February 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: A note regarding the selection of members of the Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2)
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

All, FYI. Jonathan. From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@shinkuro.com] Sent: 05 February 2013 15:58 To: Jun Murai; Patrik Fältström; Olivier Crepin-LeBlond; jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com; louie(a)louie.net; lesley(a)nominet.org.uk; pwilson(a)apnic.net; kdrazek(a)Verisign.com; Matt Serlin; Robin D. Gross, Esq.; tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com; krosette(a)cov.com Rosette; Marilyn S. Cade; william.drake(a)uzh.ch; alain.berranger(a)gmail.com Berranger Cc: Steve Crocker; Heather Dryden; Denise Michel; Alice Jansen Subject: A note regarding the selection of members of the Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2) Jun Murai Patrick Fältström Olivier Crepin-Leblond Jonathan Robinson Louie Lee Lesley Cowley Paul Wilson Keith Drazek Matt Serlin Robin Gross Tony Holmes Kristina Rosette Marilyn Cade Bill Drake Alain Berranger Dear chairs of SOs, ACs, SGs and Constituencies Heather and I write to you regarding the selection of the members of the Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). We were fortunate -- and challenged -- to have 36 applications of volunteers to serve. We greatly appreciated the time and effort your group invested in your endorsement process and providing us with high caliber candidates. In selecting the members of this team, we considered multiple factors, including SO & AC endorsement, experience with governments, experience with organizational governance, understanding of ICANNs working practices, consensus-building, analytical skills, ability to draw evidence-based conclusions, aptitude to build metrics and balances of geography, gender, service on the prior Accountability and Review Team, etc. These factors necessitated difficult choices. We have selected about one third of the applicants in addition to the ex officio positions allocated to the NTIA Administrator, GAC Chair and Board Chair to fill personally or to a designee. While there is no hard and fast limit on the size of the review team, based on past experience and our current judgment, we feel this team is the right size, is strong and is fully capable of conducting an excellent review. For the people who have not been selected, we appreciate both their candidacies and the effort of everyone involved in advancing their candidacies. In particular, we recognize that each person who applied for membership on this review team has made it clear she or he cares deeply about ICANN and is willing to devote substantial time and energy to improve our processes. We invite all who applied, particularly those who were not selected, to make use of the many other opportunities to participate in the ICANN process. And with respect to the Accountability and Transparency review process, we will ask the Review Team to solicit inputs early in the process from all of the candidates who were not selected. Heather Dryden GAC Chair and Co-selector of ATRT2 members Steve Crocker Board Chair and Co-selector of ATRT2 members

1 0

Resolutions from the ICANN Board meeting on Saturday 2 Feb 2013
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

