October 2014 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

PLEASE RSVP Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

Reminder: Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session These ongoing monthly sessions are for new GNSO WG participants to come together and discuss any questions they may have about GNSO Working Groups, procedures and/or processes. We know there is a lot of information to digest when you join a GNSO Working Group and these monthly meetings are an opportunity for newcomers and more experienced participants to meet in an informal setting without the pressure of "real work" that needs be done. The agenda is flexible. The presenters will be ready with a standard set of materials if people would like to discuss them. Feel free to submit questions, either in advance or at the beginning of the meeting, if there is a topic that you would like to explore in more depth . Providing useful answers to a wide range of questions is part of the reason why these meetings are Thursday 23 October at 12.00 UTC (new date) Thursday 6 November at 20.00 UTC Thursday 4 December at 12.00 UTC To convert to your local time zone, please see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html If you are interested to join the next meeting on 23 October or any of the future meetings, please let the GNSO Secretariat know ( <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs(a)icann.org) and we will send you the call details. If there are any specific questions you already have, or any overviews or introductions you think would be helpful (e.g. GNSO Policy Development Process or GNSO Working Group guidelines), please let us know in advance and we will prepare materials accordingly. Feel free to share this invitation with others that you think may be interested. We look forward to welcoming you at the next meeting! Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat

2 2

Face to face facilitated Working Group session at ICANN52 in February 2015
by Mary Wong Nov. 4, 2014

Nov. 4, 2014

Dear WG members, At the GNSO Council¹s wrap up meeting in Los Angeles earlier this month, the Council discussed the selection of the next Working Group that it thought would be at a stage to benefit from the pilot project it is testing in this financial year (FY15). The pilot project is basically a one-day face to face meeting of a selected Working Group at an ICANN Public Meeting, with the objective of assisting that selected WG to complete its work effectively and efficiently through a full-day session run by a professional as well as a community-based facilitator. As our WG is making good progress such as to be on track for completing many of our chartered tasks by the ICANN53 Public Meeting in June 2015, the Council has selected our WG for the one-day facilitated session at ICANN52 in February 2015. This will be the second group selected for this one-year pilot project, the first having been the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group in Los Angeles. Feedback given by that WG following their one-day session indicates that they found it extremely helpful in working through some difficult questions and in further making progress toward completion of their work. Please note that funding for the one-day session is provided only for one or two nights¹ hotel accommodation; it does not cover airfare or other travel costs. In order to ensure sufficient representation at the meeting by the broad diversity of interests represented in the GNSO and other ICANN groups, each GNSO Stakeholder Group/Constituency and all other participating Supporting Organization/Advisory Committees will each be assigned 6 hotel nights (so that each group can nominate between 3 to 6 members to attend, for 1 to 2 nights each.) With this in mind, staff therefore proposes that the one-day session take place on the Friday immediately following the official end of the ICANN meeting, i.e. Friday 13 February 2015. Some of you may have heard that ICANN is currently considering postponing the February 2015 meeting due to the possibility of travel restrictions to Marrakech being placed on ICANN community members: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-10-26-en. I do not at this time have any updated information or confirmation of either a continuation, postponement or cancellation of the Marrakech meeting; however, should the meeting go ahead as planned, staff wanted you to have as much notice as possible of the additional meeting day for our WG. You may wish to note also that if your travel to ICANN52 will be covered at least in part by ICANN Constituency Travel, I am informed that the names and travel dates of ICANN-sponsored travelers will need to be submitted by 10 November 2014. Please look out for further notices about this and the fate of the Marrakech meeting from my colleagues who are involved in meeting and travel planning. I¹d be happy to provide more information about the one-day facilitated session on our call tomorrow. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

2 3

The origins of how INGOs got into this process (as opposed to IGO)
by George Kirikos Oct. 30, 2014

