February 2017 - Discussion-igo-rc

Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen
by James M. Bladel March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Thanks, Melissa. Appreciate any assistance you can provide. Please let me or Mary know if you need anything from us. Thanks— J. From: <discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 23:27 To: "bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au" <bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Hi Bruce, I have the same information you do. There has certainly been no request from the Board to make these private. In fact, these are not considered “Board sessions,” but rather sessions that some Board members have been specifically asked to attend, with others welcome as well. The Board Ops team and I I did not “book the room” for these sessions, if you will, so I had no control over how they are listed. Here’s what I did do related to these sessions: I worked with you and Mary to plan them for times that work for all parties, and I also offered to make breakfast available to the formal participants from the GNSO and the GAC for the early meeting – that group can get breakfast with the Board that morning to make it easier for all of you, since the meeting starts so early. I did make clear that we cannot invite everyone who shows up for the meeting to get breakfast – only the formal participants, which we are sure we can accommodate. This was discussed when Mary let us know the sessions would be “open,” which again, I had no opinion on, nor did I have any direction on this from the Board. The Board members who will attend are responding to a request to do so, and did not comment on how the sessions would be run. That is the sum total of my involvement in planning these sessions. I am copying Mary Wong here. From what I understand, Mary believes these sessions to be open as well – I recall her saying as much at one point in our planning. I am not sure why they are not appearing that way on the calendar, but again, I am not in any way “in charge” of booking these sessions so will defer to Mary. Thanks and best, Melissa From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 9:15 PM To: "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org> Cc: Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Hello James, My understanding is that the sessions are intended to be open and public, and should appear on the public agenda. I am not aware of any request to make them private from either the GAC or the Board. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2017 4:12 PM To: discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org Subject: [Discussion-igo-rc] Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Thomas et al – GNSO Staff has recently informed me that our planned sessions in Copenhagen are currently marked “private”, and as a result do not appear on the published main calendar. I’m not sure if this is an oversight, or was something requested by the GAC or the Board, but please be aware that this isn’t an acceptable arrangement for the GNSO community. In fact, our ability to participate in these sessions and to speak on behalf of all stakeholders in our community, is predicated on these sessions being open and public. I hope that you understand and agree. For disclosure, I will be sending a note to Melissa King (Board Operations) to formally request that these sessions be open, and added to the main calendar. If you share this view, I encourage you to respond as well. Have a good weekend – J. James Bladel GNSO Chair

6 12

Problem Statement, and additional thoughts/notes
by James M. Bladel March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Thomas, and All - First, thank you for your contributions to prepare for our facilitated discussion in Copenhagen. On behalf of the GNSO, I apologize for the silence on our side to date, but I can assure you that we have been extensively discussing this matter, both at the Council level and among our smaller group. We have concerns regarding the Problem Statement, in that we’re not convinced it is currently fit-for-purpose and we hope that we can flesh this out some on our call next week. We’re also very keen to see the briefing material that is being prepared by Bruce to assist our discussions. It may be that this duplicates much of the language in the Problem Statement as it is currently drafted. Attached for your information and consideration is an amended version of the Problem Statement document, along with our comments and edits. Additionally, we’ve attached a short list of questions and suggestions that we think should be clarified on our first call. We also welcome the opportunity to discuss your comments below regarding the ‘global public interest’. While we don’t necessarily disagree with the sentiment, we do believe it is important that the term ‘global public interest’ as it is described in the ICANN bylaws is not misconstrued. To that end we refer to the relevant bylaws here: The Bylaws refer to the “global public interest” as a Core Value, requiring ICANN to: Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent Additionally, ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation state: the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article IV hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“Bylaws”). Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process. The Bylaws do require ICANN to duly consider the “public policy” input of governments, but determinations regarding the global public interest are firmly rooted in the multistakeholder process, of which both the GNSO and the GAC are part. Thank you, and we are looking forward to our call next week. J.

5 11

Mp3, Attendance, AC Recording & AC Chat from the first call on Red Cross identifier protections held on Monday 27 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC.
by Terri Agnew Feb. 28, 2017

