Received: from WICM03.WIECSP.UNICC.ORG (10.81.44.70) by WICM02.WIECSP.UNICC.ORG (10.81.12.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1156.6 via Mailbox Transport; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:53:09 +0000 Received: from WICM04.WIECSP.UNICC.ORG (10.81.44.71) by WICM03.WIECSP.UNICC.ORG (10.81.44.70) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1156.6; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:53:02 +0000 Received: from iccpfxir03.svc.unicc.org (10.81.64.106) by WICM04.WIECSP.UNICC.ORG (10.81.44.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1156.6 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:53:02 +0000 Received: from mx.unicc.org (unknown [188.92.48.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by iccpfxir03.svc.unicc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D3A640B6A; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:53:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (sc001541.sharedit.ch [127.0.0.1]) by sc001541.sharedit.ch (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id uA4Nr0Ja013348; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:53:00 GMT Received: from smtp01.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.46.81]) by sc001541.sharedit.ch with ESMTP id 26cn6g7nmc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 04 Nov 2016 23:52:59 +0000 Received: from mm.icann.org (mm.icann.org [192.0.32.100]) by smtp01.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F39E2CB6; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:52:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm.icann.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A578C61FE0E; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:52:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pechora1.lax.icann.org (pechora1.icann.org [IPv6:2620:0:2d0:201::1:71]) by mm.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25FD8617D8F for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:52:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail11.admin.ch (mail11.admin.ch [162.23.32.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pechora1.lax.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4C2A1E0A42; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:52:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail01.admin.ch (mail01.admin.ch [162.23.97.166]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail11.admin.ch (mailout) with ESMTPS id 506076D2952; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 00:52:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail41.admin.ch (mail41.admin.ch [162.23.97.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail41.admin.ch", Issuer "Swiss Government SSL CA 01" (not verified)) by mail01.admin.ch (mailhub) with ESMTPS id 2EAA359669C2; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 00:52:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail41.admin.ch (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06DD5480002; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 00:52:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail03.admin.ch (unknown [162.23.97.168]) by mail41.admin.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF253480001; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 00:52:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from exhub.admin.ch (sb00101a.adb.intra.admin.ch [10.135.88.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "exhub.admin.ch", Issuer "Swiss Government SSL CA 01" (not verified)) by mail03.admin.ch (mailhost) with ESMTPS id DE71D947D4A; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 00:52:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from SB00106A.adb.intra.admin.ch ([169.254.6.249]) by SB00101A.adb.intra.admin.ch ([10.135.86.201]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 00:52:17 +0100 From: "Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch" To: "jbladel@godaddy.com" , "Donna.Austin@neustar.biz" , "heather.forrest@utas.edu.au" , "mason@donuts.co" , "gac@icann.org" CC: "mary.wong@icann.org" , "psc@vlaw-dc.com" , "petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu" , "chris@disspain.uk" , "jamie.hedlund@icann.org" , "jrobinson@afilias.info" , "icann-board@icann.org" Subject: [GAC] Links between the GNSO (and its support staff) and the "IGO small group" between 2014 and 2016 Thread-Topic: [GAC] Links between the GNSO (and its support staff) and the "IGO small group" between 2014 and 2016 Thread-Index: AdI24/8wOiLCsDbgRriUYQ9G3S4seg== Sender: "gac-bounces@gac.icann.org" Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:52:16 +0000 Message-ID: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Accept-Language: de-CH, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthMechanism: 10 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: WICM04.WIECSP.UNICC.ORG X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.135.87.13] x-proofpoint-virus-version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-11-04_06:,, signatures=0 x-proofpoint-spam-details: rule=wipo_main_notspam policy=wipo_main score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1609300000 definitions=main-1611040439 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_ADB4CA2BA8720940B084E26F27EC95F09356C167sb00106aadbintr_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_004_ADB4CA2BA8720940B084E26F27EC95F09356C167sb00106aadbintr_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ADB4CA2BA8720940B084E26F27EC95F09356C167sb00106aadbintr_" --_000_ADB4CA2BA8720940B084E26F27EC95F09356C167sb00106aadbintr_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all As a follow-up of our today=92s discussion between the GAC and the GNSO abo= ut the work of the so called informal =93IGO small group=94 and the asserti= on of the GNSO council chair and vice chairs that the GNSO had had no knowl= edge about the =93IGO small group=94 process and work until very recently, = and as a follow-up to a number of emails I have received on this issue sinc= e this meeting, I have spent some time to go through my email archives from= late 2014 to 2016 and =96 for the sake of transparency and for clarificati= on =96 I would like to share with you what I found: I have found =96 fairly regularly distributed over the said period =96 an e= stimated number of at least a hundred email exchanges between the =93small = group=94 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 Bo= ard/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 th= e 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 2= 015 an email to Mary (and a number other people from ICANN and the =93IGO s= mall group=94, Chris Disspain and Tom from the ACIG GAC secretariat) where = I asked for =93clarification about what exactly the process (activities, me= mbership, timeline) of this small group is=94. The next day, I received the following answer from Mary: =93The IGO =93smal= l group=94 was formed following discussions with the NGPC at the ICANN meet= ing in Los Angeles in October 2014, to serve as a point of contact, represe= ntation and input for and from the IGOs with the NGPC/Board, GAC and GNSO.