May 2010 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

Change of time for conference call
by Tony Holmes Aug. 3, 2010

Aug. 3, 2010

All Those of us in Seoul discussed holding a conference call on Friday 6th November at 13.00 UTC. Tony Harris has since advised that he will be unable to join at that time as it clashes with an important OSC work team call. Therefore I propose that we change the time of this call to 14.30 UTC. Call in details will be circulated shortly. Regards Tony

9 36

call
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 1, 2010

June 1, 2010

Tony and colleagues, I've still an ISPCP call scheduled today 14:00 UTC. Do we keep this call? Items to discuss regarding the next council meeting ( 10 June) could be - prioritization - GNSO endorsement process for AoC applicants - Implementation of New gTLD Recommendation (confusingly similar names) Regards Wolf-Ulrich

4 5

ENC: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2
by Jaime Wagner - CGI May 31, 2010

May 31, 2010

I´m not sure IF Wolf already sent this. This is the exercise the council member have to do and we would appreciate some input from the group. Jaime Wagner CGI (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil) Representante dos Provedores de Acesso e Conteúdo jaime <mailto:jaime@corp.plugin.com.br> @cgi.br <mailto:jaime@cgi.br> (51)8126-0916 j.w(a)gner.net.br De: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Ken Bour Enviada em: sexta-feira, 21 de maio de 2010 10:08 Para: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: GNSO; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org Assunto: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2 GNSO Council Members and Liaisons: In accordance with the Work Prioritization timeline approved by the Council on 21 April 2010, four major steps were identified as follows: Step Dates Activity Status Step 1 30 April - 20 May Staff recommend and Council approve a set of Eligible Projects for the 1st Work Prioritization effort Completed Step 2 21 May - 7 June Individual Councilor ratings completed and delivered to Staff for commonality analysis (18 days) In Progress Step 3 19 June (Brussels) Group Session (2 hours) to determine Value ratings Scheduled Step 4 23 June (Brussels) Approve final ratings/priorities and direct that results be published at gnso.icann.org Scheduled The purpose of this email is to formally launch Step 2, which is to solicit from each GNSO Council member and participating Liaison individual Value ratings for each of the Eligible Projects approved in Step 1. The definition of Value, as provided in the proposed Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT) procedures (Chapter <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> 6 and ANNEX), is quoted below: "Value ... this factor relates to perceptions of overall value, benefit, importance, and criticality primarily for the GNSO, but also considering ICANN's stakeholders and the global Internet community. Components of this dimension may include, but are not limited to: new opportunities for Internet growth/expansion, enhanced competitiveness, resolution/improvement of serious performance or infrastructure problems, increased security/stability, and improved user experience. " In this task, each Councilor is asked to rate the above Value component for each of the 15 Eligible Projects (see attached spreadsheet) using the following 7-point scale. [Note: the scale is also duplicated in the attachment for ease of reference]. Scale Interpretation 1 Far Below 2 Moderately Below 3 Slightly Below 4 Average 5 Slightly Above 6 Moderately Above 7 Far Above Scale Guideline: As provided in the proposed WPM-DT procedures (ANNEX, <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> Section 2.2), the following guidelines are intended to assist Council members in developing Value ratings. "Thinking about all Eligible Projects taken together, which one (or more) represents your best perception of AVERAGE in terms of Value as defined in Section 6.3.2. For example, suppose that you happen to think that Project "X" is an AVERAGE project in terms of Value compared to all the others. Once you have "anchored" your perceptual scale in this way, then it is a matter of deciding whether the other projects are Far Below, Moderately Below, Slightly Below, Slightly Above, Moderately Above, or Far Above that "average" project in terms of this factor. If you find it challenging to decide on an AVERAGE project, consider anchoring at either of the scale extremes, that is, determine which project you think is FAR ABOVE or FAR BELOW all of the others in terms of Value. In this rating process, there are no absolute or independent scale referents -- you are being asked to assess projects RELATIVE to each other." Note: Councilors are encouraged to consult with their organizations to ensure that the ratings reflect the priorities of their groups as much as possible. Instructions: Attached is an Excel Template (GNSO Project Prioritization Rating Template) that you will use to rate each Eligible Project according to your perception of relative Value. Directions are contained inside the template. Please enter your Name in the space provided and the Date you complete the form. Please do not forget to <Save As> the completed form to another name as explained and illustrated inside the spreadsheet. ***Please note that all unshaded cells are protected (i.e. locked) against accidental mistyping; it is also important that the project and value rating sequence be maintained to facilitate data aggregation*** Expected Output: The outcome of this activity, once Staff receives and processes all of your individual ratings, will be an initial statistical assessment of Councilor agreement on the Value ratings. The data will be used as input to the Step 3 group discussion that is scheduled to take place in Brussels on 19 June. If you have questions about any of this material, please feel free to email or call me. I will provide periodic updates to the Council (e.g. 28 May and 4 June) outlining the progress of this activity. Good luck with your ratings! Ken Bour Policy Staff Consultant Email: ken.bour(a)verizon.net Office: 703-430-4059 (USA-Virginia EST)

