December 2015 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: Board Briefing + Q&A to SO-AC-SG-C-RALO Leaders - 17 Dec 13:00 UTC
by James M. Bladel Dec. 17, 2015

Dec. 17, 2015

Colleagues - Earlier today the Board briefed members of the SO/AC/RALO community with their comments and feedback on the most recent CCWG-ACCT report & recommendations. I know that several folks from the Council were on the call, but for those that weren¹t able to attend, I will be sure to post a link to the recording/transcript as soon as these are made available. In the meantime, please see this note (below) from the CCWG co-chairs with an update on the overall process & timeline. Thank you, J. On 12/17/15, 6:15 , "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> wrote: >All, > >As none of the CCWG co chairs can attend this briefing, the following is >a >quick update from us. > >There have been questions with respect to the next steps for the work of >the >CCWG. The questions were asked particularly in the light of the comments >on >our third report by the ICANN Board. > >Firstly, we would like to express our appreciation for the Board's >thoughtful contributions and the efforts that were put into a >comprehensive >comment on numerous aspects of our report. As mentioned during the CCWG >call >earlier this week, the Board comments will be analyzed as other comments >from Chartering Organizations and the community. > >Thus, the CCWG has not changed its approach to the next steps that need >to >be taken. Our report remains to be the basis for comments. > >As we previously announced, the CCWG is now awaiting feedback from the >Chartering Organizations to then assess whether a supplemental draft will >be >required. Additionally, the CCWG will assess whether comments require the >group to make changes to its recommendations and proactively reach out to >the Chartering Organizations. We are reiterating this point to confirm to >the Chartering Organizations that their potential statements of support >will >not extend to potential future changes that substantially change the >recommendations. > >While we have asked the Chartering Oranizations to respond by December >21st, >we know that some organizations need a few more days to provide feedback. >Thus, we expect an assessment of all input to be conducted early January. >It >will be at that point in time when a decision on the requirement of a >supplemental draft will be made. > >Finally, we would like to remind everyone that comments were requested >particularly with respect to support or rejection of the CCWG >recommendations. Issues or recommendations that relate to the >implementation >of these, shall be discussed an taken into consideration at a later >stage. >It is our impression that the issues raised by should be dealt with and >at >that stage. > >Best regards and have a fruitful call, >Thomas, Leon & Mathieu >CCWG co-chairs >

1 0

Friendly Amendment: Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Austin, Donna Dec. 17, 2015

Dec. 17, 2015

Hi All It has been bought to my attention that as a result of the PDP Improvements Initiative, it was agreed that in an attempt to streamline the process, the Council should be given the opportunity to adopt the Charter for a PDP at the same time as the initiation of the PDP. In order to maintain consistency with the PDP Improvements Initiative, I am submitting a friendly amendment to my motion of 6 December 2016, to include a separate, but associated, motion explicitly seeking Council approval of the draft Charter contained in the Final Issue Report in addition to the initiation of the PDP. The resolved clause of the first motion has been amended to take into account the second motion. My apologies for any confusion. Regards Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin(a)neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna Sent: Sunday, 6 December 2015 7:40 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: steve.chan(a)icann.org Subject: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures All Following Steve Chan's email of Friday 4 December 2015 that provided the GNSO Council with a copy of the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, attached is a motion proposing the initiation of a PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures and convening of the PDP WG as soon as possible. Regards Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin(a)neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_neusta…> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_compan…> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_neustar…> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, 4 December 2015 3:16 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Dear Councilors, Please find attached for your consideration the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is also available here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issue…>. You may recall that the Council requested an Issue Report on the topic at the Buenos Aires meeting in June 2015. Under the ICANN Bylaws, an Issue Report is a mandatory preceding step to a possible PDP that is initiated by the GNSO Council. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, with the forum closing on 30 October 2015. The Report of Public Comments received is expected to be published on 4 December 2015 and made available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…>. In preparing this Final Issue Report, all the public comments received were analyzed and, where relevant, incorporated into the Final Issue Report. The Report of Public Comments has also been added as a separate Annex. The staff recommendation is that the Council initiate a PDP to consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations, and implementation guidelines; (ii) developing new policy recommendations, and/or (iii) supplementing or developing new implementation guidance. The relevant motions are currently in preparation for proposal by a GNSO Councilor. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