Hello All, The main items covered in the ICANN Board meeting were: - approval of change to Registry Stakeholder Group charter - approval to get some additional office space in Southern California - approval to engage financial auditor - adding David Olive, as Vice President, Policy Development Support, as an Officer of the company - creating a Multi-Stakeholder Meeting Strategy Working Group to look at approach going forward for ICANN public meetings (chaired by Sébastien Bachollet ) Details below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-02feb13-en.htm Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 2 February 2013 1. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes Resolved (2013.02.02.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 20 December 2012 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board. b. Registry Stakeholder Group Charter Amendments Whereas, The ICANN Bylaws (Article X, Section 5.3) state, "Each [GNSO] Stakeholder Group shall maintain recognition with the ICANN Board." Whereas, the GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) has alerted ICANN Staff and the Board to a set of changes to its Charter including expanding the activities of its internal Observers Group, simplifying the process for assessment of annual dues and adding the immediate past Chair of the RySG to its Executive Committee. Whereas, the community had the opportunity to review and comment on the RySG Charter amendments and there were no objections to the changes. Whereas, the Structural Improvements Committee recommends the Board approve the RySG Charter changes as presented. Resolved (2013.02.02.02) the proposed amendments to the Registry Stakeholder Group Charter are approved by the Board. c. Southern California Office Space Lease Whereas, ICANN's current lease in Los Angeles expires 30 June 2022. Whereas, ICANN's primary operations and staff are located in the greater Los Angeles area. Whereas, current and future office space needs for primary operations will be at least 35,000 square feet. Whereas, the Board Finance Committee has recommended that the Board approve this resolution. RESOLUTION 2013.02.02.04 REDACTED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 2013.02.02.03 Resolved (2013.02.02.04), the Board approves the redaction of the details of Resolution (2013.02.02.03), and corresponding rationale pending completion of negotiations. d. Engagement of Independent Auditor Whereas, Article XVI of the ICANN Bylaws (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm) requires that after the end of the fiscal year, the books of ICANN must be audited by certified public accountants, which shall be appointed by the Board. Whereas, the Board Audit Committee has discussed the engagement of the independent auditor for the fiscal year ending 30 June 2013, and has recommended that the Board engage Moss Adams LLP. Whereas, the Board Audit Committee has recommended that the Board direct the President and CEO or his designees to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement with Moss Adams. Resolved (2013.02.02.05), the Board authorizes the President and CEO to engage Moss Adams LLP as the auditors for the financial statements for the fiscal year ending 30 June 2013. e. Officer Appointment and related document revision Resolved (2013.02.02.06), David Olive is elected as an Officer of ICANN with the title of Vice President, Policy Development Support. Resolved (2013.02.02.07), Paragraph 4 of ICANN's Contracting and Disbursement Policy shall be revised to read as follows: ICANN Officers include: (i) President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO); (ii) Chief Operating Officer (COO); (iii) Chief Financial Officer (CFO); (iv) General Counsel and Secretary; and (v) Vice President, Policy Development Support. 2. Main Agenda: a. Multi-Stakeholder Meeting Strategy Working Group Whereas, ICANN has committed to identifying ICANN Meeting locations two years in advance. Whereas, after consideration that adoption of a prior Consolidated Meetings Strategy proposal was not timely, the Public Participation Committee (PPC) initiated work to create a working group to address the meeting location strategy. Whereas, the PPC has developed a proposed charter for a multistakeholder Meetings Strategy Working Group (MSWG) and recommends that the Board adopt the charter and approve the creation of the MSWG. Resolved (2013.02.02.08), the Board approves of the creation of the MSWG and adopts the Charter of the MSWG. The MSWG is expected to provide its report to the Board no later than ICANN's 2013 Annual General Meeting. Resolved (2013.02.02.09), the original members of the MSWG from the ICANN Board are: Sébastien Bachollet, Chair and Chris Disspain. Resolved (2013.02.02.10), the MSWG, working with the PPC, is directed to proceed with the identification of community members pursuant to the Charter. Community member appointments do not require the approval of the full Board. Resolved (2013.02.02.11), the President and CEO is directed to provide the MSWG with the staff support necessary to enable the MSWG to undertake and complete its work.

1 0

Action Items
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

All, One of the outcomes of the GNSO Council Operations and Organisation Meeting last month 23 January 2013 was an agreement to produce and maintain an Actions Items record. The link to the Action Items list is here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items It represents a record of current activity and commitments by GNSO Councillors and related ICANN Staff. It is distinct from the more comprehensive record of projects, the so-called "Pending Projects List". In fact we may well do some more work to streamline that - perhaps by simply calling it the Projects List! Please can you all refer to the Action Items record. Hopefully you will find it a useful reminder of any commitments you, your colleagues or staff have made. Also, you should be able to update it. So, to the extent that there is an Action Item that you have been working on, you will be able to dynamically provide updates. As ever, any other inputs or constructive comments most welcome. Thank-you. Jonathan

2 2

Strategic Planning Update
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-28jan13-en.htm 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). 2012-2015 Strategic Plan<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic/strategic-plan-2012-2015-1…> 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. [cid:image001.jpg@01CE0389.08D3BC60] 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 here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/stratplan-draft-2013-24sep12-en…>. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Webinar: Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant: Examining the User Experience Implication of the Active Variant TLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

Webinar: Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant: Examining the User Experience Implication of the Active Variant TLDs 1 February 2013 Date: 13 February 2013 Time: 13:00 - 14:30 UTC (5:00am - 6:30am PST) Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/idnvarianttld/ Dial In: 1-800-550-6865 or 1-213-233-3193 International numbers available here<http://adigo.com/icann/> Meeting ID: 46389 Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) serve as powerful tools for broadening the Internet's capacity and accessibility; however, they also raise novel issues. One important issue concerns "variants" which occur when a single character can be identified with two or more different Unicode Code Points with graphic representations that may or may not be visually similar. IDN variants contain one or more such characters and therefore, if not handled correctly, might result in user confusion or a poor user experience. In an effort to develop potential solutions for the delegation of IDN variant Top-Level Domains (TLDs), IDN Variant Project Teams, consisting of volunteers, subject matter expert consultants and ICANN staff, have conducted case studies in six scripts, produced an integrated report, and are currently underway to completing three projects investigating potential solutions for IDN Variant TLDs delegation. One of these projects is called the Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs Project (P6). The purpose of the project is to gain an understanding of issues that could arise from activating IDN Variant TLDs and offer recommendations to users to avoid such issues. Examples of user roles that have been identified include registrants, registrars, registry operators, system administrators, network operators, application developers, and end users. Project team has published for public comment the Draft Final Report for Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/variant-ux-18jan13-en.htm> and is seeking to establish a dialog with the community to refine proposed principles, impacts and recommendations of the study. This webinar is offered to complement that process both by presenting the key concepts and gathering user input. The IDN Variant TLDs Program team is looking forward to your participation. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: Preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013.
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 4, 2013

