion in TLD operators resulting from the new gTLD program is expected to increase the demand for training and capability building, as well as the possibility that new structures may be needed to accommodate the needs of a broader and more diverse group of stakeholders. The significantly larger number of gTLDs also is prompting an updated definition of ICANN's role relative to "consumer trust." Next phase of ICANN strategy The proposed strategy structure will cover five years and will include an enduring and aspirational vision, a statement of purpose or mission, and overarching objectives. It will be tightly coupled to ICANN's future Operating Plan and Budget. ICANN's plan for moving from strategy to execution involves a clearly defined strategy and key indicators; a management plan with goals and objectives; and an Operating Plan and Budget which supports the strategy, objectives and goals. Capacity and resource analysis will be undertaken in order to evaluate potential projects based on strategic alignment, prior to commencement of work. The Operating Plan and Budget will include metrics and specific accountabilities to ensure that progress is being measured, monitored and evaluated on a regular basis. Next Phase of ICANN Strategy Detailed information about the timeline, the process and community participation will be shared at a later time. We thank the community for its ongoing engagement and participation. The comments and feedback provided by stakeholders will be incorporated in the strategy development, as we move forward. Public comments and community feedback is available <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/stratplan-draft-2013-24sep12-en .htm> here. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter
by Winterfeldt, Brian 30 Jan '13