Oct. 30, 2014

Hi folks, During today's conference call, the topic of how INGOs got into this process was raised. Researching the mailing list of the prior working group, I believe the origin was the message at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-igo-ingo/msg00885.html where one of the participants put forward the idea that: "Accreditation by ECOSOC is equivalent to the IGO treaty requirements and stands in fair stead to business oriented trademarks" which, as Kristine noted in the chatroom during the call (I don't think the transcript is available yet, but will be) is probably not correct. i.e. her exact words were "I rather suspect it's much harder to get included in a treaty than to get on the ECOSOC list..." I agree with Kristine. Anyhow, I thought it would be good to capture this "history", in case we want to revisit this so-called "rationale" for adding INGOs. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

9 13

MP3 IGO WG - Wednesday, 30 October 2014 at 1600 UTC
by Terri Agnew Oct. 29, 2014

Oct. 29, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Wednesday, 29TH October 2014 at 1600 UTC at: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-20141029-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-20141029-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#oct> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#oct The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: George Kirikos - Individual Jay Chapman – Individual Jim Bikoff – IPC Paul Tattersfield – Individual Petter Rindforth – IPC Val Sherman – IPC Kristine Dorrain – Individual David Maher – RySG Phil Corwin – BC Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Mason Cole – RySG David Cake – GNSO Vice Chair Paul Raynor Keating – NCUC Kathy Kleiman – NCUC Lori Schulman - NPOC Apologies: none ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Berry Cobb Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg> https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Wednesday, 29 October 2014: Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting on the 29th October 2014 George Kirikos:Hi folks. Are we going for 60 mins today, or 90? Steve Chan:@George, 60 minutes George Kirikos:Great. Thanks Steve. Terri Agnew:David Cake has joined Mary Wong:One IGO has asked to join the WG as an Observer Mary Wong:@Petter yes it will be Brian Beckham from WIPO Kristine Dorrain-NAF:I believe Brian has been discussing this WG with other IGOs too...so even though I am not sure he speaks for any other IGOs, he has good insight.... Mary Wong:@Kristine, yes - especially to/with the other IGOs that will be forming the small group that the Board and GNSO discussed in LA. Mary Wong:The document is unsync'd so you can scroll through it. Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Attorneys fees are usually the same or (in most cases) more than the filing fee aul Keating:Paul Keating here. Sorry but ICANN has blocked by PW for some reason. Terri Agnew:Welcome Paul Keating George Kirikos:The GAC also didn't reference the URS in their point. Terri Agnew:Kathy Kleiman has joined Kathy Kleiman:Hi All Terri Agnew:Lori Schulman has joined Lori Schulman:Thank you for sending the link. Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Changing the UDRP in this regard is likely to have a ripple effect. I agree with Brian (we've discussed it) Mary Wong:@Kristine, @Petter - this is something the WG can request that the GNSO Council have Mason transmit as a question to the GAC. Petter Rindforth:Yes, that's needed and rather quickly so that we know how to proceed George Kirikos:lol Kathy aul Keating:I have a serious concern that people are suggesting a new "system" instead of amending the UDRP in order to avoid the issues that would be raised in a discussion concerning amending the UDRP. George Kirikos:We don't want to lose the precedents and jurisprudence that exists from past UDRP rulings, either. David Cake:Mary - does this need to formally go via council, or can Mason just ask having been asked by this WG? Mary Wong:@David WG requests should go back to the Council. Lori Schulman:Not all trademark offices do a "likelihood of confusion" search Lori Schulman:IGOs and NGO's are responsible for policing their marks aul Keating:If the issue is pricing, we need only to obtain permission from ADR providers to waive the fees. OR ICANN's agreement to fund the fees directly. Kathy Kleiman:Why? aul Keating:If the issue is that they have problems establishing a "trademakr", I am sorry but I see no legal basis for suporting a "currative" rights mechanishm when there are no "rights" to protect. Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Providers already lose a lot of money on UDRP/URS. I suspect we're not about to start funding IGO disputes more than that :) Kathy Kleiman:Isn't it important to keep the IGO process consistent with the UDRP - and all of its subsquent procedural changes. If we create two separate processes, we risk going off in two separate directions. Kristine Dorrain-NAF:I agree Kathy....the UDRP is a great starting point Kathy Kleiman:@Kristine, so it's a funding issue? Kristine Dorrain-NAF:That's one issue. George Kirikos:Right, Kathy. If we have UDRP reform in 2016 or whatever, will they automatically change the IGO-UDRP (or whatever a tailored version is named)? Lori Schulman:If the rights are not based on trademark registrations but other legal mechanisms then logic would dictate that a separate mechansim is necessary Mary Wong:@Kathy, the cost issue is one issue that has been raised, including by the GAC in previous Communiques and indicated as such in the Issue Report for this PDP George Kirikos:Also, by creating a new DRP tailored to IGOs, every registrar agreement will require that registrants give notice of 2 separate documents. Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, but cost is hardly a rationale for an entirely different body/set of rules, etc. George Kirikos:(which might be confusing for registrants) George Kirikos:I meant "registrants be *given* notice.." Mary Wong:@Kathy, I don't believe that is being offered as a rationale, only as a concern such that any mechanism (existing, tweaked or new) should take into account (nominal for IGOs) Paul Tattersfield:There is a bit of IGO thinking here http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14/msg00004.… unfortunately the poster didn’t leave their name if it is possible to identify the sender it might be good point of contact perhaps? aul Keating:RE FUNDING. Someone has to pay for it. The likely candidates are ICANN and/or the complainant. Mary Wong:@Paul, that was sent on behalf of the IGO Coalition Mary Wong:They participated in the previous WG, and some of them will likely be part of the group formed to discuss the outstanding GNSO recommendations re TMCH etc. Paul Tattersfield:thanks Mary Kathy Kleiman:Hi All, I'll still send a formal email, but here is the CERN registration in the US Trademark Office -- http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc <http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:rln7zr.2.7> &state=4805:rln7zr.2.7 George Kirikos:That link is session-specific, Kathy. Kathy Kleiman:Sorry all George Kirikos:Here's a better link: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=89000193 <http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=89000193&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=st…> &caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch George Kirikos:(although it's just a CERN logo mark) aul Keating:@PHIL, exactly what are the issues relative to this issue funding, standing (rights), etc.... we are getting off topic... Lori Schulman:The CERN listing is not technically a registration but a recognition of rights granted under the Paris Convention Lori Schulman:I could look into how the CERN info would be treated in the event that there were a conflicting filing. Lori Schulman:Never saw one when I was examining George Kirikos:A search for "6ter" at the USPTO under the field "ALL" shows many such registered marks. Kristine Dorrain-NAF:What is the difference between editing paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP and duplicating the UDRP with an editing 4(a)(i) and calling it UDRP-IGO.? (as far as the "procedural nightmare"...I just dont' see how one is worse than the other. Kathy Kleiman:@Lori, yes, and according to US Trademark folks, the registration is important - so that Trademark Examining attorneys can ensure that new trademark applicants are not causing confusion. George Kirikos:Lots of 6ter marks registered are numbers, e.g. 950, 375, etc. Lori Schulman:Right, but do the IGO's go through the Opposition Procedure in the regular way? Kristine Dorrain-NAF:One doesn't affect other users of the UDRP, the other has the potential of farther-reaching effects Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, can Brian Beckham from WIPO join us? George Kirikos:There are 735 Article 6ter marks registered at the USPTO. Lori Schulman:If the IGO's are cited as blocks, I wonder how many actually ever oppose based on Art.6 rights George Kirikos:Actually, 735 isn't correct, as there are some matches for "6ter" that are not IGO related. Petter Rindforth:Kathy, Brian will join as observer on behalf of WIPO George Kirikos:Those Article 6ter marks aren't blocks in the USPTO. George Kirikos:Some marks co-exist. George Kirikos:Rodenbaugh's report. George Kirikos:A straw poll, perhaps? (we don't have every working group member on today's call, though) Kathy Kleiman:@George, right, IGO 6ter registrations don't block, but can (and are) considered for confusion purposes. I think it is really interesting that a US company can get a trademark on an IGO acronym in an entirely