= =94 (Bold marker added by myself - you will find Mary=92s complete answer in he= r 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 th= e GNSO Curative Rights PDP working group (Generally, the input from the IGO small group has been described as =93ver= y useful=94 by Mary who had received and forwarded it to the curative right= s working group. On the side of the IGO small group, there has been a growi= ng frustration during 2015, as in their view, their input had not been take= n into account as they had hoped but they declared that they would neverthe= less 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 ema= il by the small group in November 2015 and has then been revised in this in= formal process several times until now. I found mails that show that GNSO s= upport (and some other ICANN) staff members had received a copy of the draf= t small group proposal at much earlier stages than just now, actually alrea= dy 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 20= 15 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 mutuall= y 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 sma= ll group have met with Chris Disspain, myself and a number of ICANN staff i= n 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 =93small group=94 was formed following discussions with the= NGPC after the Los Angeles meeting. - The =93small group=94 was not set up as a bilateral process to allo= w 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 occasion= ally some other staff members) was included in more or less all electronic = communications throughout the whole period and did not only get involved re= cently. - 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 P= DP 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 knowledg= e 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, h= owever, is that none of the ICANN staff has had an active role in the infor= mal =93discussions/negotiations=94, but that they, including Mary, acted as= supportive facilitators of the process and as bearers of messages and info= rmation. The informal =93discussions/negotiations=94 on the substance of th= e 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 th= is informal =93small group=94 process in good faith, in the assumption that= all relevant parties would through informal channels be included and consu= lted 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 c= ontribution to transparency helps getting rid of some misunderstandings and= false assertions in this issue and allows us =96 the Board, the GAC and th= e GNSO =96 to resume where we were thinking we would depart in late 2014: o= n a process to get together in good faith all of us trying to contribute to= gether 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 gr= oup or recipient of these messages can easily search his mailbox for keword= s like =93IGO=94 or names of people that he/she only worked with on this is= sue. (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 ; Nicola.BONUCC= I@oecd.org Cc: Jamie Hedlund ; pozenel@un.org; nicoara@un.org= ; wiener@un.org; ricardo.GUILHERME@upu.int; brian.beckham@wipo.int; erik.wi= lbers@wipo.int; streijffertch@who.int; sradell@ntia.doc.gov; ceo@auda.org.a= u; Sam.PALTRIDGE@oecd.org; Alexandra.EXCOFFIER-NOSOV@oecd.org; Jonathan.PAS= SARO@oecd.org; tom@acig.com.au; Karine Perset 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=92s plate at the moment. I am h= opeful that we can make good progress on the ongoing discussions regarding = IGO protections, and thank you, Suzanne and the IGO representatives for you= r continuing commitment to this dialogue. The IGO =93small group=94 was formed following discussions with the NGPC at= the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in October 2014, to serve as a point of c= ontact, 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 t= he =93small group=94 are represented in this email thread. Beyond being the primary contacts for IGOs in respect of resolving the ques= tion of IGO protections in the New gTLD Program, both preventative and cura= tive, the =93small group=94 has been very helpful to the GNSO=92s ongoing P= DP 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 t= o the GAC as well as the =93small group=94 to ensure that it understands fu= lly 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 wi= th the governing public international law framework. ICANN staff =96 including Jamie Hedlund (cc=92d on this email), Karine and = me, among others =96 will be happy to assist in whatever way we can to furt= her the dialogue on both the preventative and curative rights protection qu= estions. 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@icann.org From: > Date: Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 20:52 To: Mary Wong >, > Cc: >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, > 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 =93small group=94, where some GAC rep= resentatives (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 =93small gr= oup=94 work. As they will help us with this, I would like to ask you to als= o keep Tom Dale from the GAC secretariat (ACIG) and Karine Perset from ICAN= N GAC-support staff in the loop of all further communications. Thank you and best regards Thomas Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) --_000_ADB4CA2BA8720940B084E26F27EC95F09356C167sb00106aadbintr_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all

