November 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Fwd: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#224]
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 5, 2016

Nov. 5, 2016

Début du message transféré : Expéditeur: "ICANN" <no-reply(a)wufoo.com<mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com>> Date: 5 novembre 2016 15:47:02 UTC+5:30 Destinataire: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org>, council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Objet: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#224] Répondre à: <no-reply(a)wufoo.com<mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com>> Name of Officer: * Greg Shatan Officer Email Address: * gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date Prepared: * Saturday, November 5, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Intellectual Property Constituency Officer Position or Title: * President Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Request of Paul McGrady. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Motion 8: Chartering of CCWG Auction Proceeds Working Group 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, November 10, 2016 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: * Heather Forrest

1 0

Flowchart listing possible GNSO actions/processes concerning Red Cross/IGO protections
by Mary Wong Nov. 5, 2016

Nov. 5, 2016

Dear all, Attached please find a flow chart outlining the GNSO processes – including decision points and consequent required actions - that will be applicable to the two issues at hand: (1) “preventative” protections (i.e. the remaining recommendations from the completed PDP chaired by Thomas Rickert); and (2) “curative” protections (i.e. the ongoing PDP Working Group co-chaired by Phil and Petter Rindforth). The document is in the same format as the decision tree we had circulated previously that covered potential Board action/processes on the same topic. We hope that this document, especially when reviewed together with the other, will be helpful to the Council as you continue to discuss potential next steps on the matter. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

FW: Links between the GNSO (and its support staff) and the "IGO small group" between 2014 and 2016
by Austin, Donna Nov. 5, 2016