Feb. 28, 2017

Dear All, Please find attendance attached and below the MP3, Adobe Connect recording and AC chat for the first call on Red Cross identifier protections held on Monday 27 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-red-cross-identifier-protections-27feb17-en .mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p4m8vt454bv/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d2bb332eb83bd37e 112e25e7751c52e54fb922234e519726f89516ceebbbd6db> https://participate.icann.org/p4m8vt454bv/ The recordings and transcriptions are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archive: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/eoPRAw> https://community.icann.org/x/eoPRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the first call on Red Cross identifier protections will take place on Monday 27 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_n arRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ narRAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=PSnm-MWlYD6Iapexwr0QcIfA05TRD6Ej5PHUVWBCfM M&s=CVBIdnNksclzK-12-1mfR1xQUPiD48wwFp2IecfijKA&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=PSnm-MWlYD6Iapexwr0QcIfA05TRD6Ej5PHUVWBCfMM&s=CV BIdnNksclzK-12-1mfR1xQUPiD48wwFp2IecfijKA&e= David Olive:Thanks Terri - Welcome All Olof Nordling:Hello from warm Brussels - well, compared to Norway;-) Chris Disspain:Greetings All Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Hi all Thomas Schneider:Hi all Mary Wong:Welcome everyone Mary Wong:The draft Process Framework is now up on screen - it is the version with edits from Jorge Cancio (shown in redline). Terri Agnew:everyone has scroll control Mary Wong:Note that this Process Framework is intended to apply to both topics of discussion - Red Cross identifiers and IGO acronyms - although of course the call today is focused on the Red Cross.. Donna Austin, RySG:I would add that from the Council perspective we do need to respect our processes in updating any policies Mary Wong:IGO acronyms is the topic for reconciliation, siince that is where the GAC advice and GNSO recommendations differ. Mary Wong:For Red Cross, it is the National Society names, the two International Movement names and their related acronyms. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):audio is quite bad Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):difficult to understand Donna Austin, RySG:agree Jorge, a lot of background noise Terri Agnew:as a reminder, please mute when not speaking. On the telephone press *6 to mute/unmute Mary Wong:The GNSO process for amending policies approved by the GNSO Council (but before Board action stage) envisions an actual proposal being referred to the original PDP Working Group for consultation, plus a public comment period on the proposal. Following these steps, the GNSO Council is then expeced to vote on whether to approve the amendment/proposal. Mary Wong:It is detailed in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual. Donna Austin, RySG:I have nothing to add James Heather Forrest:Nothing from me at this stage, thanks, James. Heather Forrest:Much thanks to Bruce for raising the point about not intending binding outcomes - indeed James, Donna and I don't have authority under the GNSO Policy Development Process to enforce anything achieved here Philip Corwin:The process should recognize the difference between the RC and IGO permanent protection issues, which are the subject of longstanding disagreement between GNSO and GAC -- and the IGO CRP issue, which is the subject of an ongoing PDP that will likely produce a Final Report and recommendations later this year. Donna Austin, RySG:Agreed Bruce, it would be good if we could identiy these issues before PDP adopted Council recommendations are provided to the Board Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I don't think anyone has authority to enforce any outcome - but I feel we have some moral authority or trust from our respective orgs to come out with an agreed outcome and that we all would make good faith efforts to get such outcomes through the formal processes Donna Austin, RySG:i think if we can frame it in terms of agreed principles that may be more appropriate than outcomes. It could just be a terminology issues. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Donna: bear with me as a non-native speaker... Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@James: neither we could tell 170 GAC members what to do - but we can certainly try to convince them Donna Austin, RySG:Agreed James, it would be very helpful if we were able to take to the GNSO some basis for reconsidering the recommendations of the original PDP. Thomas Schneider:yes, thank you James Bladel:Thanks, Bruce. Well summarized. Philip Corwin:My hand is raised Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Just to point out that I haven't been able to really look into the suggestions coming from GNSO last Sunday or Saturday James Bladel:Heather is also in the Q Mary Wong:@Bruce, that's right, thank you Mary Wong:The PDP was initiated in October 2012, and its scope was also based on previous work that had been done, including by a Drafting Team that had worked on some recommendations for Red Cross protections. The PDP concluded in November 2013. James Bladel:The recommendations were consdiered and adopted by GNSO Council in November 2013 (Buenos Aires). Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I'll defer to Thomas Schneider then... Bruce Tonkin:I am still learning to chair a call where adobe is used to raise hands :-) Apologies for missing the raised hands. Mary Wong:The PDP Working Group did not include GAC members, but the Red Cross and IGO representatives were actively involved, as was the International Olympic Committee and other NGOs. Heather Forrest:It is unfortunate that there was such a misunderstanding at the time of the original PDP that prevented the GAC from participating in that process Mary Wong:The Red Cross and IGO representatives each submitted a Minority Statement, which were appended to the Final Report. Mary Wong:The Final Report and Minority Statements have summaries of the various proposals considered by the Working Group, and the level of support each received amongst the Working Group. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Bruce/Mary: may I suggest you liaise also with Red Cross to develop such papers - at least for the factual aspects? Donna Austin, RySG:It appears a distinction was made between Scope 1 and Scope 2 identifers as they relation to Red Cross names, which appears to be at the heart of the issue. Mary Wong:@Jorge, I think the current intent is to send out a draft as was done for the Problem Staement, to allow everyone to review and comment Terri Agnew:locating line Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):It is important to get the facts right, but legal analysis is subject to interpretation and, more importantly, this is a matter also of good policy Thomas Schneider:@Bruce: Stephane from the ICRC has his hand up... Mary Wong:@Thomas, @Jorge, all - to be clear, the draft that Bruce is working on with staff does not attempt legal analysis, but will lay out the protections provided by the Geneva Conventions. Bruce Tonkin:The drafts will certainkly be open to review by the members of this group including representatives from the Red Cross to ensure they are factually correct. Mary Wong:@Bruce, ok, staff will follow up. James Bladel:As previuosly identified: Myself, Heather, Donna and Carlos will participate from the GNSO. PDP chairs (Thomas Rickert and Phil Corwin/Petter Rindforth) may also be asked to speak. Thomas Schneider:Bruce, i have a new hand up... Philip Corwin:I arrive Thursday and will be around the Accountability CCWG all day Friday. But I will not be a major participant in Saturday's RC discussion. James Bladel:Mary, can you collect arrival dates from the GNSO folks? Mary Wong:@James, yes Petter Rindforth:When will we have a clear agenda for Saturday morning? Donna Austin, RySG:Thank you Bruce Philip Corwin:Bye all. Safe travel to Copenhagen. Markus Kummer:Bye all - good call. Thanks Bruce! Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks all!