Feb. 4, 2013

Hello All, The full minutes for the 10 Jan 2013 meeting are now available at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-10jan13-en.… I have also attached the briefing documents used at that meeting. Note that the new gTLD committee also met during the Board workshop on 1-2 Feb, so expect a preliminary report soon. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013 11:18 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013. From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10jan… This is a preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013. 1.Main Agenda: a. Reporting Structure b. Maturing the DNS Industry c. Enforcing Applicant Commitments d. Closed Generic Strings e. Consumer Choice Review 1. Main Agenda: a. Reporting Structure No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee engaged in a discussion with staff about a proposed regular reporting structure to the Committee on the status of the New gTLD Program, including reporting against key milestones. The Committee and ICANN executives agreed that there was some basis for modification of the reporting, and agreed that as much information as is appropriate will be provided to the community at the scheduled webinars, or other means where all applicants will have access to the information. The Committee also discussed the need for a regular meeting schedule. The Committee was then provided with an update on the status of the initial evaluation work. b. Maturing the DNS Industry No resolution taken. The President and CEO provided the New gTLD Program Committee with a report on his efforts relating to his discussions with various DNS Industry leaders, including the forthcoming CEO Roundtables. c. Enforcing Applicant Commitments No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee discussed the planning underway to address the GAC's advice on enforcing applicant commitments through the registry agreements. It was noted that staff discussed potential mechanisms to address this advice, how the GAC advice could be met and possible responses to the GAC regarding the status. The Committed noted that it wanted to discuss this topic further at its workshop in Los Angeles. d. Closed Generic Strings No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee discussed the issue of closed generic strings, receiving a report from staff regarding the distinction between the Code of Conduct that addresses non-discriminatory access that registries are required to offer to registrars, and the concerns raised in the community about who is allowed to register in a TLD. The Committed noted that it wanted to discuss this topic further at its workshop in Los Angeles. e. Consumer Choice Review No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee began a discussion noting that it is necessary to begin preparations for the review required under the Affirmation of Commitments after the introduction of new gTLDs. The Chair called the meeting to a close. Published 22 January 2013

1 0

Document and motion Deadline Wednesday, 6 February 2013 for GNSO Council meeting 14 February at 11:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 1, 2013

Feb. 1, 2013

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.WEDNESDAY, 6 February 2013) of the GNSO Council meeting on 14 February 2013 at 11:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+-+14+Februar y+2013 Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Webinar: Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant: Examining the User Experience Implication of the Active Variant TLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 1, 2013

Feb. 1, 2013

Webinar: Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant: Examining the User Experience Implication of the Active Variant TLDs 1 February 2013 Date: 13 February 2013 Time: 13:00 14:50 UTC (5:00am 6:30am PST) Adobe Connect: <http://icann.adobeconnect.com/idnvarianttld/> http://icann.adobeconnect.com/idnvarianttld/ Dial In: 1-800-550-6865 or 1-213-233-3193 International numbers available <http://adigo.com/icann/> here Meeting ID: 46389 Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) serve as powerful tools for broadening the Internet's capacity and accessibility; however, they also raise novel issues. One important issue concerns "variants" which occur when a single character can be identified with two or more different Unicode Code Points with graphic representations that may or may not be visually similar. IDN variants contain one or more such characters and therefore, if not handled correctly, might result in user confusion or a poor user experience. In an effort to develop potential solutions for the delegation of IDN variant Top-Level Domains (TLDs), IDN Variant Project Teams, consisting of volunteers, subject matter expert consultants and ICANN staff, have conducted case studies in six scripts, produced an integrated report, and are currently underway to completing three projects investigating potential solutions for IDN Variant TLDs delegation. One of these projects is called the Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs Project (P6). The purpose of the project is to gain an understanding of issues that could arise from activating IDN Variant TLDs and offer recommendations to users to avoid such issues. Examples of user roles that have been identified include registrants, registrars, registry operators, system administrators, network operators, application developers, and end users. Project team has published for public comment the <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/variant-ux-18jan13-en.htm> Draft Final Report for Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs and is seeking to establish a dialog with the community to refine proposed principles, impacts and recommendations of the study. This webinar is offered to complement that process both by presenting the key concepts and gathering user input. The IDN Variant TLDs Program team is looking forward to your participation. 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

Policy vs. Implementation: Public Comment period open
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 1, 2013