Nov. 5, 2016

Hi All An email from Thomas Schneider below about the IGO issue for information. Obviously something we will need to discuss. Please note that both the Board and the GAC were copied on this email. Thanks Donna From: Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2016 5:22 AM To: jbladel(a)godaddy.com; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin(a)neustar.biz>; heather.forrest(a)utas.edu.au; mason(a)donuts.co; gac(a)icann.org Cc: psc(a)vlaw-dc.com; petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu; jrobinson(a)afilias.info; mary.wong(a)icann.org; jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org; chris(a)disspain.uk; icann-board(a)icann.org Subject: Links between the GNSO (and its support staff) and the "IGO small group" between 2014 and 2016 Dear all As a follow-up of our today's discussion between the GAC and the GNSO about the work of the so called informal "IGO small group" and the assertion of the GNSO council chair and vice chairs that the GNSO had had no knowledge about the "IGO small group" process and work until very recently, and as a follow-up to a number of emails I have received on this issue since this meeting, I have spent some time to go through my email archives from late 2014 to 2016 and - for the sake of transparency and for clarification - I would like to share with you what I found: I have found - fairly regularly distributed over the said period - an estimated number of at least a hundred email exchanges between the "small group" of IGO representatives (mainly lead by Jonathan Passaro and other colleagues from OECD, the UN and WIPO) and some GAC members (in particular Suzanne Radell and myself) and on the one hand and Chris Disspain (ICANN Board/NGPC) and a number of ICANN staff people (in particular Mary Wong, but also Jamie Hedlund, Olof Nordling and Nigel Hickson, and a number of other GNSO support staff) on the other hand. Mason Cole as the GNSO-liaison to the GAC was on many emails too and Jonathan Robinson as the chair of the GNSO council was on some as well. As I had not been fully clear at that time myself, I had sent on 23 April 2015 an email to Mary (and a number other people from ICANN and the "IGO small group", Chris Disspain and Tom from the ACIG GAC secretariat) where I asked for "clarification about what exactly the process (activities, membership, timeline) of this small group is". The next day, I received the following answer from Mary: "The IGO "small group" was formed following discussions with the NGPC at the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in October 2014, to serve as a point of contact, representation and input for and from the IGOs with the NGPC/Board, GAC and GNSO." (Bold marker added by myself - you will find Mary's complete answer in her email below.) These emails from late 2014 on dealt each with one or both of the following issues: 1. requesting respectively providing input from the IGO small group into the GNSO Curative Rights PDP working group (Generally, the input from the IGO small group has been described as "very useful" by Mary who had received and forwarded it to the curative rights working group. On the side of the IGO small group, there has been a growing frustration during 2015, as in their view, their input had not been taken into account as they had hoped but they declared that they would nevertheless continue to provide input.) 2. informal work on the IGO small group informal proposal for a pragmatical solution The first draft of this informal paper had been produced and shared via email by the small group in November 2015 and has then been revised in this informal process several times until now. I found mails that show that GNSO support (and some other ICANN) staff members had received a copy of the draft small group proposal at much earlier stages than just now, actually already in 2015 an possibly even in 2014. In addition to these fairly intense and regular email exchanges, there has been a physical meeting during the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting on 22 June 2015 between the GAC Leadership and the Co-Chairs of the GNSO curative rights PDPD working group, GNSO support staff and Mason Cole, in order to mutually update each other about the work of the small group as well as the PDP WG. In addition to this, on 16 July 2015, some representatives of the IGO small group have met with Chris Disspain, myself and a number of ICANN staff in Paris at the OECD to continue informal work on the draft small group text. Following this meeting, there have been many exchanges about different text proposals until the end of the year 2015 and then this has been continued in 2016. To sum up, the mails I found in my mailbox show the following: - The IGO "small group" was formed following discussions with the NGPC after the Los Angeles meeting. - The "small group" was not set up as a bilateral process to allow governments and IGOs to take undue influence on the board, but rather to serve as a point of contact, representation and input for and from the IGOs with the NGPC/Board, GAC and GNSO. - The support staff for the GNSO IGO PDPs (usually Mary plus occasionally some other staff members) was included in more or less all electronic communications throughout the whole period and did not only get involved recently. - Mason Cole, the GNSO Liaison to the GAC, had also been receiving a portion of these mails and - Jonathan Robinson (chair of the GNSO council at that time) had been copied into some emails from time to time - there has been one physical meeting and some email updates to the PDP WG co-chairs All this makes it very difficult for me to understand how the GNSO council as well as the IGO curative rights PDP co-chairs could have had no knowledge about what was going on in the small group over the period of 2014-2016. What I can confirm based on my personal participation in the small group, however, is that none of the ICANN staff has had an active role in the informal "discussions/negotiations", but that they, including Mary, acted as supportive facilitators of the process and as bearers of messages and information. The informal "discussions/negotiations" on the substance of the proposal had been led by Chris on the one side and by the representatives of OECD (Jonathan and Nicola) and WIPO (Brian) on the other side. I would like to further repeat that the GAC