2 1

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#192]
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mercredi 16 décembre 2015 20:35 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#192] Name of Officer: * Tapani Tarvainen Officer Email Address: * tapani.tarvainen(a)effi.org<mailto:tapani.tarvainen@effi.org> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, December 16, 2015 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Marilia Maciel won't be able to attend the GNSO Council meeting. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Edward Morris will submit Marilia's vote by proxy for the motions to be approved, and any other matters needing a vote. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Thursday, December 17, 2015 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Edward Morris

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#191]
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#191] Name of Officer: * Greg Shatan Officer Email Address: * gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, December 16, 2015 GNSO Organization: * Intellectual Property Constituency Officer Position or Title: * President Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Personal reasons; family health matter. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * All actions. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, December 18, 2015 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Paul McGrady

2 1

FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
by Phil Corwin Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

FYI, just blogged on this... http://www.circleid.com/posts/20151216_fy16_approp_act_extends_iana_transit… Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

Re: [council] GNSO Council questions concerning security issues in Marrakech
by James M. Bladel Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

Dear Glen - Thank you for following up with Nick on these open items. If Councilors or their SGs have any additional questions regarding security & safety preparations for ICANN55 in Marrakech, could I ask that these be directed those to the sub team that is planning this meeting? That effort is being led by Susan, Amr, and Donna. Thanks— J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 4:08 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] GNSO Council questions concerning security issues in Marrakech Dear Councillors, As a follow-up to the security briefing that Nick Tomasso and his team provided the Council with on 19 November and the questions the Council posed on the mailing list, please find the responses in italics below: • With the posting publicly of the location of where the security details will be at the venue, should we be concerned that others may gain access to this plan? (FYI the presentation has been removed from the website) No, it should not have been posted publicly and for that reason was removed from the website. • Can we get an update from the Moroccan authorities about security enhancements outside the venue, e.g. the airport? We have developed our security requirements for the Marrakech Meeting and will be working in concert with Moroccan authorities to implement them. This will include security arrangements away from the meeting venue. We will share general information on that plan once completed. · Donna Austin, RySG: Can we have the details about the firm Chris works for? Happy to have this in writing. Control Risks is an international firm with extensive expertise in managing security for large events. https://www.controlrisks.com/en/services/security-risk/travel-security Chris Clark’s bio is attached. He is a contractor reporting to Nick and responsible for managing all aspects of our meetings security program. · As well as to the booking issues delegates were having at the Palmeraie Resort in Marrakech. The problem was due to a lack of communication between the sales and reservations departments on the terms and conditions of our contract. Reservation restrictions have now been removed. Delegate reservations can be modified or cancelled without incurring penalty fees. Guest room availability following the meeting, beginning on the Friday, March 11, is limited and those dates may appear as “sold out” online. Delegates wishing to extend their stays may contact Loubna El Mekkaoui for assistance. Please refer to the “ICANN Meeting” when inquiring. Loubna El Mekkaoui, Sales Manager, Palmeraie Resorts (address will be provided on request) Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen De : Glen de Saint Géry Envoyé : mercredi 25 novembre 2015 19:45 À : Nick Tomasso Cc : Glen de Saint Géry; Mary Wong; Marika Konings; Geoff Bickers; Chris.Clark(a)controlrisks.com<mailto:Chris.Clark@controlrisks.com>; David Olive Objet : GNSO Council questions concerning security issues in Marrakech Dear Nick, Thank you and your team very much for attending the Council call on Thursday 19 November 2015. The Councillors appreciated your update and asked whether you would please be so kind as to provide responses to these questions: • With the posting publicly of the location of where the security details will be at the venue, should we be concerned that others may gain access to this plan? (FYI the presentation has been removed from the website) • Can we have the details about the firm Chris works for sent to the Council? [NOTE: this has been done – any additional information/follow up?] • Can we get an update from the Moroccan authorities about security enhancements outside the venue, e.g. the airport? • Can ICANN staff provide updates about concerns that the rooms in Marrakech are: (1) non-refundable/changeable; (2) to be prepaid; and (3) not available on Thursday night? Apparently the hotel is also asking people to email a scanned copy of the front and back of their credit cards – all these are very discouraging and difficult for attendees, especially business travelers. [NOTE: much of this has been done – any additional information/follow up?] Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Re: [council] RySG Endorsement Candidates for CCT-RT
by James M. Bladel Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