30 Jan '13

Dear Jeff: Thank you for this feedback. I think we might still be able to reconcile your letter with my redline-as my primary goal was merely to highlight these issues for the Council's consideration in the hope of avoiding friction with the GAC down the road. That is why the majority of the content in the redline is commentary, rather than actual revisions. I am not sure a minority statement is necessary, but I do not think we can ignore staff's characterization of this matter as solicitation of "policy advice" on "implementation ideas," or go without recognizing that there is disagreement in the community on the definition of "policy." Am I wrong about that? Does everyone here agree with the definition of "policy" in the original letter? To this end, a footnote to acknowledge the position of the IPC is just fine and I am happy to work on it with you quickly. You have hit on the same issue as Thomas with respect to advancing the PDP, so I am happy to explain again that although I disagreed with the PDP for lumping in the Red Cross with international governmental and non-governmental organizations, I also reluctantly supported it as being likely the only method agreeable to other constituencies in the community. You can understand my continued reticence to sign on to any legal opinion regarding intermediary liability in this context, particularly since none of those cases analyzed international humanitarian law, dealt with the Geneva Conventions or national laws enacted pursuant thereto. I believe that is precisely the sort of situation we are all working together to avoid. Best regards, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe ------------------------------------------- From: Neuman, Jeff[SMTP:JEFF.NEUMAN@NEUSTAR.US] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 7:54:48 AM To: Winterfeldt, Brian; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter Thank you for this Brian. I think we face a dilemma here because your revisions not only gut the letter that was written by us, but also in many respects represents a complete reversal of the positions taken by most of the members of council on the previous council calls. We can of course make some updates based on the new paper ICANN staff just released, but remember that that was not out when I initially sent the letter. So, we now have two versions of the letter which I do not believe cannot be reconciled. If it just the IPC that supports this new version, then we should send the original version and allow the IPC to include comments as a minority report. If, however, there is other support for this version, then we have an issue to work through. With respect to the comments raised in the e-mail below: o We disagree with the notion that "the impact of the instant PDP is to challenge, or at least question, not only the GAC's proposed criteria for protection," or "the GAC's determination to advance protection for the specific two organizations that meet that criteria." This was carefully considered by the Council when it chose to implement the PDP and rejected by those voting in favor of the PDP. o I don't believe we said that the sole remit of the PDP was to look at exceptions, but rather, that was listed as an example. o I have no objection of including a footnote that the IPC did not support the PDP, but to change the entire letter simply because one constituency didn't agree to not seem to be the right approach. o The policy framework put out by ICANN staff is still under discussion and should not be used for any other purpose until that document has been thoroughly vetted. We appreciate the fact that the IPC believes that the definition of policy is overbroad, but we have taken this definition from what has been used in the past by ICANN in actual situations to look at actual issues to determine whether it is in scope for the policy process. It is the only community accepted definition that there is. o On the legal issue of intermediary liability, I could cite a number of legal cases in the US, including the Lockheed Martin case, Brookfield, etc. but we wanted to keep the letter short and to the point. I also have a case we litigated in Belgium that states the same thing that could be cited involving the droit.biz domain name. In short, we as a council need to decide what to do. The registries are in favor of sending the letter as it was drafted (with the tweaks from Thomas on the Appendix). The IPC comments would drastically change the letter in a way that defers to the GAC on everything policy-related, which we believe represents a contravention of the ICANN Bylaws (where the GNSO is charged with policy making for gTLDs) and a potential break down of the multi-stakeholder process. Don't get me wrong, the governments are vital for the multi-stakeholder process to work and we believe their opinions/advice should be weighed heavily. But they cannot be the "be-all-end-all" of policy with respect to gTLDs. This is not only an issue with respect to the IOC/RC and IGOs, but also Whois, law enforcement activities, etc. We need to find a way to all work together. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Winterfeldt, Brian Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:16 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter Dear all: As you may already be aware, I have a different point of view on the Council's response to the GAC with respect to the ongoing IGO-INGO PDP. Having informally spoken to GAC representatives about this issue, here are some personal comments, that are shared by IPC leadership, as well as a proposed redline that I would like to have on record and I hope the Council will take into consideration. o The rather broad scope of the current IGO INGO PDP, which considers "whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second level" of all gTLDs, has the practical effect of second guessing GAC advice with respect to international legal norms and public policy. In other words, whether intentional or unintentional, the impact of the instant PDP is to challenge, or at least question, not only the GAC's proposed criteria for protection, but also the GAC's determination to advance protection for the specific two organizations that meet that criteria. o Please bear in mind that the GAC was careful to propose protections for Red Cross designations, Olympic words and a finite list of IGO acronyms for new gTLDs only. I cannot recall anyone ever recommending or requesting such protection in all existing gTLDs as well. Thus, the Council's response to the GAC needs to fully explain any underlying rationale for the unilateral decision to broaden the scope of the instant PDP well beyond GAC advice to include existing gTLDs. o The Council's current draft response to the GAC seems to suggest that the GNSO's primary remit of policy development relating to the IOC/Red Cross is "to determine what, if any, exceptions (i.e. for pre-existing, non-commercial, and/or geographical use) should apply in the domain name context-particularly at the second level and in both new and existing TLDs." If this is ultimately our position as a Council, then I believe it is best to gently back away from the current PDP, at least with respect to the Red Cross designations and Olympic words, in favor of something much more expeditious and narrow. o As you may recall, the original IPC position on this issue is that IOC/Red Cross protection should not be subject to a PDP. That position is not reflected in the letter, and it should be reflected, even if it is reflected as a minority view. o The proposed definition of "policy" in the letter is overbroad, subjective and particularly inappropriate in light of the recent policy versus implementation discussion framework published by ICANN policy staff. I believe it is better to simply admit that there is no bright line test and recognize that this issue is ripe for further discussion within the ICANN community. o To clarify, I do not believe that the GAC is asking for protection of the entire .INT list of names. Rather, it is my understanding that the list of IGOs that qualify under the GAC's criteria (i.e. are treaty-based organizations) is a discrete list of around only 200 acronyms. o Finally, the Council should not support anything, regardless of its substance, that may be interpreted as a legal opinion on intermediary liability, such as the statement that, "(To our knowledge, however, these laws would not create intermediary liability or impose affirmative obligations on ICANN, registries, and/or registrars with respect to third party registrations.)" Conclusions such as these should be fleshed out and substantiated with objective facts, research or citations. Please contact me if you would like to discuss any of these comments or proposed amendments further. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe +1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/> +1 212.506.3935 direct +1 212.506.3950 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - New York 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. ------------------------------------------- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson[SMTP:JONATHAN.ROBINSON@IPRACON.COM] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:32:24 AM To: 'Thomas Rickert'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter Auto forwarded by a Rule Many thanks Thomas, I'll certainly plan to review today. Jeff (as lead) and others, please note that this is due for completion this week since I told Heather we'd reply to her in January. Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: 27 January 2013 17:29 To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter All, as discussed, please find attached a text that could be used as an Annex to the draft letter prepared by Jeff in response to the GAC to illustrate the complexity of the matter. The intention was to keep it very brief (a bit over a page), but still show that there are some issues that need to be resolved. Thanks, Thomas

