March 2014 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: ICANN's IDN variant TLD project
by Jonathan Robinson March 27, 2014

March 27, 2014

From: Ram Mohan [mailto:ram.mohan@icann.org] Sent: 27 March 2014 10:41 To: 'Jonathan Robinson' Cc: 'Ram Mohan-ICANN' Subject: RE: ICANN's IDN variant TLD project Dear Jonathan, Thank you for your email and the excellent idea of a GNSO policy liaison to the Integration Panel for the IDN Variant Project. The Board's IDN Variant Working Group (BV-WG), which I chair, is charged with overseeing the work of the ICANN staff team on this project. Please feel free to share this email with the Council and members of the GNSO community as you see fit. As you know, a very significant amount of technical and linguistic work is being undertaken as part of the IDN Variants program, covering interested language communities around the world. ICANN has appointed an IDN Integration Panel that is charged with the review and synthesis of the work of each of the planned 17 Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) Panels. Each LGR Panel consists of linguistic and technical experts well-versed in that particular language representation. We anticipate the work to not only be technical and detailed, but to encompass several years. The ICANN Board believes that this area of work is critical and that ICANN has a responsibility to assist in furthering the state of the art, and has provided resource, budget and oversight commitments. The work of the Panels and the specific projects within the framework of the Project are published for public comment and community consultations, which are conducted at the appropriate time during each phase of work. In addition, for the implementation work to be done relating to the LGR that is ultimately developed, SO/AC input has been formally sought. Given the significant work effort required to pull this off, and the highly distributed and diverse geographical nature of the LGR panels and the Integration Panel's work, I would suggest instead that ICANN staff commit to a regular and frequent schedule of input and feedback with the GNSO. Based upon the Council's request, the Board Variant Working Group has therefore tasked ICANN staff to immediately initiate a regular feedback and input mechanism with the GNSO, including but not limited to a full face to face briefing at the next 5 ICANN meetings. In addition, the BV-WG has tasked staff to work with the GNSO to determine the utility and timeliness of a "primer" session for the community. I believe this measure would allow the ICANN implementation team to seek advice from the GNSO in a structured and regular manner, similar to other ad-hoc teams that the GNSO is forming. The Board's IDN Variant Working Group is available to discuss IDN variants and ICANN's work on the project with the GNSO community. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best regards, Ram Chair, ICANN Board IDN Variant Working Group From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:32 PM To: rmohan(a)afilias.info Subject: ICANN's IDN variant TLD project Dear Ram, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council passed all 5 of its motions yesterday. One of these was a motion to close the Joint IDN Working Group and certain next steps for IDN related issues. During the course of the weekend GNSO sessions and the discussion of this item, it was recognised that it will remain very important for the GNSO Council and ensure that we keep a good eye on this are of work. One suggestion was for a GNSO liaison to ICANN's IDN variant TLD project. Please could you consider this request and let me know your thoughts so that we know whether or not to proceed to appoint such a liason. Many thanks, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103 skype: jonathan.m.r

1 0

ccNSO statement on IANA transition
by John Berard March 27, 2014

March 27, 2014

Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca> > Date: March 27, 2014 at 8:30:13 AM GMT+8 > To: "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> > Subject: [ccnso-council] Proposed statement > > Dear Councillors, > > Attached is a soft copy of the draft text I handed out yesterday. It is my intention to make this statement at the open session later today. > > As noted yesterday, if you have any suggestions, please advise my noon today. > > All the best, > Byron >

2 1

Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee held on Saturday 22 March 2014 in
by Bruce Tonkin March 27, 2014