Acknowledged. Thanks Keith. J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 11:38 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] RySG Endorsement Candidates for CCT-RT Hi all, The RySG respectfully submits the following 3 candidates for endorsement: · Jeff Neuman · Jordyn Buchanan · Nacho Amadoz Thanks and regards, Keith From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 12:28 PM To: Jennifer Gore Standiford; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: RrSG endorsement announcement Acknowledged, Jennifer. Thank you. J. From: Jennifer Standiford <JStandiford(a)web.com<mailto:JStandiford@web.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 11:18 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Subject: RrSG endorsement announcement James and Council Members, The Registrar Stakeholder Group would like to support the endorsement of the following three (3) candidates for the CCT Review Team. ? Calvin Brown ? Gregory DiBiase ? Ben Anderson Thank you, Jennifer Jennifer Gore Standiford Senior Policy Director Web.com 12808 Gran Bay Parkway, West | Jacksonville, FL 32258 Office: 904. 680-6919| Cell: 904. 401-4347 [cid:image003.png@01CFD6B5.902BADC0] From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 3:31 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Hi folks - Just a reminder to please take a look at the revised CCT-RT endorsement process (attached), and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Ideally, we should get this finalized in the next day or so to allow the SGs to meet & discuss their slate of candidates seeking endorsement. FOr those on the go, the key points are: (a) increasing the GNSO delegation to 8-10, and (b) tasking each SG to submit 0-2 candidates for endorsement. Marika has reached out to her counterpart(s) and asked each candidate to respond to the GNSO-specific questions, with candidates given until 7 DEC to respond. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy Begin forwarded message: From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: November 24, 2015 at 18:48:05 CST To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Colleagues - Getting caught up on on this thread (in reverse order!) and agree with key points raised by Paul, Wolf & Volker. I concur with Wolf-Ulrich that we should shorten the list to preserve the weight & value of GNSO endorsement, but to Paul’s point, having a slate of 4 candidates may have covered previous RTs, but will not provide sufficient coverage/balance here, as the CCT-RT disproportionately results from, and affects, the GNSO Community. Off the cuff, the right number of candidates is probably 8-10, which would make this RT a bit larger than usual, with the GNSO delegation its largest component. I agree with Marika’s suggestion to reach out to candidates seeking GNSO endorsement and ask them to specifically address the GNSO criteria, and that we also ask our Liaisons to provide some insights on how the ALAC and ccNSO are selecting their candidates. I think the draft process and timeline that Wolf posted on 21 NOV (attached here) is generally hitting the right deliverables, but I think we need an extra couple of days to to finalize the process and allow candidates to respond to Marika’s request. We can then proceed to ask the SGs for their endorsed candidates. With that in mind, please take a look at the draft process (attached), and respond as soon as possible (but definitively by Monday 30 NOV) if they have any concerns/objections/edits? Thanks— J. From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 14:13 To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER I understand the concerns, in particular since no limit has been preset with respect to the review team membership. Can our liaisons – Olivier for ALAC and Patrick for ccNSO – disclose how their respective SO is dealing with the question? From the published list of applications – maybe it’s not the most recent one - I count 9 ALAC, 3 ccNSO, 3 GAC, 27 GNSO and 31 Independent. So “dozens” could just come from the GNSO. Limitation seems to me necessary to let the GNSO appear being credible. And we should avoid discussions between our groups about which applicant may be more appropriate in comparison to others. The SGs/constituencies should be given the right to handle this. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 5:24 PM To:McGrady, Paul D.<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com> ; Volker Greimann<mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net> ; WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; Bladel James<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc:GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER I share this concern. This is a very important Review, covering a range of topics. I don't see that many candidates who have expertise in all required areas, which is not surprising. We need to make sure we have enough people, to ensure balance across a range of factors, and that the representation of interests is fair. Seems more like 2 per SG to me. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-11-24 9:58, McGrady, Paul D. wrote: Thanks Volker. Do we have any information on how many other AC’s and SO’s are endorsing? What I don’t want to see happen is that we put up 4 everyone else puts up dozens and we end up with 1 in the final result. Without information on how many everyone else may endorse, I don’t see how we can be confident that our self-limitation will have its intended affect. Do we know what everyone else is doing? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963 F: +1 (312) 558-5700 Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> [Winston & Strawn LLP] From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 8:55 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; WUKnoben; Bladel James Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER I think if we cast too broad a net and recommend too many candidates, the recommendation of the council will lose its punch. By focussing on a limited number of candidates, we truly endorse them. Having one candidate from each SG makes sense as it ensures all SGs are represented. Best, Volker Am 24.11.2015 um 15:44 schrieb McGrady, Paul D.: Thanks Wolf-Ulrich. I’d like to understand why we would limit our nominations to just one applicant per Stakeholder group for a total of 4 from the GNSO. Are the other SOs and ACs adopting the same limitations? Is this an ICANN requirement? It seems to me that the GNSO will be disproportionately affected by the outcomes of the CCT Review, so unless self-limiting is required, I guess I don’t see the upside and would prefer to endorse as many candidates as possible and just have the various groups lobby one level up for their people. Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this! Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963 F: +1 (312) 558-5700 Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> [Winston & Strawn LLP] From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 4:20 AM To: Bladel James Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Fw: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Hi James, by picking this up: could you please make reference to my email from 21 Nov with respect to the process? As time is short – and Thanksgiving is close – I wonder whether the council agrees to the process suggested. I’ve already alerted the CSG and am confident to receive some input. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Marika Konings<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 3:22 AM To: Council<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER For your information. From: <soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Charla Shambley <charla.shambley(a)icann.org<mailto:charla.shambley@icann.org>> Date: Monday 23 November 2015 20:01 To: "mailto:%27soac-infoalert@icann.org'" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Cc: Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian(a)icann.org<mailto:eleeza.agopian@icann.org>>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org<mailto:Margie.Milam@icann.org>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Dear SO/AC leaders, We are pleased to report that we received 72 applications from individuals interested in serving on the next review team under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) that will examine the impact of new gTLDS in the areas of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT). Before final selection of the CCT Review Team is completed by the ICANN CEO and the GAC Chair, we are seeking endorsements from any SO/AC for those applicants<https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/aoc/cct/applications> who have expressed an interest to serve as their representatives. If you choose to endorse an applicant, please send your endorsements by email to reviews(a)icann.org<mailto:reviews@icann.org> by the updated deadline of 17 December at 23:59 UTC. In order to help with the endorsement process, below are answers to some frequently asked questions: Is there a set allocation for SO/AC representatives? Under the AoC, there is no set allocation per SO/AC or per stakeholder group, nor is there a maximum for total size of the review team. How Many Members Will be on the Review Team? There is no set number of volunteers for the Review Team. However, keep in mind that the review team should be comprised of members that collectively have expertise covering the wide range of topics that are within the mandate of this review team. Past AoC review teams were comprised of approximately 16 members. What Were the Criteria for Applicants? The call for volunteers<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en> lists the criteria that we were looking for. The composition should be based on several factors, including: · Subject matter expertise – o New gTLD application process/objections o Intellectual Property o Security & Malicious Abuse of the DNS o Competition Issues o Consumer Protection o Public Policy Concerns o Trust in the DNS · Representation across the interested SO/ACs · Diversity · Regional representation For more information, please see: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-11-16-en. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.