different category of goods and services George Kirikos:Yes. The thing about Article 6ter registrations is that they don't really disclose a class of goods/services. So, unless it's an egregious impersonation, the examiner is probably going to let it go through. Lori Schulman:If IGO records are not used as a basis of refusal then I am not sure what I considered. Lori Schulman:I mean I am not sure what "is" considered? George Kirikos:Although, some classes of goods/services can be presumed, e.g. an application for "WIPO" by a commercial firm for legal services would probably fail. George Kirikos:(examiners will often do Google searches, etc. to see how marks are being used) Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, but wasn't that early PDP voted down by the GNSO Council? Mary Wong:@Kathy, I meant the last IGO-INGO PDP WG chaired by Thomas Rickert Mary Wong:Our PDP scope was defined by the GNSO Council based on that WG's recommendations. Kathy Kleiman:+1 Jim Lori Schulman:Got it. If refused probably on a different statutory basis then likelihood of confusion. Got it. Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Agree with Jim Mary Wong:@Kathy, NCSG was one group in that last PDP that supported equivalent treatment for IGos and INGOs, hence my advice to this WG to consider the question more deliberately before making the decision. George Kirikos:Yes, access to Curative Rights. It's not about changing the rules to create a more favourable DRP for INGOs. George Kirikos:If there was a failure of having access, that'd show a necessity for a change. Lori Schulman:I had promised some data about INGO's and I will write it up. But here is an interesting factoid about domain name registration/usage. George Kirikos:Everyone has a "wish list." e.g. non-profits non-INGOs would also seek changes, if INGOs get it. Lori Schulman:Independent research showed that from the 3578 registered organizations (on UN ECOSOC list), only 1428 (40%) actually had an operational Website with their own domain name. Of the 2148 organizations,(60%) with no operational Websites, about 860,(40%) no longer existed as operational entities and about 215 (10%) did not want to have a Website. aul Keating:@Phil, The issue seems to be one of standing - what rights must be shown to have currative rights? aul Keating:can you raise thi spoint please.? Lori Schulman:of the remaining 1074 operational Civil Society organizations, the approximately 322 (30%) that had "lost" their originally registered domain name where not aware of the need to renew a domain, and give and maintain up to date contact and billing information. From the 1428 organizations with an operational Website only about 500 (35%) maintained up to date contact data, such as email or mailing address and phone number), and were aware of and met deadlines for renewal. Lori Schulman:Approximately 1400 (65 %) had moved their Internet presence to a social media site such as Facebook Civil Society is increasingly abandoning a propitiatory domain based presence for an exclusive social media based use of the Internet. Many NGO's new to the Internet do not register an owned domain name, and from the beginning use social media sites as their main Internet tool. George Kirikos:Can you send that report to the mailing list, Lori? (if we don't already have that info) Lori Schulman:Yes, I will. It is part of research that was done by NPOC. George Kirikos:Excellent, thanks Lori. Mary Wong:GAC London Communique on Red Cross: "• The Red Cross and Red Crescent terms and names should not be equated with trademarks or trade names and that their protection could not therefore be adequately treated or addressed under ICANN's curative mechanisms for trademark protection." George Kirikos:PIR is coming out with a NGO-specific new gTLD, namely .NGO Lori Schulman:The issues for INGO's go much deeper than curative rights. George Kirikos:(and I think another variation, .ONG or something, i.e. non-English version) Lori Schulman:I agree with Phil's point about bad actors and opportunities for confusion. Petter Rindforth:Mary - can you also say a few words on the proposed face-to-face meeting? Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, NCSG has raised very strong concerns about special and extra-legal protections for Red Cross Lori Schulman:I will for NPOC. George Kirikos:Or should it best be sent via the GNSO liaison? Lori Schulman:INGO curative rights is certianly an "operational concerns" George Kirikos:Will there still be remote access, to those not planning to go to the physical meeting? Mary Wong:@George, yes for sure George Kirikos:Great. Kathy Kleiman:All, we did a facilitated meeting with the Proxy/Privacy WG, and it worked well. Much better to do the Friday after than the Friday before! Kathy Kleiman:Tx Phil! George Kirikos:Bye folks! Jay Chapman:Goodbye! Paul Tattersfield:Bye Lori Schulman:Ciao