March 27, 2014

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-22mar14… Approved Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee 22 March 2014 1. Main Agenda a. Outstanding GAC Advice Rationale for Resolution 2014.03.22.NG01 b. Approval of Disbursements to New gTLD Auction Service Provider Rationale for Resolution 2014.03.22.NG02 c. Approval of Registry Agreement Specification 13 for Brand Category of Applicants d. Reconsideration Request 13-13, Christopher Barron/GOProud Rationale for Resolution 2014.03.22.NG03 e. Reconsideration Request 14-7, Asia Green IT System Ltd Rationale for Resolution 2014.03.22.NG04 f. Update on proposed review mechanism for perceived inconsistent string confusion objection determinations 1. Main Agenda: a. Outstanding GAC Advice Whereas, on 11 September 2013, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) issued advice to the ICANN Board that it had finalized its consideration of the strings .WINE and .VIN. Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board that there was no GAC consensus advice on additional safeguards for .WINE and .VIN, and the applications for .WINE and .VIN should proceed through the normal evaluation process. Whereas, in the Buenos Aires Communiqué, the GAC noted that the Board may wish to seek a clear understanding of the legally complex and politically sensitive background on its advice regarding .WINE and .VIN in order to consider the appropriate next steps of delegating the two strings. Whereas, the NGPC commissioned an analysis [http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/analysis-wine-vin-22mar14-en… ] of the legally complex and politically sensitive background on the GAC's advice regarding .WINE and .VIN, which the NGPC considered as part of its deliberations on the GAC's advice. Whereas, the Bylaws (Article XI, Section 2.1) require the ICANN Board to address advice put to the Board by the GAC. Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2014.03.22.NG01), the NGPC accepts the GAC advice identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-09-09-wine and vin, and directs the President and CEO, or his designee, that the applications for .WINE and .VIN should proceed through the normal evaluation process. b. Approval of Disbursements to New gTLD Auction Service Provider Whereas, on 25 September 2010, the Board approved the New gTLD Application Processing budget (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#1) Whereas, on 20 June 2011, the Board authorized the President and CEO to implement the New gTLD Program and approved the expenditures related to the New gTLD Program as detailed in section 7 of the Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm) Whereas, the Board previously authorized the CEO or his designee to enter all contracts or statements of work with, and make all disbursements to, all gTLD Service Providers so long as the contract and disbursement amounts are contemplated in the approved budget for such expenditures (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-2-14mar12-en.htm…) Whereas, on 22 August 2013, the Board formally adopted the FY14 Operating Plan and Budget, which included the details of anticipated expenditures related to the New gTLD Program (http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/adopted-opplan-budget-fy14-22aug13… [PDF, 1.05 MB]). Whereas, to date ICANN has entered into a Master Services Agreement with Power Auctions LLC (the "Auction Provider") to serve as the entity to provide ICANN facilitated auctions as a last resort for resolving String Contention Sets, as described in the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) section 4.3. Whereas, the Auction Provider could provide in excess of $500,000 worth of auction services in any given billing cycle and ICANN must be prepared to timely pay for those services. Resolved (2014.03.22.NG02), the President and CEO or his designee is authorized to enter all contracts or statements of work with, and make all disbursements to, the Auction Provider so long as the contract and disbursement amounts are contemplated in the approved budget for such expenditures. c. Approval of Registry Agreement Specification 13 for Brand Category of Applicants No resolution taken. d. Reconsideration Request 13-13, Christopher Barron/GOProud Whereas, on 13 March 2013, GOProud Inc. filed a community objection against dotGAY's LLC's application for .GAY. Whereas, 12 April 2013, the International Centre for Expertise of the International Chamber of Commerce's ("ICC") dismissed GoProud Inc.'s community objection for failure to timely cure a deficiency in the objection. Whereas, on 19 October 2013, Christopher Barron ("Barron") filed a Reconsideration Request ("Request 13-13") seeking reconsideration of the ICC's decision to dismiss GOProud, Inc.'s community objection to dotGAY LLC's application for .GAY. Whereas, on 12 December 2013, the Board of Governance Committee ("BGC") considered the issues raised in Request 13-13 and recommended that Request 13-13 be denied because Barron has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration and the New gTLD Program Committee agrees. Whereas, ICANN has since confirmed that the GOProud Inc. entity that filed the community objection against dotGAY LLC's application for .GAY has been dissolved and that the dissolved GOProud Inc. entity was reorganized and reincorporated as a different legal entity under the name GOProud Inc. 2.0. Whereas, despite numerous attempts, ICANN has been unable to contact Barron regarding his affiliation with GOProud Inc. 2.0. Whereas, ICANN has confirmed with GOProud Inc. 2.0 that Barron is not associated with the entity and that GOProud Inc. 2.0 has absolved itself from the community objection against dotGAY LLC's application for .GAY and Request 13-13. Resolved (2014.03.22.NG03), the New gTLD Program Committee ("NGPC") concludes that Request 13-13 and any potential relief sought thereunder is moot because an entity does not exist to pursue the community objection brought by the dissolved GOProud Inc. against dotGAY LLC's application for .GAY, and on that basis the NGPC denies Request 13-13. e. Reconsideration Request 14-7, Asia Green IT System Ltd. Whereas, Asia Green IT System Ltd.'s ("Requester") Reconsideration Request 14-7, sought reconsideration of the New gTLD Program Committee's ("NGPC") 5 February 2014 resolution deferring the contracting process for the .ISLAM and .HALAL strings until certain noted conflicts have been resolved. Whereas, Request 14-7 also seeks reconsideration of an alleged staff action implementing the NGPC's 5 February 2014 resolution through the 7 February 2014 letter from Steve Crocker, Chairman of the ICANN Board, to the Requester. Whereas, the Board of Governance Committee ("BGC") considered the issues raised in Request 14-7. Whereas, the BGC recommended that Request 14-7 be denied because the Requester has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration and the New gTLD Program Committee agrees. Resolved (2014.03.22.NG04), the New gTLD Program Committee adopts the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 14-7, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/14-7/recomm… [PDF, 149 KB]. f. Update on proposed review mechanism for perceived inconsistent string confusion objection determinations No resolution taken.