1 0

RrSG endorsement announcement
by Jennifer Gore Standiford Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

James and Council Members, The Registrar Stakeholder Group would like to support the endorsement of the following three (3) candidates for the CCT Review Team. · Calvin Brown · Gregory DiBiase · Ben Anderson Thank you, Jennifer Jennifer Gore Standiford Senior Policy Director Web.com 12808 Gran Bay Parkway, West | Jacksonville, FL 32258 Office: 904. 680-6919| Cell: 904. 401-4347 [cid:image003.png@01CFD6B5.902BADC0] From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 3:31 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Hi folks - Just a reminder to please take a look at the revised CCT-RT endorsement process (attached), and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Ideally, we should get this finalized in the next day or so to allow the SGs to meet & discuss their slate of candidates seeking endorsement. FOr those on the go, the key points are: (a) increasing the GNSO delegation to 8-10, and (b) tasking each SG to submit 0-2 candidates for endorsement. Marika has reached out to her counterpart(s) and asked each candidate to respond to the GNSO-specific questions, with candidates given until 7 DEC to respond. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy Begin forwarded message: From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: November 24, 2015 at 18:48:05 CST To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Colleagues - Getting caught up on on this thread (in reverse order!) and agree with key points raised by Paul, Wolf & Volker. I concur with Wolf-Ulrich that we should shorten the list to preserve the weight & value of GNSO endorsement, but to Paul’s point, having a slate of 4 candidates may have covered previous RTs, but will not provide sufficient coverage/balance here, as the CCT-RT disproportionately results from, and affects, the GNSO Community. Off the cuff, the right number of candidates is probably 8-10, which would make this RT a bit larger than usual, with the GNSO delegation its largest component. I agree with Marika’s suggestion to reach out to candidates seeking GNSO endorsement and ask them to specifically address the GNSO criteria, and that we also ask our Liaisons to provide some insights on how the ALAC and ccNSO are selecting their candidates. I think the draft process and timeline that Wolf posted on 21 NOV (attached here) is generally hitting the right deliverables, but I think we need an extra couple of days to to finalize the process and allow candidates to respond to Marika’s request. We can then proceed to ask the SGs for their endorsed candidates. With that in mind, please take a look at the draft process (attached), and respond as soon as possible (but definitively by Monday 30 NOV) if they have any concerns/objections/edits? Thanks— J. From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 14:13 To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER I understand the concerns, in particular since no limit has been preset with respect to the review team membership. Can our liaisons – Olivier for ALAC and Patrick for ccNSO – disclose how their respective SO is dealing with the question? From the published list of applications – maybe it’s not the most recent one - I count 9 ALAC, 3 ccNSO, 3 GAC, 27 GNSO and 31 Independent. So “dozens” could just come from the GNSO. Limitation seems to me necessary to let the GNSO appear being credible. And we should avoid discussions between our groups about which applicant may be more appropriate in comparison to others. The SGs/constituencies should be given the right to handle this. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 5:24 PM To:McGrady, Paul D.<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com> ; Volker Greimann<mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net> ; WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; Bladel James<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc:GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER I share this concern. This is a very important Review, covering a range of topics. I don't see that many candidates who have expertise in all required areas, which is not surprising. We need to make sure we have enough people, to ensure balance across a range of factors, and that the representation of interests is fair. Seems more like 2 per SG to me. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-11-24 9:58, McGrady, Paul D. wrote: Thanks Volker. Do we have any information on how many other AC’s and SO’s are endorsing? What I don’t want to see happen is that we put up 4 everyone else puts up dozens and we end up with 1 in the final result. Without information on how many everyone else may endorse, I don’t see how we can be confident that our self-limitation will have its intended affect. Do we know what everyone else is doing? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963 F: +1 (312) 558-5700 Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> [Winston & Strawn LLP] From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 8:55 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; WUKnoben; Bladel James Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER I think if we cast too broad a net and recommend too many candidates, the recommendation of the council will lose its punch. By focussing on a limited number of candidates, we truly endorse them. Having one candidate from each SG makes sense as it ensures all SGs are represented. Best, Volker Am 24.11.2015 um 15:44 schrieb McGrady, Paul D.: Thanks Wolf-Ulrich. I’d like to understand why we would limit our nominations to just one applicant per Stakeholder group for a total of 4 from the GNSO. Are the other SOs and ACs adopting the same limitations? Is this an ICANN requirement? It seems to me that the GNSO will be disproportionately affected by the outcomes of the CCT Review, so unless self-limiting is required, I guess I don’t see the upside and would prefer to endorse as many candidates as possible and just have the various groups lobby one level up for their people. Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this! Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963 F: +1 (312) 558-5700 Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> [Winston & Strawn LLP] From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 4:20 AM To: Bladel James Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Fw: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Hi James, by picking this up: could you please make reference to my email from 21 Nov with respect to the process? As time is short – and Thanksgiving is close – I wonder whether the council agrees to the process suggested. I’ve already alerted the CSG and am confident to receive some input. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Marika Konings<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 3:22 AM To: Council<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER For your information. From: <soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Charla Shambley <charla.shambley(a)icann.org<mailto:charla.shambley@icann.org>> Date: Monday 23 November 2015 20:01 To: "mailto:%27soac-infoalert@icann.org'" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Cc: Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian(a)icann.org<mailto:eleeza.agopian@icann.org>>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org<mailto:Margie.Milam@icann.org>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Dear SO/AC leaders, We are pleased to report that we received 72 applications from individuals interested in serving on the next review team under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) that will examine the impact of new gTLDS in the areas of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT). Before final selection of the CCT Review Team is completed by the ICANN CEO and the GAC Chair, we are seeking endorsements from any SO/AC for those applicants<https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/aoc/cct/applications> who have expressed an interest to serve as their representatives. If you choose to endorse an applicant, please send your endorsements by email to reviews(a)icann.org<mailto:reviews@icann.org> by the updated deadline of 17 December at 23:59 UTC. In order to help with the endorsement process, below are answers to some frequently asked questions: Is there a set allocation for SO/AC representatives? Under the AoC, there is no set allocation per SO/AC or per stakeholder group, nor is there a maximum for total size of the review team. How Many Members Will be on the Review Team? There is no set number of volunteers for the Review Team. However, keep in mind that the review team should be comprised of members that collectively have expertise covering the wide range of topics that are within the mandate of this review team. Past AoC review teams were comprised of approximately 16 members. What Were the Criteria for Applicants? The call for volunteers<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en> lists the criteria that we were looking for. The composition should be based on several factors, including: · Subject matter expertise – o New gTLD application process/objections o Intellectual Property o Security & Malicious Abuse of the DNS o Competition Issues o Consumer Protection o Public Policy Concerns o Trust in the DNS · Representation across the interested SO/ACs · Diversity · Regional representation For more information, please see: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-11-16-en. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.