and IGO reps participated in this informal "small group" process in good faith, in the assumption that all relevant parties would through informal channels be included and consulted and in the hope that our work would have a chance to become a commonly shared basis for a compromise solution that could be accepted by al in the end. And I would like to conclude by saying that I do sincerely hope that this contribution to transparency helps getting rid of some misunderstandings and false assertions in this issue and allows us - the Board, the GAC and the GNSO - to resume where we were thinking we would depart in late 2014: on a process to get together in good faith all of us trying to contribute together to finding a workable solution acceptable to all. Best regards Thomas P.S. For those who would like to see the mails: whoever was part of the small group or recipient of these messages can easily search his mailbox for kewords like "IGO" or names of people that he/she only worked with on this issue. (This is how I found these mails.) For the others: I can also show the whole list of emails to anyone who does like to see them. Von: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Gesendet: Freitag, 24. April 2015 23:05 An: Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>; Nicola.BONUCCI(a)oecd.org<mailto:Nicola.BONUCCI@oecd.org> Cc: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>>; pozenel(a)un.org<mailto:pozenel@un.org>; nicoara(a)un.org<mailto:nicoara@un.org>; wiener(a)un.org<mailto:wiener@un.org>; ricardo.GUILHERME(a)upu.int<mailto:ricardo.GUILHERME@upu.int>; brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; erik.wilbers(a)wipo.int<mailto:erik.wilbers@wipo.int>; streijffertch(a)who.int<mailto:streijffertch@who.int>; sradell(a)ntia.doc.gov<mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov>; ceo(a)auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>; Sam.PALTRIDGE(a)oecd.org<mailto:Sam.PALTRIDGE@oecd.org>; Alexandra.EXCOFFIER-NOSOV(a)oecd.org<mailto:Alexandra.EXCOFFIER-NOSOV@oecd.org>; Jonathan.PASSARO(a)oecd.org<mailto:Jonathan.PASSARO@oecd.org>; tom(a)acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>; Karine Perset <karine.perset(a)icann.org<mailto:karine.perset@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: Request from IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group to the IGO "small group" (coalition) Dear Thomas and everyone, Thank you for your reply, which we on the ICANN staff appreciate especially as we know how much is on your and the GAC's plate at the moment. I am hopeful that we can make good progress on the ongoing discussions regarding IGO protections, and thank you, Suzanne and the IGO representatives for your continuing commitment to this dialogue. The IGO "small group" was formed following discussions with the NGPC at the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in October 2014, to serve as a point of contact, representation and input for and from the IGOs with the NGPC/Board, GAC and GNSO. I believe that most, if not all, of the IGOs that comprise the "small group" are represented in this email thread. Beyond being the primary contacts for IGOs in respect of resolving the question of IGO protections in the New gTLD Program, both preventative and curative, the "small group" has been very helpful to the GNSO's ongoing PDP Working Group that is exploring the specific, more limited, question of whether existing curative dispute resolution processes sufficiently address the particular needs and concerns of these organizations or if changes are required. As noted in previous emails, the Working Group has reached out to the GAC as well as the "small group" to ensure that it understands fully all the relevant public policy concerns and has the necessary data and research to enable it to reach conclusions that are workable and in line with the governing public international law framework. ICANN staff - including Jamie Hedlund (cc'd on this email), Karine and me, among others - will be happy to assist in whatever way we can to further the dialogue on both the preventative and curative rights protection questions. Please do not hesitate to let any of us know how we may be helpful, or if you have additional questions, at any time. With best regards, Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 20:52 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, <Nicola.BONUCCI(a)oecd.org<mailto:Nicola.BONUCCI@oecd.org>> Cc: <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>>, <pozenel(a)un.org<mailto:pozenel@un.org>>, <nicoara(a)un.org<mailto:nicoara@un.org>>, <wiener(a)un.org<mailto:wiener@un.org>>, <ricardo.GUILHERME(a)upu.int<mailto:ricardo.GUILHERME@upu.int>>, <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, <erik.wilbers(a)wipo.int<mailto:erik.wilbers@wipo.int>>, <streijffertch(a)who.int<mailto:streijffertch@who.int>>, <sradell(a)ntia.doc.gov<mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov>>, <ceo(a)auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>>, <Sam.PALTRIDGE(a)oecd.org<mailto:Sam.PALTRIDGE@oecd.org>>, <Alexandra.EXCOFFIER-NOSOV(a)oecd.org<mailto:Alexandra.EXCOFFIER-NOSOV@oecd.org>>, <Jonathan.PASSARO(a)oecd.org<mailto:Jonathan.PASSARO@oecd.org>>, <tom(a)acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>>, <karine.perset(a)icann.org<mailto:karine.perset@icann.org>> Subject: Re: Request from IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group to the IGO "small group" (coalition) Dear Mary and all Thank you for your message of 15 April and your commitment to move these complex issues forward. As you make a reference to the IGO "small group", where some GAC representatives (including myself) are supposed to contribute to making things progress, I am trying to seek clarification about what exactly the process (activities, membership, timeline) of this small group is. The GAC (including myself personally) is willing to actively contribute to bringing this issue to a close in a way that will be satisfactory to all concerned and is ready to participate in and contribute to the "small group" work. As they will help us with this, I would like to ask you to also keep Tom Dale from the GAC secretariat (ACIG) and Karine Perset from ICANN GAC-support staff in the loop of all further communications. Thank you and best regards Thomas Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)