1 0

WG: [council] Draft Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report attached for your review
by KnobenW＠telekom.de May 31, 2010

May 31, 2010

FYI. It could be helpful to invite Liz Gasster to the ISPCP constituency meeting in Brussels to discuss the report. Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Gasster Gesendet: Sonntag, 30. Mai 2010 20:43 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Draft Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report attached for your review All, Attached please find a "draft" Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report for your review and discussion. This report includes input we received while soliciting the views of the SOs and ACs. We decided to leave the report as a draft to provide the opportunity for further input in Brussels. Dave Piscitello (and Steve Sheng remotely) will be facilitating a public consultation on the report, tentatively scheduled for Thursday morning at 9:30 Brussels local time. We will finalize the report shortly thereafter. Best regards, Liz

1 0

WG: [council] Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 10 June 2010
by KnobenW＠telekom.de May 31, 2010

May 31, 2010

FYI an excerpt of the upcoming council meeting agenda. Regards Wolf-Ulrich Item 2: Prioritization of GNSO work (5 Minutes) 2.1 Refer to TIMELINE FOR FIRST WORK PRIORITIZATION EFFORT http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cover-letter-work-prioritization-pr oject-list-30apr10-en.pdf 2.2 Progress Report (Ken Bour) Item 3: GNSO Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Drafting Team (DT) Endorsement Process (20 minutes) 3.1 Refer to (to be inserted URL for proposed process) 3.2 Overview of GNSO AoC RT Endorsement Process (Bill Drake) 3.3 Questions/Comments? 3.4 Motion * Refer to https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_june_motions 10 june motions <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_june_motions> * Discussion * Vote Item 4: Implementation of New gTLD Recommendation 2 (confusingly similar names) (25 minutes) 4.1 General Discussion (continuation from 21 May meeting) 4.2 Motion * Refer to https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?20_may_motions 20 may motions <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?20_may_motions> * Discussion * Vote Item 5: AGP Policy questions (20 minutes) 5.1 Refer to latest semi-annual update: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/contractual-compliance-report -24dec09-en.pdf 5.2 Brief overview of update (Craig Schwartz) 5.3 Questions/comments? 5.4 Discussion of questions raised by Craig Schwartz in the 21 April Council meeting (continued from 20 May) * Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy to no longer require semi-annual updates? * Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy by defining the terms "extraordinary circumstances" or "reoccur regularly? For example: o Should instances of consumer fraud automatically be a legitimate use of AGP deletes? o If a registrar proactively takes down (i.e., deletes) domains that are known to propagate a fraudulent activity such as phishing, should the registrar bear the cost if the deletions cause the registrar to exceed the threshold defined in the Policy? 5.5 Next steps? Item 6: Whois Studies (20 minutes) Item 8: Other Business (5 minutes) 8.1 Agendas for Brussels meetings

1 0

WG: [liaison6c] Public Comment: April 2010 DNS-CERT Operational Requirements & Collaboration Analysis
by KnobenW＠telekom.de May 31, 2010