Feb. 1, 2013

Policy vs. Implementation Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 31 January 2013 Comment Close: 21 February 2013 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Public Comment Announcement <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-31jan13-en.htm> Reply Open: 22 February 2013 <mailto:comments-policy-implementation-31jan13@icann.org> To Submit Your Comments (Forum) Reply Close: 14 March 2013 View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-policy-implementation-31jan13/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Staff Categories/Tags: Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): In order to encourage feedback on the ICANN Staff Paper <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j an13-en.pdf> Policy vs. Implementation Draft Framework for Discussion [PDF, 195 KB], a public comment forum has now been opened. Current Status: ICANN Staff has developed a paper outlining a draft framework for community discussion that identifies a number of steps and criteria that might facilitate dealing with questions relating to policy vs. implementation in the future. Next Steps: The received comments are expected to feed into the session that is being planned on this topic at the ICANN meeting in Beijing. Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email: Policy-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:Policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Polic y%20vs.%20Implementation%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose Mainly as a result of discussions stemming from implementation related issues of the new gTLD program, there is increased focus on which topics call for policy and which call for implementation work, including which processes should be used, at what time and how diverging opinions should be acted upon. In order to facilitate these discussions, ICANN Staff has developed a draft framework for community discussion that identifies a number of steps and criteria that might facilitate dealing with similar questions in the future. <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j an13-en.pdf> The paper [PDF, 195 KB] identifies a number of questions that the community may want to consider further in this context, as well as a couple of suggested improvements that could be considered in the short term. While developing a bright-line rule as to what is policy or implementation may not be possible, the hope is that by developing clear processes and identifying clear roles and responsibilities for the different stakeholders, it will become easier to deal with these issues going forward and allow for broad participation and involvement. In order to facilitate discussions on this topic, a session is being scheduled at the ICANN meeting in Beijing. Input received as a result of this public comment forum is intended to feed into those discussions, which are also intended to identify next steps. Section II: Background There are multiple kinds of "policy" within the ICANN world. There are formal policies developed through the policy development processes as set forth in the Bylaws. There are operational policies generally not subject to a PDP or considered implementation, such as the Conflicts of Interest Policy, but for which public comment is sought and considered. Finally, there are general practices that are sometimes referred to as "little p" policies or more accurately "procedures", such as the 30-day public comment requirement for Bylaw changes. Within this category again there are a variety of considerations. There could be established practices, for example, on topics that although within scope of a policy development process (PDP) have not resulted in a formal recommendation to the Board that could serve as authoritative "Policy." In some of those instances, for example vertical integration or registrar accreditation procedures, ICANN identified a path forward and if a policy recommendation on these topics were to later arise through a PDP, ICANN would then consider how that policy might impact or require change to established practice(s) (resulting in "Policy"). One area that is ripe for further discussion within the ICANN community is identifying the proper process to follow when there are changes to policy recommendations that have already been adopted by the Board, or to the proposals related to the implementation of approved policy recommendations. Questions have been raised about when those issues need to be vetted using a new PDP and when it would suffice to use public comment to vet a proposed change for public comment and for the Board and/or staff to act on that based on the comment received. Such questions arose, for example, during the evolution of the applicant guidebook for the New gTLD Program, and also during the negotiation of key contracts such as the .com and .net registry agreements regarding the impact of potential incorporation of a "thick" Whois registry model. Another, associated issue is when resolution of a new issue should be supported by a consensus of the ICANN community, and when an issue arising from the implementation of a policy may be effectuated by the ICANN Board or ICANN Staff upon taking a range of advice even if there is no consensus within the ICANN community. In order to better deal with the issues outlined in this paper, ICANN Staff has outlined a number of proposed principles to serve as a basis for this discussion as well as developed a proposed framework which can be found in the annex to the paper. Section III: Document and Resource Links <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j an13-en.pdf> Policy versus Implementation Draft Framework for Discussion [PDF, 195 KB] Section IV: Additional Information N/A (*) 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 this period lapses. 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

FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 1, 2013

Feb. 1, 2013

All, Please see attached for the final version of the letter sent to the GAC today. It is the clean version of the letter provided by Brian yesterday with a handful of non-material edits which I picked up on a final proof read. Thanks to all who contributed. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 01 February 2013 18:19 To: 'GAC Secretariat' Cc: 'Steve Crocker'; 'Fadi Chehade'; 'Heather Dryden'; 'Maria Häll'; 'alice(a)apc.org'; 'Choon Sai LIM (IDA)' Subject: RE: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections Dear Heather, Please see attached for a full response to your letter of 28 November 2012. Best wishes, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com skype: jonathan.m.r From: GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org] Sent: 28 November 2012 21:38 To: jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice(a)apc.org; Choon Sai LIM (IDA) Subject: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair Dear Jonathan, Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent protections. Best regards, Jeannie Ellers Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930 Washington, DC 20005 Ph. +1 202 570 7135 M. +1 310 302 7552

1 0