1 0

RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter
by Winterfeldt, Brian 30 Jan '13

30 Jan '13

Dear Volker: Thank you for these thoughts. Here are some quick responses in line with your email below. Best regards, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe ------------------------------------------- From: Volker Greimann[SMTP:VGREIMANN@KEY-SYSTEMS.NET] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:02:52 AM To: Winterfeldt, Brian Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Brian, o The rather broad scope of the current IGO INGO PDP, which considers "whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second level" of all gTLDs, has the practical effect of second guessing GAC advice with respect to international legal norms and public policy. In other words, whether intentional or unintentional, the impact of the instant PDP is to challenge, or at least question, not only the GAC's proposed criteria for protection, but also the GAC's determination to advance protection for the specific two organizations that meet that criteria. Under this scope, the PDP would not only examine the need for special protections in new gTLDs but also under the existing ones. One may argue whether this is necessary or distracting (see the next point), but I do not see it as directly challenging the GAC advice. I personally would have preferred a more direct reference to the level of protections required. After all, the term "special protections" is not particularly conclusive as to what these protections are actually supposed to be, and also the GAC has been rather opaque on what kind of protections they envision. It is the duty of the GNSO to fill the GAC advice with life and I agree that the language describing the scope of the PDP should have been more clear on that. I thought the GAC was fairly clear about its request for second-level protection in its September 14, 2011 letter<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/1540128/GAC+advice+on+IOC+and…>. o Please bear in mind that the GAC was careful to propose protections for Red Cross designations, Olympic words and a finite list of IGO acronyms for new gTLDs only. I cannot recall anyone ever recommending or requesting such protection in all existing gTLDs as well. Thus, the Council's response to the GAC needs to fully explain any underlying rationale for the unilateral decision to broaden the scope of the instant PDP well beyond GAC advice to include existing gTLDs. While I also cannot recall any such request or recommendation, I fail to see why new gTLD should be treated differently from existing gTLDs. If it is determined that a form of special protection is necessary, why would such a need not also apply to existing TLDs? If that is the reason why the PDP encompasses existing gTLDs, then it should be added to the response to the GAC. It is just a guess, but perhaps their proposal was limited to new gTLDs to avoid overreaching or conflicts with existing interests in second-level registrations. o The Council's current draft response to the GAC seems to suggest that the GNSO's primary remit of policy development relating to the IOC/Red Cross is "to determine what, if any, exceptions (i.e. for pre-existing, non-commercial, and/or geographical use) should apply in the domain name context-particularly at the second level and in both new and existing TLDs." If this is ultimately our position as a Council, then I believe it is best to gently back away from the current PDP, at least with respect to the Red Cross designations and Olympic words, in favor of something much more expeditious and narrow. Would it not be the job of the PDP to make exactly that determination as part of their deliberations? If this is the only issue, or the primary issue, with respect to these entities, then perhaps something other than a full PDP was in order, such as a "policy guidance working group" as suggested in staff's proposed policy versus implementation framework. o The proposed definition of "policy" in the letter is overbroad, subjective and particularly inappropriate in light of the recent policy versus implementation discussion framework published by ICANN policy staff. I believe it is better to simply admit that there is no bright line test and recognize that this issue is ripe for further discussion within the ICANN community. I would not call it inappropriate just because there is no clear line in the sand. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think we can all agree that there is a strong divergence of opinion within the community on the definition of "policy." I thought it best to acknowledge that in our response to the GAC. In endorsing this letter as it is written, does everyone intend to endorse Jeff's definition of policy? Best, Volker Greimann

2 1

RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter
by Winterfeldt, Brian 30 Jan '13