May 31, 2010

FYI Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Mai 2010 12:13 An: liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [liaison6c] Public Comment: April 2010 DNS-CERT Operational Requirements & Collaboration Analysis http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-24may10-en.htm Public Comment: April 2010 DNS-CERT Operational Requirements & Collaboration Analysis 24 May 2010 ICANN is today opening a public comment period on the April 2010 DNS-CERT Operational Requirements and Collaboration Analysis Workshop Report <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/ssr/dns-cert-collaboration-analysis-24may10-…> (with Minority Statement). In advance of the ICANN Brussels meeting, ICANN is seeking comments on the potential requirements identified in the workshop report, DNS Security response gaps. In addition, ICANN is publishing the Summary & Analysis of Comments on the Security Strategic Initiatives and Global DNS-CERT Business Case papers <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/summary-analysis-strategic-ssr-initi…> , and the DNS-CERT Consultation record <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/ssr/dns-cert-consultation-record-24may10-en.…> . The consultation record is included for transparency on the formation of the DNS-CERT concept and consultations that have occurred in parallel with the public comment period on the Security Strategic Initiatives papers. The DNS-CERT Operational Requirements and Collaboration Analysis Workshop report was prepared by Jose Nazario, Arbor Networks, Roy Arends, Nominet, and Chris Morrow, Google, and is the output from a tabletop workshop conducted 6-7 April 2010 in Washington DC. Participants identified several requirements for responding to Internet and DNS security events, many of which are under-met or ignored by existing DNS security capabilities. They are: * A trusted communications channel, or multiple channels, for use during event response that is usable by the appropriate parties. * Standing incident coordination and response functions, which enable consistent and professional incident handling efforts. * Incident status tracking through to completion, with communication to the necessary parties. * Trusted guidance on issues with knowledge and experience with the various and varied areas of Internet and DNS security. Respect of these voices by the areas of the Internet and DNS communities with which they speak is important. * A trust broker / introduction service across traditional communities boundaries, recognizing that the community identifying threats to Internet and DNS operations is often far-flung and sometimes outside the knowledge of the Internet and DNS operator and vendor communities. * Analysis capabilities, including data such as DNS traffic, software vulnerabilities and attack traffic, to validate incidents and identify next steps as quickly as possible. * Institutional memory in the form of reports, recommendations, and best practices, which can inform the various Internet and DNS security communities, support future successful incident responses, and help evolve incident response capabilities. * Outreach and education functions to share best practices for securing Internet and DNS operations, secure registration functions, implementing DNSSEC, and other key DNS and security factors. * The ability to act quickly, and to be prepared to act with necessary resources in response to threats to the DNS of a global nature in a timely and sustained manner. * A sensitivity to the complexity of the international nature of the DNS, understanding the capabilities and limitations of the global DNS community. Workshop participants noted many of these functions are addressed by various groups, either standing or ad-hoc. Some participants expressed concern that only a few of the existing organizations are DNS-specific. The report includes a Minority Statement <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/ssr/dns-cert-collaboration-analysis-minority…> from Kathy Kleiman, Public Interest Registry, and Greg Aaron, Afilias. Comments on the Operational Requirements and Collaboration Analysis Report submitted to dns-collab-analysis(a)icann.org will be considered until 2 Jul 2010 23:59 UTC. Comments may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/dns-collab-analysis/. <http://forum.icann.org/lists/dns-collab-analysis/> A consultation session will be held at the ICANN meeting in Brussels on the Security Strategic Initiatives (DNS-CERT and system-wide DNS Risk Assessment and exercises), with a date and time soon to be included in the Brussels meeting schedule. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WG: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2
by KnobenW＠telekom.de May 21, 2010