1 0

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] May I please have the link to the call?
by Steve Chan Oct. 29, 2014

Oct. 29, 2014

Lori, The meeting details have been forwarded to you. Best, Steve From: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman(a)ascd.org> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 9:20 AM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] May I please have the link to the call? I do not have the link. Thank you. Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman(a)ascd.org <mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> Learn the secrets to great leadership practices at the ASCD Conference on Educational Leadership, October 31November 2, 2014 in Orlando, Florida. Featured presenters include Todd Whitaker, Baruti Kafele, Robyn Jackson, and Carol Ann Tomlinson. Register NOW at www.ascd.org/cel. <http://www.ascd.org/cel> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.

1 0

May I please have the link to the call?
by Lori Schulman Oct. 29, 2014

Oct. 29, 2014

I do not have the link. Thank you. Lori S. Schulman * General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 * Lori.Schulman(a)ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> [cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0] Learn the secrets to great leadership practices at the ASCD Conference on Educational Leadership, October 31-November 2, 2014 in Orlando, Florida. Featured presenters include Todd Whitaker, Baruti Kafele, Robyn Jackson, and Carol Ann Tomlinson. Register NOW at www.ascd.org/cel.<http://www.ascd.org/cel> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.

1 0

Agenda for Working Group call
by Mary Wong Oct. 29, 2014

Oct. 29, 2014

Dear WG members, Please accept my apologies for omitting to send out the agenda for our meeting today: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Recap of Los Angeles face to face meeting 3. Discussion of issues raised by Sub-Group research to date and advice from the GAC¹s LA Communique 4. Next steps See you all online soon, Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