30 Jan '13

Dear Thomas: Thank you for your email. The IPC was firm in its position on the IOC/RCRC DT that a PDP was not necessary. It is my understanding that the same IPC position was carried forward into the IGO-INGO PDP, which was both criticized for lumping in the Red Cross with international governmental and non-governmental organizations but also generally supported as being one clear method for advancing this important issue-and likely the only method agreeable to other constituencies in the community. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe ------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Rickert[SMTP:RICKERT@ANWAELTE.DE] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:01:11 AM To: Winterfeldt, Brian Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter Auto forwarded by a Rule Brian, all, I have checked the respective minutes of the GNSO Council meetings and confirmed that both the motions on the resolution on the initiation of the PDP as well as the adoption of the charter of the WG were carried unanimously. Am I correct in understanding that the IPC, while it supported both the initiation of the PDP as well as the scope of the work as laid out in the charter, now wishes to have its opposition to the PDP reflected in the letter? Can you please clarify? Thanks Thomas Am 30.01.2013 um 02:15 schrieb "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>>: Dear all: As you may already be aware, I have a different point of view on the Council's response to the GAC with respect to the ongoing IGO-INGO PDP. Having informally spoken to GAC representatives about this issue, here are some personal comments, that are shared by IPC leadership, as well as a proposed redline that I would like to have on record and I hope the Council will take into consideration. o The rather broad scope of the current IGO INGO PDP, which considers "whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second level" of all gTLDs, has the practical effect of second guessing GAC advice with respect to international legal norms and public policy. In other words, whether intentional or unintentional, the impact of the instant PDP is to challenge, or at least question, not only the GAC's proposed criteria for protection, but also the GAC's determination to advance protection for the specific two organizations that meet that criteria. o Please bear in mind that the GAC was careful to propose protections for Red Cross designations, Olympic words and a finite list of IGO acronyms for new gTLDs only. I cannot recall anyone ever recommending or requesting such protection in all existing gTLDs as well. Thus, the Council's response to the GAC needs to fully explain any underlying rationale for the unilateral decision to broaden the scope of the instant PDP well beyond GAC advice to include existing gTLDs. o The Council's current draft response to the GAC seems to suggest that the GNSO's primary remit of policy development relating to the IOC/Red Cross is "to determine what, if any, exceptions (i.e. for pre-existing, non-commercial, and/or geographical use) should apply in the domain name context-particularly at the second level and in both new and existing TLDs." If this is ultimately our position as a Council, then I believe it is best to gently back away from the current PDP, at least with respect to the Red Cross designations and Olympic words, in favor of something much more expeditious and narrow. o As you may recall, the original IPC position on this issue is that IOC/Red Cross protection should not be subject to a PDP. That position is not reflected in the letter, and it should be reflected, even if it is reflected as a minority view. o The proposed definition of "policy" in the letter is overbroad, subjective and particularly inappropriate in light of the recent policy versus implementation discussion framework published by ICANN policy staff. I believe it is better to simply admit that there is no bright line test and recognize that this issue is ripe for further discussion within the ICANN community. o To clarify, I do not believe that the GAC is asking for protection of the entire .INT list of names. Rather, it is my understanding that the list of IGOs that qualify under the GAC's criteria (i.e. are treaty-based organizations) is a discrete list of around only 200 acronyms. o Finally, the Council should not support anything, regardless of its substance, that may be interpreted as a legal opinion on intermediary liability, such as the statement that, "(To our knowledge, however, these laws would not create intermediary liability or impose affirmative obligations on ICANN, registries, and/or registrars with respect to third party registrations.)" Conclusions such as these should be fleshed out and substantiated with objective facts, research or citations. Please contact me if you would like to discuss any of these comments or proposed amendments further. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe +1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/> +1 212.506.3935 direct +1 212.506.3950 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - New York 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. ------------------------------------------- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson[SMTP:JONATHAN.ROBINSON@IPRACON.COM] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:32:24 AM To: 'Thomas Rickert'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter Auto forwarded by a Rule Many thanks Thomas, I'll certainly plan to review today. Jeff (as lead) and others, please note that this is due for completion this week since I told Heather we'd reply to her in January. Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: 27 January 2013 17:29 To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter All, as discussed, please find attached a text that could be used as an Annex to the draft letter prepared by Jeff in response to the GAC to illustrate the complexity of the matter. The intention was to keep it very brief (a bit over a page), but still show that there are some issues that need to be resolved. Thanks, Thomas <Draft Council Response re IGO-INGO PDP.doc>

1 0

Draft Minutes GNSO Council Meeting 21 January 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry 29 Jan '13