May 21, 2010

Dear ISPCP colleagues, as it was suggested during our call today I forward the GNSO project prioritization template requesting you to fill in your proposed values. Please feed back to Jaime and myself. At our next call on 31 May we'll discuss this evaluation as to get input for the council session at the ICANN Brussels meeting. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Deutsche Telekom AG Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Heinrich-Hertz-Str. 3-7 D - 64295 Darmstadt +49 2244 873999 (Tel.) +49 2151 5300 5206 (PC-Fax) +49 151 1452 5867 (Mobil) http://www.telekom.com <http://www.telekom.com/> Deutsche Telekom AG Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Vorsitzender) Vorstand: René Obermann (Vorsitzender) Timotheus Höttges (stellvertretender Vorsitzender) Hamid Akhavan, Manfred Balz, Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Guido Kerkhoff, Thomas Sattelberger Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn WEEE-Reg.-Nr.: DE50478376 _____ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Ken Bour Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Mai 2010 15:08 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: GNSO; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2 GNSO Council Members and Liaisons: In accordance with the Work Prioritization timeline approved by the Council on 21 April 2010, four major steps were identified as follows: Step Dates Activity Status Step 1 30 April - 20 May Staff recommend and Council approve a set of Eligible Projects for the 1st Work Prioritization effort Completed Step 2 21 May - 7 June Individual Councilor ratings completed and delivered to Staff for commonality analysis (18 days) In Progress Step 3 19 June (Brussels) Group Session (2 hours) to determine Value ratings Scheduled Step 4 23 June (Brussels) Approve final ratings/priorities and direct that results be published at gnso.icann.org Scheduled The purpose of this email is to formally launch Step 2, which is to solicit from each GNSO Council member and participating Liaison individual Value ratings for each of the Eligible Projects approved in Step 1. The definition of Value, as provided in the proposed Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT) procedures (Chapter <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> 6 and ANNEX), is quoted below: "Value ... this factor relates to perceptions of overall value, benefit, importance, and criticality primarily for the GNSO, but also considering ICANN's stakeholders and the global Internet community. Components of this dimension may include, but are not limited to: new opportunities for Internet growth/expansion, enhanced competitiveness, resolution/improvement of serious performance or infrastructure problems, increased security/stability, and improved user experience. " In this task, each Councilor is asked to rate the above Value component for each of the 15 Eligible Projects (see attached spreadsheet) using the following 7-point scale. [Note: the scale is also duplicated in the attachment for ease of reference]. Scale Interpretation 1 Far Below 2 Moderately Below 3 Slightly Below 4 Average 5 Slightly Above 6 Moderately Above 7 Far Above Scale Guideline: As provided in the proposed WPM-DT procedures (ANNEX, <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> Section 2.2), the following guidelines are intended to assist Council members in developing Value ratings. "Thinking about all Eligible Projects taken together, which one (or more) represents your best perception of AVERAGE in terms of Value as defined in Section 6.3.2. For example, suppose that you happen to think that Project "X" is an AVERAGE project in terms of Value compared to all the others. Once you have "anchored" your perceptual scale in this way, then it is a matter of deciding whether the other projects are Far Below, Moderately Below, Slightly Below, Slightly Above, Moderately Above, or Far Above that "average" project in terms of this factor. If you find it challenging to decide on an AVERAGE project, consider anchoring at either of the scale extremes, that is, determine which project you think is FAR ABOVE or FAR BELOW all of the others in terms of Value. In this rating process, there are no absolute or independent scale referents -- you are being asked to assess projects RELATIVE to each other." Note: Councilors are encouraged to consult with their organizations to ensure that the ratings reflect the priorities of their groups as much as possible. Instructions: Attached is an Excel Template (GNSO Project Prioritization Rating Template) that you will use to rate each Eligible Project according to your perception of relative Value. Directions are contained inside the template. Please enter your Name in the space provided and the Date you complete the form. Please do not forget to <Save As> the completed form to another name as explained and illustrated inside the spreadsheet. ***Please note that all unshaded cells are protected (i.e. locked) against accidental mistyping; it is also important that the project and value rating sequence be maintained to facilitate data aggregation*** Expected Output: The outcome of this activity, once Staff receives and processes all of your individual ratings, will be an initial statistical assessment of Councilor agreement on the Value ratings. The data will be used as input to the Step 3 group discussion that is scheduled to take place in Brussels on 19 June. If you have questions about any of this material, please feel free to email or call me. I will provide periodic updates to the Council (e.g. 28 May and 4 June) outlining the progress of this activity. Good luck with your ratings! Ken Bour Policy Staff Consultant Email: ken.bour(a)verizon.net Office: 703-430-4059 (USA-Virginia EST)

1 0

WG: [liaison6c] GNSO Council Resolutions 20 MAY 2010
by KnobenW＠telekom.de May 21, 2010