1 0

Mikey's late-night charter
by Mike O'Connor March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

hi all, i’ve just pushed a draft charter up to the IANA transition list. i could really use some pizza, but i’m too sleepy to go find it. where’s the microwave when you need it. anyway, here’s my quirky draft. feel free to distribute it. night night, mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Resolutions adopted at the GNSO Council Public meeting in Singapore on 26 March 2014.
by Glen de Saint Géry March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

Dear All, The following resolutions were adopted at the GNSO Council Public meeting in Singapore on 26 March 2014. 1. The Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop a Finalized Framework of Operating Principles for Future Cross Community Working Groups was approved. WHEREAS 1. In March 2012 the GNSO Council approved<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201203> a set of initial draft principles<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf> relating to the formation and operation of cross community working groups (CWGs) and directed<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201203> ICANN staff to solicit feedback on the principles from the other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs); 2. In June 2013 the ccNSO provided detailed feedback<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/30345130/ccNSO%20Feedback.…> suggesting further clarifications and possible additions to the initial draft principles; 3. In October 2013 the GNSO Council approved<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201310> the formation of a Drafting Team to develop a Charter for a new CWG to take forward and synthesize the initial work of the GNSO and the ccNSO feedback, and develop a final framework of operating principles that can function effectively across all SO/ACs relating to the formation, operation, decision making and termination of future CWGs (the "Final Framework"); 4. The Drafting Team, co-chaired by the ccNSO and GNSO, has now completed its work on a proposed draft Charter for this new CWG. RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter and appoints Avri Doria as the GNSO Council liaison to the CWG that will develop the Final Framework. 2. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for volunteers for the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules. 3. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the WG, the Co-Chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the interim co-chairs of the CWG. 2. A charter for a Cross-Community Working Group to develop a framework for the use of Country and Territory names as TLDs (UCTN WG was adopted Whereas, 1. The ccNSO Study group on the use of Names for Country and Territory published its Final Report in September 2013 (http://ccnso.icann.org/node/42227 ). The first of the two recommendations of the Study Group to the ccNSO Council was to establish a cross community working group to: * Further review the current status of representations of country and territory names, as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures; * Provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SOs and ACs; and * Should such a framework be deemed feasible, provide detailed advice as to the content of the framework. 2. The ccNSO Council adopted the recommendations and, as the objective of the proposed Working Group is considered to be of common interest to the broader community, the GNSO, in addition to other Supporting Organisations (SOs), Advisory Committees (ACs) and others, was invited to participate in the working group on equal footing. 3. The ccNSO submitted a proposed charter [include link] for this Cross-Community Working Group, which the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed. RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/unct-framework-14mar14-en.pdf and appoints Gabriela Szlak and Brian Winterfeldt as the GNSO Council liaison to the Cross-Community Working Group to advice on the feasibility of a framework for the use of Country and Territory names as TLDs, and develop such a framework if deemed feasible. 2.The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for volunteers for this CWG, each in accordance with its own rules 3.The Charter of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in GNSO Policy Development Process was adopted WHEREAS 1. There is wide agreement on the need to engage the GAC early within the GNSO policy development process; 2. This issue has been identified by: * GAC-Board Joint Working Group (JWG) * Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT1) * Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group (BGRI-WG) * Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2); 3. The GNSO Council and the GAC jointly formed a Consultation Group to begin work on this topic in November 2013; 4. The Consultation Group, co-chaired by the GAC and GNSO, has now completed its work on a proposed draft Charter for this new Consultation Group (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-charter-19mar14-en.pdf)<https://community.icann.org/x/PyLRAg> RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-charter-19mar14-en.pdf) and appoints Mikey O'Connor as the GNSO Council liaison to the Consultation Group. 4. Motion to Close the Joint IDN Working Group and Next Steps for Certain IDN-related Issues WHEREAS 1. The Joint IDN Working Group (JIG) was chartered<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/16843360/jiwg-charter.pdf?