29 Jan '13

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 21 January 2012. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure< <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf> section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 8 February 2013. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Slides from New gTLD Objection & Dispute Resolution Webinar
by Bruce Tonkin 29 Jan '13

29 Jan '13

Hello All, Attached are the slides from New gTLD Objection & Dispute Resolution Webinar at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Proposed Response to the GAC regarding November 28th Letter
by Neuman, Jeff 29 Jan '13

29 Jan '13

All, In the past few days, a few of us at Neustar have been thinking about a proposed response to the November 28th letter from the GAC to the GNSO on the determination to initiate a PDP on the protection of names of international organizations. Given that we should be drafting a response, we took a stab at coming up with a first draft to get your input on. This is just a first draft, but one which we believe sets the right non-confrontational tone on some issues that we know are sensitive to a number of GAC members (and ICANN community members alike). We have also taken a stab at defining how policy development has traditionally applied to ICANN activities before the whole onslaught of new gTLD issues. Please let me know your thoughts on this letter and whether this serves as a good starting point to finalize a response. Thanks! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Madam Chair: I am writing in response to your letter dated 28 November 2012 seeking information about the GNSO's determination to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the protection of the names of international organizations "in all gTLDs." We are not aware of a bright line test to distinguish "policy" from "implementation" in general, or in the ICANN context, and believe that this question might benefit from further review and consideration within ICANN's multi-stakeholder processes. For purposes of responding to your letter, however, the term "policy development" has traditionally applied to ICANN's consideration of an issue that is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement and involves developing an approach that (1) is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; (2) is likely to have lasting value of applicability; (3) will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; and/or (4) implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy. The ICANN Board, the ICANN staff, and the GNSO has each concluded at different points that the question of enhanced protections for international governmental organizations ("IGO's") and international non-governmental organizations ("INGO's") at the top and second level meets the criteria described above. We do not dispute the validity of the GAC's advice to the ICANN Board in May 2011 regarding protections for the International Olympic Committee ("IOC") and the Red Cross/Red Crescent ("RC/RC") names, nor do we dispute the fact that ICANN received preliminary legal advice that some 60 countries protect certain intellectual properties of the IOC and RC/RC. We note, however, that most such laws - like the Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol itself - provide exceptions for non-commercial uses, pre-existing commercial uses, and certain geographic references, among other things. (To our knowledge, however, these laws would not create intermediary liability or impose affirmative obligations on ICANN, registries, and/or registrars with respect to third party registrations.) In any case, policy development is needed to determine what, if any, exceptions (i.e., for pre-existing, non-commercial, and/or geographic use) should apply in the domain name context - particularly at the second level and in both new and existing TLDs. Likewise, we do not dispute the validity of the GAC's advice in Toronto with respect to the use of the current .int registration requirements as a starting basis for protection of IGO names and acronyms. We also appreciate your point that this advice is "complementary" to the provision of the Applicant Guidebook permitting use of the .int registration criteria as the basis for IGOs to file a Legal Rights Objection to a new gTLD application. We do not understand, however, how a prohibition of even non-infringing uses of an IGO's acronym at the first or second level is merely an implementation of the Legal Rights Objection policy, which provides for an independent panel to determine whether an applicant's potential use of the applied-for gTLD would be likely to infringe the objector's existing IGO name or acronym. The views and perspectives of various participants in this discussion, including those of the Governmental Advisory Committee, have evolved over time - including quite recently. The GNSO believes that the issues identified above fall within the definition of "policy" used by ICANN. We understand, of course, that the policy development process can be time consuming. We also understand that some may view resort to policy development as a delaying or blocking tactic. With respect to the question of enhanced protections for international governmental organizations, however, the GNSO has attempted to find practical solutions to ensure that reasonable protections are in place during the pendency of the policy discussions. That approach is reflected in the ICANN Board's recent resolutions to create a moratorium on registration of certain names at the second level pending this policy work. Perhaps we are misunderstanding the distinction between "policy" and "implementation" drawn by the GAC, and, as previously stated, the GNSO Council would welcome further dialogue on this point. Meanwhile, we do take seriously our obligation to respond in a collaborative, timely and transparent way when policy development is necessary. 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<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

9 20