May 21, 2010

FYI Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Mai 2010 00:17 An: liaison6c Betreff: [liaison6c] GNSO Council Resolutions 20 MAY 2010 Dear Councillors, Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolutions were passed during the Council meeting today, 20 May 2010. Please note that the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG) has been revised with the proposed amendment. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards. Glen 1. Proposed motion - Prioritization Project List Made by: Olga Cavalli seconded by: Jaime Wagner WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 April 2010 meeting, adopted a resolution and timeline <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions> 21 april motions <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions> to conduct its first Work Prioritization effort according to a set of procedures (proposed Chapter 6 and ANNEX <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> ) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf recommended by the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT); WHEREAS, the first step in the GNSO Work Prioritization timeline called for the ICANN Policy Staff to produce, on or before 30 April 2010, a recommendation of those GNSO projects that should be considered Eligible and Ineligible for the Work Prioritization effort; WHEREAS, the ICANN Policy Staff prepared and delivered to the GNSO Council a recommended Work Prioritization Project List <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pdf> (v1.0), http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pdf including aCover Letter <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cover-letter-work-prioritization-proje…> ,on 30 April 2010; http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cover-letter-work-prioritization-proje… NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts and approves the GNSO Work Prioritization Project List (v1.0) for use in all remaining steps of the Work Prioritization timeline that, upon completion, is intended to culminate in a set of approved GNSO project ratings and priorities at the ICANN meeting in Brussels. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. 2 Motion to approve the GNSO Council's expectations about size and composition of the Review Teams 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy' and to approve the GNSO Council's response to the draft proposal on the call for volunteers representing SO/ACs for the Affirmation reviews 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy' Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Seconded by: Caroline Greer Whereas: * On 22 April 2010, the chair of the GAC was requesting comment from the GNSO regarding the size and composition of the Review Teams 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy' * On 26 April 2010, ICANN Staff was requesting comment from the GNSO regarding the draft proposal on the call for volunteers representing SO/ACs for the Affirmation reviews 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy' The GNSO council: * Asks that both Review Teams shall be staffed with 4 GNSO representatives * Asks the GNSO council chair to forward his comments made in response to the draft proposal on the call for volunteers representing SO/ACs for the Affirmation reviews 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy'to the relevant ICANN body. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. 3. Proposed motion to adopt a Charter for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG) Made by: Rafik Dammak Seconded by: Olga Cavalli as amended (to the charter itself) to the amended charter Whereas, on 1 April 2010, the GNSO Council resolved to form a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SOâs) and Advisory Committee (ACâs) to fulfill an ICANN Board request (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20> ) to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants, keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; Whereas, the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG) has since been launched and has drafted a Charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-jas-wg-charter-12may10-en.htm for the WG activities. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby adopts the Charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-jas-wg-charter-12may10-en.htm for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG); Resolved further, that the GNSO Council Liaison for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG), Rafik Dammak, shall inform the WG of this resolution within 48 hours of its adoption. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ISPCP call Friday 21st May
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com May 19, 2010

May 19, 2010

Dear ISPCP colleagues Please note there will be an ISPCP call on Friday 21st May at 14.00 UTC. Details will be circulated shortly Tony

1 0

SUPPORT FOR NON-PROFIT NEW gTLD APPLICANTS
by Anthony Harris May 14, 2010

May 14, 2010

Guys, I am participating in the WG that has been tasked to evaluate ways to support non-profit and under-resourced applicants for new gTLDs. I am doing so as a prospective applicant, and my opinions are voiced as personal, and not tied to the constituency. In the attachment, you can see comments submitted to ICANN some time ago, on behalf of the Federation I represent, and which address the justifications for the somewhat high fee structure defined for the next round of gTLD applications. Previous rounds featured an application fee of 45 or 50K and the next round will cost 185K. The charter for this WG will be sent to the Council for discussion on May 20th. As a constituency, we have always been supportive of a measured and controllable process for the introduction of new gTLDs, and a robust application fee is of course a deterrent to unscrupulous prospectors. The current debate in the working group revolves around two objectives: - Determine if the proposed 185K imposes an excessive and unjustifiable burden on non-profit applicants, seeking strings that will be simple and non-conflicting. - Determine ways (if any) whereby additional assistance to these applicants can be resourced, such as potential donor organizations, foundations, etc. I thought I would submit this background for Wolf-Ulrich and Jaime to be aware of what's going on, prior to the Council deliberations. Tony Harris

3 2