…> by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils in 2009 to discuss issues of common interest between the two Supporting Organizations in relation to Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), in particular, IDN top-level domains (TLDs). The charter was extended in 2010, after the adoption of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan. ; 2. The JIG identified three issues of common interest, viz. single character IDN TLDs, IDN Variant TLDs, and Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs; 3. On single character IDN TLDs, the JIG's Final Report<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/16843360/jig-initial-repor…> recommending that these be delegated in the New gTLD Program and the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Program was approved by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils, and sent to the ICANN Board in May 2011; the JIG prepared a follow-up letter for the ccNSO and GNSO Councils, which after adoption was jointly sent<http://ccnso.icann.org/node/29943> to the ICANN Board in February 2012; 4. On IDN Variant TLDs, the JIG published an Initial Report<https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-idn-tld-variant-policies-initial-…> in March 2011, and ICANN has launched an IDN Variant TLD Program to develop solutions to ensure a secure and stable delegation of IDN Variant TLDs; 5. On Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs, the JIG published its Final Report<http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-jig/presentation-jig-final-i…> in November 2013, and ICANN will be launching a project to facilitate universal acceptance of all TLDs at the ICANN meeting in Singapore; 6. In November 2013, recognizing that further work needed to be done in relation to IDNs, in particular IDN variants and universal acceptance of IDNs, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils requested that the JIG put forward suggestions on how to deal with these issues and deliver these suggestions to the Councils by the ICANN Singapore Meetings in March 2014. 7. Members of the JIG support the ICANN staff recommendations that the ccNSO and GNSO Councils should each continue to monitor ICANN's community efforts to resolve issues relating to single character IDN TLDs, IDN Variant TLDs and Universal Acceptance of All TLDs (including IDN TLDs). RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council believes that in view of the ongoing community work at ICANN on these issues the JIG may now be closed, and will terminate the extension of the JIG as outlined in the charter. 2. The GNSO Council will continue to monitor the progress of the various community-based efforts to resolve the issues raised by the JIG, and will evaluate the need for any further policy work on a periodic basis; and 3. The GNSO Council thanks the JIG for all its hard work in ensuring that solutions to these important issues are developed through community-based efforts; 5.GNSO Operating Procedures to Address Resubmission of a Motion and Working Group Self Assessment WHEREAS: 1. The GNSO Council has determined that: a. the current GNSO Operating Procedures do not contain a specific provision on the possibility of resubmitting a motion for voting by the GNSO Council; and b. the current GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures, do not contain a mechanism for Working Groups (WGs) to self-assess their work. 2. The GNSO Council requested that the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) should consider whether there should be a modification to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to address the issue of the resubmission of a motion and to develop a survey that WGs could use to perform a self-assessment once their work is complete. 3. Accordingly, the SCI developed procedures to be inserted in Section 4.3 (Motions and Votes) of the GNSO Operating Procedures that provide for the resubmission of a motion to the GNSO Council for consideration at a subsequent meeting of the Council, if three criteria are met: a. providing of an explanation for the resubmission; b. timely publication of the resubmitted motion; and c. seconding of the resubmitted motion by a Councilor from each of the two GNSO Houses. The proposed new procedures also include limitations and exceptions for the resubmission of a motion concerning the timing of its submission, disallowing any material changes to the original motion, and clarifying that a previously-submitted motion not voted upon by the GNSO Council is considered a new motion (and not resubmitted) if it is brought before the GNSO Council again. 4. In addition, the SCI developed and tested a WG self-assessment questionnaire, as a result of which the SCI is recommending that procedures for administering the self-assessment be added as a new Section 7.0 to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures. 5. The revised GNSO Operating Procedures, including the proposed additions to the Working Group Guidelines, were put out for public comment for a period of a minimum of 21 days beginning on 10 February 2014 and ending on 03 March 2014 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-op-procedures-10feb14-en.h…) as required by the ICANN Bylaws. 6. As there were no comments received in the public forum the SCI deemed that no further changes were necessary nor was a public comment reply period needed. RESOLVED 1. The GNSO Council adopts the revised Operating Procedures including the new provisions concerning the resubmission of a motion and a Working Group self-assessment - see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/op-procedures-12mar14-en.pdf 1. The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. 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<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Country and Territory Names Working Group
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