1 0

Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen
by James M. Bladel Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 2017

Thanks, Bruce. Probably just a mix up, then. I have sent a note to Melissa, however, just to formalize & confirm this request. J. From: <discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 23:15 To: "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org> Cc: Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Hello James, My understanding is that the sessions are intended to be open and public, and should appear on the public agenda. I am not aware of any request to make them private from either the GAC or the Board. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2017 4:12 PM To: discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org Subject: [Discussion-igo-rc] Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Thomas et al – GNSO Staff has recently informed me that our planned sessions in Copenhagen are currently marked “private”, and as a result do not appear on the published main calendar. I’m not sure if this is an oversight, or was something requested by the GAC or the Board, but please be aware that this isn’t an acceptable arrangement for the GNSO community. In fact, our ability to participate in these sessions and to speak on behalf of all stakeholders in our community, is predicated on these sessions being open and public. I hope that you understand and agree. For disclosure, I will be sending a note to Melissa King (Board Operations) to formally request that these sessions be open, and added to the main calendar. If you share this view, I encourage you to respond as well. Have a good weekend – J. James Bladel GNSO Chair

2 1

Proposed agenda for conference call on Red Cross Identifier protection - Monday 27 Feb at 20:00 UTC
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 2017

Hello All, Below is a proposed agenda for the call on Monday 27 Feb at 20:00UTC. The call will be recorded and transcribed and the details will be public. I have suggested some people that may be able to lead the discussion at each point - but if others from GAC and GNSO are appropriate fell free to suggest. 1. Welcome and Introductions (Bruce to lead) 2. Overview of process framework - scope, expectations, outcomes (Bruce) 3. GAC and GNSO representative to, respectively, explain the likely next steps in their internal processes following conclusion of the facilitated discussions (Thomas Schneider and James Bladel) 4. Discussion of Problem Statement - agree on final scope and text (Bruce to moderate) 5. GAC and GNSO representative to, respectively, walk the group through the approach by which the GAC developed its advice and the GNSO its final policy on the Red Cross (Jorge Cancio and Thomas Rickert) 6. Discussion (all) 7. Next steps - planning for F2F discussion in Copenhagen Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen
by James M. Bladel Feb. 25, 2017

Feb. 25, 2017

Thomas et al – GNSO Staff has recently informed me that our planned sessions in Copenhagen are currently marked “private”, and as a result do not appear on the published main calendar. I’m not sure if this is an oversight, or was something requested by the GAC or the Board, but please be aware that this isn’t an acceptable arrangement for the GNSO community. In fact, our ability to participate in these sessions and to speak on behalf of all stakeholders in our community, is predicated on these sessions being open and public. I hope that you understand and agree. For disclosure, I will be sending a note to Melissa King (Board Operations) to formally request that these sessions be open, and added to the main calendar. If you share this view, I encourage you to respond as well. Have a good weekend – J. James Bladel GNSO Chair

4 5

Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] GNSO/GAC/Board discussions in Copenhagen
by Melissa King Feb. 25, 2017