 

As a follow-up of our today=92s discus= sion between the GAC and the GNSO about the work of the so called informal = =93IGO small group=94 and the assertion of the GNSO council chair and vice chairs that the GNSO had had no knowledge about the =93IGO = small group=94 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 =96 for the sake of transparency and f= or clarification =96 I would like to share with you what I found:

 

I have found =96 fairly regularly dist= ributed over the said period =96 an estimated number of at least a hundred = email exchanges between the =93small group=94 of IGO representatives (mainly lead by Jonathan Passaro and other colleagues from OECD, the UN an= d 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 numbe= r of other GNSO support staff) on the other hand. Mason Cole as the GNSO-li= aison 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 oth= er people from ICANN and the =93IGO small group=94, Chris Disspain and Tom from the ACIG GAC secretariat) where I asked for =93clarification about what exactly the process (activ= ities, membership, timeline) of this small group is=94.

 

The next day, I received the following= answer from Mary: =93The IGO =93small group=94 was formed foll= owing discussions with the NGPC at the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in Octo= ber 2014, to serve as a point of contact, representation and input for and from the IGOs with the NGPC/Board, GAC and GNSO.= =94

(Bold marker added by myself - you wil= l find Mary=92s complete answer in her email below.)

 

These emails from late 2014 on dealt e= ach with one or both of the following issues:


1. requesting respectively providing input from the IGO small group into th= e GNSO Curative Rights PDP working group

(Generally, the input from the IGO sma= ll group has been described as =93very useful=94 by Mary who had received a= nd forwarded it to the curative rights working group. On the side of the IGO small group, there has been a growing frustration d= uring 2015, as in their view, their input had not been taken into account a= s they had hoped but they declared that they would nevertheless continue to= provide input.)

 

2. informal work on the IGO small grou= p 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 so= me 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 an= d regular email exchanges, there has been a physical meeting during the ICA= NN Buenos Aires meeting on 22 June 2015 between the GAC Leadership and the Co-Chairs of the GNSO curative rights PDPD work= ing group, GNSO support staff and Mason Cole, in order to mutually update e= ach other about the work of the small group as well as the PDP WG. In addit= ion to this, on 16 July 2015, some representatives of the IGO small group have met with Chris Disspain, mysel= f and a number of ICANN staff in Paris at the OECD to continue informal wor= k on the draft small group text.

 

Following this meeting, there have bee= n many exchanges about different text proposals until the end of the year 2= 015 and then this has been continued in 2016.

 

 

 

To sum up, the mails I found in my = mailbox show the following:

 

-   =     The IGO =93small group=94 was = formed following discussions with the NGPC after the Los Angeles meeting.

-   =     The =93small group=94 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 inc= luded in more or less all electronic communications throughout the whole period and did not only get involved recently.