1 0

Statements made during the GAC-GNSO meeting about the role of ICANN staff in the IGO small group
by Mary Wong Nov. 5, 2016

Nov. 5, 2016

Dear Councilors, Several statements were made during the GAC-GNSO meeting that just concluded, concerning my role and participation in the IGO small group discussions. I would like to let you know that I was only brought into the discussions after the group was formed, to provide subject matter expertise and process advice concerning the GNSO and its work. At no time did I participate other than as a staff facilitator – and I did not hold myself out as a representative of the GNSO, or as having any authority to negotiate on behalf of the GNSO Council or the GNSO community. Mary

9 8

GNSO Related meetings and Council Highlights -Hyderabad 2016
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

Dear All, GNSO related meetings can be found on page: https://community.icann.org/x/SA2sAw Highlights for the Council Saturday 5 November - 12:15 -13:45 Hall 6 ccNSO/GNSO Joint Council lunch Sunday 6 November - 19:00 - 20:00 Hall 6 Informal Council Session in preparation for the Council Meeting on Monday 7 November Monday 7 November - 12:30 - 13:30 Hall 6 ICANN Board interacts with GNSO - lunch Monday 7 November - 13:45 - 15:00 Hall 6 GNSO Council Public meeting part 1 Monday 7 November - 15:15 - 16:45 Hall 6 GNSO Council Public meeting part 2 Monday 7 November - 17:00 - 18:30 Hall 6 GNSO Wrap-Up Session Wednesday 9 November 9:00 - 13:45 Granite I GNSO Development session Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry Manager Supporting Organisations Advisory Committees Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers - ICANN glen(a)icann.org<mailto:glen@icann.org> http://www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

Message from Chris Disspain regarding the IGO small group
by Mary Wong Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

Dear Councilors, Chris Disspain has asked that the note below be forwarded to you on his behalf. Hello All, I understand that statements are being made that the small discussion group on IGOs was set up by me. That is not correct. The Board through the New gTLD Program Committee asked me and Jamie Hedlund (acting as staff support) to enter into discussions with the IGOs through the GAC, in an attempt to establish what the possible solutions could be to the issue of IGO acronyms given that the NGPC told the GAC that its advice to reserve the IGO acronyms was problematic. The existence of this effort has been discussed with the GNSO Council at a number of GNSO/Board meetings and also at ICANN public meetings. These discussions included the logistics of the Board asking the GNSO to consider revising its policy recommendations along with explanations of the status of the discussions with IGOs. I also understand that it has been suggested that Mary Wong was part of the small discussion group. That is incorrect. Mary became involved recently to provide input on history and to help facilitate the discussions with the GNSO. In fact, to be clear, all staff were involved solely to facilitate the discussions and have played no substantive role. Cheers, Chris Disspain

3 2

RE: [council] RE: Statements made during the GAC-GNSO meeting about the role of ICANN staff in the IGO small group
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

1 0

FW: Notes ccNSO Council Prep. Meeting - 4 November 2016 12:15 local time
by Drazek, Keith Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