GAC LA Communique on IGO-INGO Curative Rights WG
by Phil Corwin Oct. 23, 2014

Oct. 23, 2014

WG members: On October 16th the GAC issued a Communique that is available at https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Los%20Angeles_GAC%20… On pp.6-7 of the Communique the following language relevant to the task of our WG appears: 3. Protection of Inter-�\Governmental Organisation (IGO) Names and Acronyms a. The GAC reaffirms its advice from the Toronto, Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires, Singapore and London Communiqu��s regarding protection of IGO names and acronyms at the top and second levels, as implementation of such protection is in the public interest given that IGOs, as created by governments under international law, are objectively different right holders; namely, i. Concerning preventative protection at the second level, the GAC reminds the ICANN Board that notice of a match to an IGO name or acronym to prospective registrants, as well as to the concerned IGO, should apply in perpetuity for the concerned name and acronym in two languages, and at no cost to IGOs; ii. Concerning curative protection at the second level, and noting the ongoing GNSO PDP on access to curative Rights Protection Mechanisms, the GAC reminds the ICANN Board that any such mechanism should be at no or nominal cost to IGOs; and further, in implementing any such curative mechanism, b. The GAC advises the ICANN Board: i. That the UDRP should not be amended; welcomes the NGPC's continued assurance that interim protections remain in place pending the resolution of discussions concerning preventative protection of IGO names and acronyms; and supports continued dialogue between the GAC (including IGOs), the ICANN Board (NGPC) and the GNSO to develop concrete solutions to implement long-�\standing GAC advice. (Emphasis added) 4. Protection of Red Cross/Red Crescent Names The GAC welcomes the decision of the New gTLD Program Committee (Resolution 2014.10.12.NG05) to provide temporary protections for the names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The GAC requests the ICANN Board and all relevant parties to work quickly to resolve the longer term issues still outstanding. In regard to the highlighted portions of the communique, the GAC makes clear that it wants any new curative RPM to be available to IGOs at ��no or nominal cost��. This leaves open the question, should our WG choose to recommend the creation of a new DRP, of whether the current costs of the URS and UDRP are viewed as falling within the ��nominal�� range �C and, if deemed by the GAC to exceed such range, what party should assume the financial cost of subsidizing access to any new DRP by IGOs. In regard to the GAC��s statement that ��the UDRP should not be amended��, in my personal opinion this appears to be an overreaching attempt to foreclose the possibility that this WG will determine that the UDRP should in fact be amended to better accommodate the legitimate rights of IGOs, and that a new curative rights process is not advisable, and as such should be rejected at this time -- as it would only leave the option of creating a new curative RPM. ICANN and the GNSO have responded to the GAC��s concerns in regard to IGOs by establishing this WG, but we should be free to pursue its work as its members deem best without intervening attempts by the GAC to direct us to a predetermined outcome. Such intervention is manifestly different from the type of participation that would be welcome from IGOs and GAC members, which is contributing to our factual database and interaction in our ongoing and open dialogue. In this regard, when the Board met with the GNSO Council in Sunday, October 12th the activities of this WG were highlighted and there was dialogue concerning the intervention of Board members to encourage GAC and IGO participation. The transcript of that session is not yet available at http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-working and I would therefore solicit the assistance of ICANN staff in securing it so that we can review that discussion and follow up on it. In conclusion, it would be useful to have feedback from WG members in regard to the relevant portions of the GAC Communique and in particular as to whether we should prepare any reply in regard to its substance as well as to solicit the participation of IGOs and GAC members in our work. Thanks and best regards, Philip Corwin, Co-Chair 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

6 7

REMINDER: PLEASE RSVP Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 20, 2014

Oct. 20, 2014

Reminder: Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session These ongoing monthly sessions are for new GNSO WG participants to come together and discuss any questions they may have about GNSO Working Groups, procedures and/or processes. We know there is a lot of information to digest when you join a GNSO Working Group and these monthly meetings are an opportunity for newcomers and more experienced participants to meet in an informal setting without the pressure of "real work" that needs be done. The agenda is flexible. The presenters will be ready with a standard set of materials if people would like to discuss them. Feel free to submit questions, either in advance or at the beginning of the meeting, if there is a topic that you would like to explore in more depth . Providing useful answers to a wide range of questions is part of the reason why these meetings are Thursday 23 October at 12.00 UTC (new date) Thursday 6 November at 20.00 UTC Thursday 4 December at 12.00 UTC To convert to your local time zone, please see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html If you are interested to join the next meeting on 23 October or any of the future meetings, please let the GNSO Secretariat know ( <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs(a)icann.org) and we will send you the call details. If there are any specific questions you already have, or any overviews or introductions you think would be helpful (e.g. GNSO Policy Development Process or GNSO Working Group guidelines), please let us know in advance and we will prepare materials accordingly. Feel free to share this invitation with others that you think may be interested. We look forward to welcoming you at the next meeting! Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat

1 0

No meeting this week & Daylight Saving time
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 20, 2014

Oct. 20, 2014

Dear all, This is just a reminder that there will be no Working Group meeting this week, as this is the week after ICANN51. Reminders for the meeting on the 29th October will be sent out soon. A quick heads up also regarding Daylight Saving times. We will be keeping the same UTC meeting time until all clock changes have taken place. UTC time will be adjusted (+1 hour) from the 3rd November onwards. This will be made very clear in the email invitations. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards Nathalie

1 0