-   =     Mason Cole, the GNSO Liaison t= o the GAC, had also been receiving a portion of these mails and

-   =     Jonathan Robinson (chair of th= e GNSO council at that time) had been copied into some emails from time to = time

-   =     there has been one physical me= eting and some email updates to the PDP WG co-chairs

 

All this makes it very difficult for m= e 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 persona= l participation in the small group, however, is that none of the ICANN staf= f has had an active role in the informal =93discussions/negotiations=94, but that they, including Mary, acted as supportive facilitators of the pro= cess and as bearers of messages and information. The informal =93discussion= s/negotiations=94 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 th= e GAC and IGO reps participated in this informal =93small group=94 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 c= ompromise 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 gett= ing rid of some misunderstandings and false assertions in this issue and allows us =96 the Board, the GAC and the GNSO =96 to res= ume where we were thinking we would depart in late 2014: on a process to ge= t 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 ma= ils: whoever was part of the small group or recipient of these messages can= easily search his mailbox for kewords like =93IGO=94 or names of people that he/she only worked with on this issue. (This is ho= w I found these mails.)

For the others: I can also show the wh= ole 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@bakom.admin.ch>; = Nicola.BONUCCI@oecd.org
Cc: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org>; pozenel@un.org; n= icoara@un.org; wiener@un.org; ricardo.GUILHERME@upu.int; brian.beckham@wipo= .int; erik.wilbers@wipo.int; streijffertch@who.int; sradell@ntia.doc.gov; c= eo@auda.org.au; Sam.PALTRIDGE@oecd.org; Alexandra.EXCOFFIER-NOSOV@oecd.org; Jonathan.PASSARO@oecd.org; tom@acig.co= m.au; Karine Perset <karine.perset@icann.org>
Betreff: Re: Request from IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group to = the IGO "small group" (coalition)

 

Dear Thomas and eve= ryone,

 

Thank you for your = reply, which we on the ICANN staff appreciate especially as we know how muc= h is on your and the GAC=92s 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 representati= ves for your continuing commitment to this dialogue.

 

The IGO =93small gr= oup=94 was formed following discussions with the NGPC at the ICANN meeting = in Los Angeles in October 2014, to serve as a point of contact, representat= ion 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 =93small group=94 are represented in this email thread.&= nbsp;

 

Beyond being the pr= imary contacts for IGOs in respect of resolving the question of IGO protect= ions in the New gTLD Program, both preventative and curative, the =93small = group=94 has been very helpful to the GNSO=92s ongoing PDP Working Group that is exploring the specific, more limited, qu= estion of whether existing curative dispute resolution processes sufficient= ly address the particular needs and concerns of these organizations or if c= hanges are required. As noted in previous emails, the Working Group has reached out to the GAC as well as t= he =93small group=94 to ensure that it understands fully all the relevant p= ublic 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 =96 inc= luding Jamie Hedlund (cc=92d on this email), Karine and me, among others = =96 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,<= o:p>

Mary

 

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Direc= tor

Internet Corporatio= n for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

Telephone: +1 6= 03 574 4892

Email: mary.wong@icann.org<= /span>

 

 

 

 

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 =93= small group=94, where some GAC representatives (including myself) are suppo= sed to contribute to making things progress, I am trying to seek clarification about what exactly the process (activities, membersh= ip, 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 wa= y that will be satisfactory to all concerned and is ready to participate in and contribute to the =93small group=94 work. A= s they will help us with this, I would like to ask you to also keep Tom Dal= e 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)

 

 

--_000_ADB4CA2BA8720940B084E26F27EC95F09356C167sb00106aadbintr_-- --_004_ADB4CA2BA8720940B084E26F27EC95F09356C167sb00106aadbintr_ Content-Type: text/plain; name="ATT00001.txt" Content-Description: ATT00001.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT00001.txt"; size=129; creation-date="Fri, 04 Nov 2016 23:53:10 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 04 Nov 2016 23:53:10 GMT" Content-ID: <4B1EF41CF899134D98A77C0746D1C211@WIECSP.UNICC.ORG> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCmdhYyBtYWls aW5nIGxpc3QNCmdhY0BnYWMuaWNhbm4ub3JnDQpodHRwczovL21tLmljYW5uLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFu L2xpc3RpbmZvL2dhYw0K --_004_ADB4CA2BA8720940B084E26F27EC95F09356C167sb00106aadbintr_--