All, as your GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO Council I received the email below. This should help inform our planning for our joint GNSO-ccNSO council session. Best, Keith From: owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joke Braeken Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 5:18 AM To: ccnso-council(a)icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Notes ccNSO Council Prep. Meeting - 4 November 2016 12:15 local time Dear all, Please find below the notes taken during the ccNSO Council preparatory meeting earlier today. Best regards, Joke Braeken Notes ccNSO Council Prep. Meeting 4 November 2016 12:15 local time 1. Welcome welcome by chair. ICANN Board members will join later 1. CCWG-IG The GNSO believes that the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (CCWG-IG) does not work, something is wrong with set-up. Want to leave as chartering organisation. We have not seen much results either, apart from the recent email from Olivier. Several processes: this WG, CWG-UCTN … Young-Eum, co-chair CCWG-IG: most of the matter dealt with this WG are not those handled by ICANN. E.g. on how ICANN community should respond to other external events. E.g. WTSA recently, ITU sessions in 2014. The group is not becoming in a representative of ICANN. Cooperation with ICANN staff. Is it the right vehicle? Not sure about shutting it down. In some circumstances the group has been helpful, especially to ICANN staff, Nigel Hickson. Bart: was kicked off in context of Netmundial, at initiative of Fadi. Issues a statement claiming to represent the SO/ACs, but there has never been a feedback loup. ccNSO council required a charter, or it would retract from this group. ccNSO, GNSO, ALAC are the chartering organisations. Mostly participants from ALAC (and GNSO). Occasionally Becky, Joerg, Young-eum. Byron: group from a different era. We are now in a different world. Something to be discussed with GNSO/ALAC. Clarity perhaps on next steps during the council meeting on Monday. 1. Status CWG-UCTN Group cannot come up with a consensus decision. Most likely we need to close the WG and need to look for other ways to address the issues. Annebeth: consensus on 2-letter strings. Reserved all 2-letter strings. 3-letter codes. We worked on this for more than 1 year. We cannot come to a consensus there: either open up everything (incl those in ISO list), or keep it as it currently is. Very difficult to come to a common framework. We will deliver a Progress report during this meeting, and further discuss the Draft Interim Report. Discussion with GAC: where are they in terms of geographic names? concern of ccTLD members: if you put all in PDP on subsequent rounds, the GNSO will determine how country and territory names will be treated as TLDS. Council needs to decide whether a letter needs to be sent to the Board: Text AGB2012 to be kept, until there is a common agreement on the way forward. Annebeth believes it is wrong to completely transfer this to GNSO. Demi: agree that this is not something exclusively to be dealt with by GNSO PDP. Be careful regarding the re-interpretation of gTLDs: the “g” stands and should remain to stand for “generic” (Annebeth referred to a discussion around the possibility to call them “global” TLDs) Ching: agrees with Demi. Are we doing the right thing when we block the 2-letter codes? Big corporations are interested. Peter Vergote: thank Annebeth for her hard work on this matter. Question: what is the agenda of the CWG? Understood the 3-letter issue needs to be put aside since no agreement is possible, but why not focus on country names instead? PDP process within GNSO : does it offer a guarantee where other SO/ACs can have a blocking right? Maybe not too bad to have this covered by the GNSO PDP after all? Annebeth : 2 relevant work tracks within the GNSO PDP for the ccNSO. AGB 2012 is default, unless consensus has been reached. Consensus for this group? Or cross-constituency consensus? If 3-letter codes were already difficult, full names of countries and territories are even more difficult. Bart: potential powers of other SO/ACs with respect to PDP. Participation on equal footing, but no blocking power. There are various initiatives ongoing in the ICANN environment, but even in the ITU. Not clear if there is a consensus reached, how will this be translated into a PDP. What would happen with the result of this WG? To be discussed with GAC, ALAC, GNSO and the Board. To be raised by Annebeth and Peter. 1. Topics No councillors will be assigned to the topics, but we ask people to report during the joint meetings. ccNSO-council meeting with GNSO. Tomorrow lunch time - CWG principles (Becky) - CWG-UCTN (Heather and Annebeth) - CWG-IG (GNSO steps out. We need to see how they see these issues addressed in future) - CWG-auction proceeds. We revised our decision from March this year, and decided to participate in this WG. - Future scheduling of ICANN-meetings. HIT selection. Process to be defined. Vote: one per SO/AC? GNSO not happy about this. Many different sub-groups. - Implementation new bylaws Joint meeting with GAC - PDP (Becky, Bart) - CWG-UCTN (Annebeth, Peter) - EPSRP ( 08:30 on Monday joint meeting with Board - CSC (Byron) needs resources from staff. Prep meeting with 4 members earlier this morning. First official meetng on Nov.8. Further resources from ICANN needed, other than Maria, more policy-oriented folks, web-admin people. Conversation with David Olive on the CSC requirements in the next days. - What do we need to do to advance trust and confidence? Bart Go into specifics. For instance discussion on selection process review teams is currently very messy. Do not start with review team where the rules are unclear. That is not trust-building. Byron IANA reporting: dashboard is up, SLEs met, so all is good from IANA-perspective. But we want to look at raw data ourselves. That is a matter of transparency and trust. - Selection icann meeting locations Debbie: Are you free to participate? If you are in trouble of being yourself? Byron: Do not convey a message that depicts another culture as possibly being inferior. Non culturally discriminatory points of view. Who is the ultimate authority to decide on the meeting location? - EPSRP advice Issues of split recommendations: .eu in greek ccNSO created a WG, we asked GAC and SSAC to participate. GAC had some representatives. SSAC refused to participate. Report produced by EPSRP WG. Support from GAC, ALAC, Verisign. SSAC issues an advice and submitted it to the Board. Not to take advice from the WG. Secretariat developed with EPSRP a document that addresses the issues in SSAC’s advice to the Board. Peter: Do not meet with SSAC before we have met Board. Bart: The Board is aware of the diverging views between ccNSO, GAC, ALAC and SSAC on other hand. They are very concerned about it, since they need to consider it, if the ccNSO council accepts the final report by the EPSRP WG. If you would meet SSAC and their advice is still on the table, what is the purpose of the meeting? Exchange of views? Or do you want to come to a joint decision? In that case, the SSAC paper needs to go. Is there a mechanism to redraw the SSAC advice? Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

1 0

Review Updated Project List for GNSO Council Meeting
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the updated project list, clean and red lined, for your review before the Council meeting. 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/> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

RE: [council] Motion re the report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

2 1