Dear all: I confirm that Ms. Heather Forrest will be pleased to serve as the Co-Chair of the Cross Community Working Group on Country and Territory Names. For your convenience and consideration, here are her expression of interest and her qualifications. I am pleased to have this opportunity to send you the following statement of my qualifications in relation to the position of co-chair of the Working Group on Country and Territory Names. I am a legal academic, currently serving as Deputy Dean of Law at Australian Catholic University in Melbourne, Australia. I am a member of the IPC and have actively contributed to the constituency since joining at the Seoul meeting in October, 2009. I have attended 10 ICANN meetings; I represented the IPC in the inaugural ICANN Academy Leadership Training in Buenos Aires. When the ICANN Board voted in June, 2008 to launch a new expansion process, I commenced a doctoral thesis on the protection offered by international law and ICANN DNS policy of geographic names. My project was undertaken at the Institute for International and European Economic Law of the University of Berne, Switzerland, where I had the opportunity to work closely with WIPO and other international materials and national and international law-making participants. My thesis was awarded highest honours, summa cum laude, in April, 2012 and it was published in 2013 by Wolters Kluwer as a book entitled Protection of Geographic Names in International Law and Domain Name System Policy. Reviews of the book are available online. The book has been nominated, and is currently being assessed, for a Swiss national research prize in law, the Walther Hug Foundation Prize. I have additionally published articles on various aspects of geographic name protection and ICANN policy-making in refereed academic journals. I have been invited by the International Trademark Association to chair a panel on the issue of geographic name protection later this year. From August 2011 to August 2012, I was employed as a senior consultant by a well-known technical back-end provider. In this role I advised several geographic new gTLD applicants; this experience provided me with the unique opportunity to put policy into practice and understand its feasibility in registry operations. I was appointed by the GNSO Council to the ccNSO Study Group on Country and Territory Names. I attended all meetings and worked collegially with SG members and supporting ICANN staff. My significant comments and contributions to the SG's Draft and Final Reports are evidenced in transcripts of SG meetings and in my updates to the IPC list. I was invited to advise on the drafting of the WG charter, which I support. I would be honoured to serve as co-chair of the WG if the GNSO Council approves of my doing so. I look forward to your feedback, and toward the prompt appointment of a Co-Chair for this CCWG. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244 brian.winterfeldt(a)kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> =========================================================== CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. =========================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies. =========================================================== NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997). ===========================================================

1 0

Brazil's Marco Civil approved by Chamber of Deputies!!
by Magaly Pazello March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

Dear counselors, I would like to share a great news for us Brazilians here in ICANN, after nearly four-years battle, "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights Framework) was approved by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies. In the case someone would like to know a little bit more here a short text in English with an evaluation of the approval of Marco Civil, the text was written by Luiz Moncau and Pedro Mizukami from CTS/FGV: http://infojustice.org/archives/32527 The ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the cause, Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter: "Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!" ("We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality, freedom of expression and protection of privacy!") This victory must also be shared shared with all friends around the world who supported this fight keeping it on the agenda all though the years. Cheers! Magaly Pazello

1 0

Re: [council] IANA transition
by Marika Konings March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

To further clarify, 27 March is not an ultimate deadline for input as noted in the announcement, input from the community discussions will be compiled and incorporated into the consultation materials anticipated to be posted on 7 April for public comment and community feedback. Best regards, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday 26 March 2014 07:22 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] IANA transition As mentioned during the meeting, the deadline for comments regarding the process is 27 March 2014 midnight UTC. See http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition and http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/functions-transfer-process-14m ar14-en.pdf for the full timeline. The mailing list archives can be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/ Best regards, Marika

1 0

IANA transition
by Marika Konings March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

As mentioned during the meeting, the deadline for comments regarding the process is 27 March 2014 midnight UTC. See http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition and http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/functions-transfer-process-14m ar14-en.pdf for the full timeline. The mailing list archives can be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/ Best regards, Marika

1 0

Cross-community UCTN-WG
by Ching Chiao March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

Dear all, As just mentioned in the Council public meeting, I'd like to volunteer and serve as the Co-Chair for the cross community working group to develop a framework for the use of country and territory names as TLDs. In the past few years I've been observing this cc-driven WG as well as participating in other cross-community WG. Combined with my own ccTLD experiences and background, I'd make sure this WG put forward a constructive and useful process for defining both ASCII and IDN UCTN TLDs. Thanks! Best regards, Ching

1 0