Feb. 25, 2017

Hi James, Thank you for reaching out to me. Bruce also just emailed me on this, as you likely saw! I responded to that while this email was on its way to me. Please see attached my response to that email. I am copying Mary once again, and this time also Tanzanica so we can get this sorted as soon as possible. Mary booked the room for these sessions, working with Tanzanica. I was involved in the discussion and made the request to do one of them early so it would work with everyone’s schedule – and I then also offered to/suggested we make breakfast available to the approx. 15 formal participants from the GNSO, GAC and Board, given the early meeting start. I did make clear the breakfast could really only be made available to the formal participants – we can’t make that part “open to all” who show up, but that has nothing to do with the session itself, which will be in a totally different area than where breakfast will be served. I’m not the one “in charge” of the room or listing for this, so will defer to Mary and Tanzanica. As far as I recall, Mary had said they would be open. I hope this helps. You have a great weekend, too! All the best, Melissa From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 9:17 PM To: Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org> Cc: "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] GNSO/GAC/Board discussions in Copenhagen Dear Melissa – Yesterday, Mary mentioned that the GNSO/GAC/Board “Facilitated Discussions” planned for ICANN58 in Copenhagen are currently designated as “private”, and do not appear on the published ICANN58 calendar. I’m not sure if this was an oversight, or something that was requested by one of the other groups, but please be advised that the GNSO’s ability to participate in these sessions, and to speak on behalf of our stakeholders, is predicated on these sessions being open to the public. Please let me know what is needed from our side to make this change, and if we should work with your team or via Tanzi and Nick. Thank you, and have a good weekend. J. James Bladel GNSO Chair

1 0

Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen
by Melissa King Feb. 25, 2017

Feb. 25, 2017

Hi Bruce, I have the same information you do. There has certainly been no request from the Board to make these private. In fact, these are not considered “Board sessions,” but rather sessions that some Board members have been specifically asked to attend, with others welcome as well. The Board Ops team and I I did not “book the room” for these sessions, if you will, so I had no control over how they are listed. Here’s what I did do related to these sessions: I worked with you and Mary to plan them for times that work for all parties, and I also offered to make breakfast available to the formal participants from the GNSO and the GAC for the early meeting – that group can get breakfast with the Board that morning to make it easier for all of you, since the meeting starts so early. I did make clear that we cannot invite everyone who shows up for the meeting to get breakfast – only the formal participants, which we are sure we can accommodate. This was discussed when Mary let us know the sessions would be “open,” which again, I had no opinion on, nor did I have any direction on this from the Board. The Board members who will attend are responding to a request to do so, and did not comment on how the sessions would be run. That is the sum total of my involvement in planning these sessions. I am copying Mary Wong here. From what I understand, Mary believes these sessions to be open as well – I recall her saying as much at one point in our planning. I am not sure why they are not appearing that way on the calendar, but again, I am not in any way “in charge” of booking these sessions so will defer to Mary. Thanks and best, Melissa From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 9:15 PM To: "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org> Cc: Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Hello James, My understanding is that the sessions are intended to be open and public, and should appear on the public agenda. I am not aware of any request to make them private from either the GAC or the Board. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2017 4:12 PM To: discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org Subject: [Discussion-igo-rc] Discussion Sessions in Copenhagen Thomas et al – GNSO Staff has recently informed me that our planned sessions in Copenhagen are currently marked “private”, and as a result do not appear on the published main calendar. I’m not sure if this is an oversight, or was something requested by the GAC or the Board, but please be aware that this isn’t an acceptable arrangement for the GNSO community. In fact, our ability to participate in these sessions and to speak on behalf of all stakeholders in our community, is predicated on these sessions being open and public. I hope that you understand and agree. For disclosure, I will be sending a note to Melissa King (Board Operations) to formally request that these sessions be open, and added to the main calendar. If you share this view, I encourage you to respond as well. Have a good weekend – J. James Bladel GNSO Chair

1 0

GNSO/GAC/Board discussions in Copenhagen
by James M. Bladel Feb. 25, 2017

Feb. 25, 2017

Dear Melissa – Yesterday, Mary mentioned that the GNSO/GAC/Board “Facilitated Discussions” planned for ICANN58 in Copenhagen are currently designated as “private”, and do not appear on the published ICANN58 calendar. I’m not sure if this was an oversight, or something that was requested by one of the other groups, but please be advised that the GNSO’s ability to participate in these sessions, and to speak on behalf of our stakeholders, is predicated on these sessions being open to the public. Please let me know what is needed from our side to make this change, and if we should work with your team or via Tanzi and Nick. Thank you, and have a good weekend. J. James Bladel GNSO Chair

1 0

REMINDER: Meeting Invitation: First call on Red Cross identifier protections on Monday 27 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Feb. 24, 2017

Feb. 24, 2017

Dear all, The first call on Red Cross identifier protections will take place on Monday 27 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC for two hours. 12:00 PST, 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET, (Tuesday 28 Feb) 07:00 AEDT For other times: http://tinyurl.com/j3rn8u9 Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: <https://participate.icann.org/crp> https://participate.icann.org/crp For those of you using the Adobe Connect audio, you may do so by activating your computer microphone via the Adobe room (Using a headset is preferable here). Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs(a)icann.org ______________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: IGO RC Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 EGYPT 0800000-9029 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-48030674 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-49412807 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 VIETNAM 120-11751 Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0