2 1

FW: FY 16 Omnibus Appropriations bill extends IANA Transition Freeze, does not contain DOTCOM Act
by Phil Corwin Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

The bill is now available at http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20151214/CPRT-114-HPRT-RU00-SAHR2029-AM…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__docs.house.gov_billsthi…> It is expected to be passed by the House and Senate today, as US government funding expires at midnight tonight. Here is the text, at pp. 221-22; it is in Title V of Division B, General Provisions Including Rescissions): SEC. 539. (a) None of the funds made available by 21 this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, during fiscal year 2016, with respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. (b) Nothwithstanding any other law, subsection (a) of this section shall not apply in fiscal year 2017. I'm not quite sure what the effect of Section b is, as this is only an appropriations bill for FY 16 and next year Congress could extend the freeze into FY 17. Could the reference to "any other law" contemplate enactment of the DOTCOM Act? The total bill is 2009 pages long. I have just reviewed Division O (Other Matters) but the DOTCOM Act is not in it, nor is it in the Department of Commerce provisions in Division B (NTIA section starts p. 115; all DOC provisions run from pp. 109-132). There is no other part of the legislation in which it would likely be placed. Of related interest, the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 has been included in the bill, constituting the whole of Division N. It remains to be seen whether news of the freeze extension will affect the timetable for Chartering Organization/community/general public review and delivery to the Board of the CCWG-ACCT Proposal. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

For your review - Re: [council] latest version of the GAC Communique response.
by Marika Konings Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

Dear All, On behalf of James, please find attached a slightly revised version of the GNSO Response to the GAC Communique which has been updated to reflect some of the recent developments of the efforts that were referred to in the original document as well as some updates to make it consistent with the previous version. Please review this version and provide any comments / feedback you may have ahead of Thursday¹s Council meeting during which this document will be considered for adoption. Best regards, Marika On 19/11/15 09:57, "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Stephanie Perrin" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >My profuse apologies for sending this document so late. I think it >still needs work, but am very grateful to Donna Austin and Heather >Forrest for their suggestions, which I hope I have transcribed >accurately. I think, given my own lack of expertise in the areas that >the GAC tends to focus on, that a discussion would be most welcome >before we attempt to finalize. >Stephanie Perrin

1 0