June 2014 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call
by Novoa, Osvaldo June 24, 2014

June 24, 2014

Dear All, I am enclosing a document with the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group preliminary conclusions as well as some questions to be posed to the community at the London meeting, based on the deliberations within the group. I would appreciate your comments. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

6 10

Fwd: Domain Name Collisions
by Mike O'Connor June 22, 2014

June 22, 2014

hi all, Jim Baskin (of the BC, and Verizon) is working on finding partners for a collaboration on raising awareness about the Name Collision issue. this looks like a natural for many of us and i’ve agreed to circulate Jim’s proposal to the ISPCP. please include Jim in any replies to this note. Jim, i decided to add your introduction in, along with the proposal — it’s too good to leave out. :-) could people please give this some serious consideration — i think Izumi’s presentation would make a great contribution to this effort, for example. if hope much collaboration results. thanks, mikey > > On our last conference call I spoke about domain name collision analysis work Verizon has been undertaking with Interisle Consulting. We have been analyzing our DNS query logs to get a clearer picture of the extent and impact of “leaking” queries to not-yet delegated or operational gTLDs. > > We have been considering a parallel effort to develop documentation, and possibly a webinar, to help prepare ourselves and our customers for telecommunications and systems problems that could arise once queries to some of the new gTLDs begin to resolve and receive responses other than NXDOMAIN (domain does not exist). > > While preparing the plan to develop those materials, we realized that most of what we were describing would be of value to other carriers, ISPs, general business enterprises, and more. As a result, we have decided to reach out to like-minded companies to jointly fund the development of these materials. > > The following is a high-level description of the work effort. With the support of a handful of companies, these materials could be rapidly produced and distributed at minimal cost to each of the participating organizations. If your organization might be interested to supporting and benefiting from this work, please contact me to discuss it in more detail. We are open to refinement or reasonable expansion of the deliverables, keeping in mind that we want to keep the development timeline as short as possible since the first new gTLDs will go live within the next month. > > Thanks for your consideration, and please feel free to share this message with other organizations outside of the BC who might be interested in participating. > > Jim Baskin > Verizon Communications > > > Proposal for the Preparation of Awareness, Educational/Training, > and Technical Support Materials Related to DNS Name Collisions > > 1. Develop descriptions of specific query/response scenarios that could arise as a result of conflicts of private and public naming schemes in the DNS. Document how these situations might appear to a user or technical support person, and what can be done to deal with such situations before or after they arise. Integrate the material into a comprehensive awareness and training program. > > 2. Create documentation for awareness, training, and support for management, employees/users and support staff. Materials oriented for various audiences would include: > · For management: awareness materials about the potential operational, technical, and security risks of DNS name collisions. > · For employees/users: information about the changes in network and system behavior that could arise as a result of new TLDs being delegated, how to recognize when problems encountered could be a result of new TLD name conflicts, how they can resolve problems on their own, and when they will require technical support. > · For customer-facing personnel (sales, marketing): how to communicate with customers to make them aware of the change in TLD resolution behavior and the potential impact, before and after delegation of TLDs. > · For technical support personnel: step-by-step procedures for identification and avoidance or remediation of collision occurrences. > > 3. Create communication information packages for distribution by email, web, etc. as appropriate, for target audiences, possibly including one or more webinars. > > 5. If webinars are developed, conduct a single session of the webinar(s), which would be video-recorded for distribution. > >

2 1

FW: document for GAC Geo Names session
by Tony Holmes June 18, 2014

June 18, 2014

FYI, particularly those attending the GAC session on gTLDs Tony From: Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca [mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca] Sent: 17 June 2014 19:44 To: wjdrake(a)gmail.com Cc: krosette(a)cov.com; Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com; michele(a)blacknight.com; david.olive(a)icann.org; jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com; byron.holland(a)cira.ca; adiel(a)afrinic.net; louie(a)louie.net; junsec(a)wide.ad.jp; liman(a)netnod.se; mllemineur(a)gmail.com; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com; tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com; ocl(a)gih.com; kdrazek(a)verisign.com; paf(a)netnod.se Subject: document for GAC Geo Names session Hi Kristina, Here is the reference document for the session, provided by the sub-group on geo-names. Heather From: Rosette, Kristina [ <mailto:krosette@cov.com> mailto:krosette@cov.com] Sent: June-12-14 2:26 PM To: Dryden, Heather: SPS Cc: < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; < <mailto:michele@blacknight.com> michele(a)blacknight.com>; < <mailto:david.olive@icann.org> david.olive(a)icann.org>; < <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com>; < <mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca> byron.holland(a)cira.ca>; < <mailto:adiel@afrinic.net> adiel(a)afrinic.net>; < <mailto:louie@louie.net> louie(a)louie.net>; < <mailto:junsec@wide.ad.jp> junsec(a)wide.ad.jp>; < <mailto:liman@netnod.se> liman(a)netnod.se>; < <mailto:mllemineur@gmail.com> mllemineur(a)gmail.com>; < <mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com> wjdrake(a)gmail.com>; < <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>; < <mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>; < <mailto:ocl@gih.com> ocl(a)gih.com>; < <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> kdrazek(a)verisign.com>; Patrik Fältström Subject: RE: GAC Geo Names session & GAC Open Forum in London Thanks, Heather. If the GeoNames session will include discussion of the draft discussion paper that was referenced in Singapore, would it be possible to have that paper posted to the schedule or sent to this group (and we can all distribute among our respective groups)? Many thanks! Kristina On 12 jun 2014, at 20:12, < <mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> wrote: Dear all, Following the earlier note about GAC sessions with the community in London, please see below for details. Both sessions will be in the GAC room (Palace Suite): Wednesday 25 June 2014 0900-1000 Geographic Names Protection Briefing to Community by the Subgroup on Geographic Names to the Future gTLD Issues Working Group Lead: Argentina Objectives: To inform and exchange with the community about considerations regarding protection of geographic names in future new gTLD application rounds. Thursday 26 June 2014 0830-10:00 GAC Open Forum - open session for the community - Lead: Sweden Objectives: To inform and exchange with the community about the GAC and the GACs working methods, in accordance with ATRT2 Recommendation 6.1.a. Thanks again for all the feedback, Heather

1 0

RV: [council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby
by Novoa, Osvaldo June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

Dear all, I think you should be aware of this letter, in summary the NGPC is requesting the GNSO to review, amend or modify an aproved policy in order to align it with a request from the GAC. When we discussed the policy we also discussed GAC's requests. Best regards, [cid:843564214@17062014-0FA3]Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 ________________________________ De: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Jonathan Robinson Enviado el: Lunes, 16 de Junio de 2014 18:11 Para: council(a)gnso.icann.org Asunto: [council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby All, FYI and for further discussion / follow-up. Jonathan From: Megan Bishop [mailto:megan.bishop@icann.org] Sent: 16 June 2014 21:09 To: jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Subject: Letter from Cherine Chalaby Dear Jonathan, Attached please find a letter from Cherine Chalaby, providing an update on the ongoing work by the NGPC in response to the GNSO policy recommendations regarding Protection of IGO-INGO identifiers. Regards, Megan Megan Bishop Board Support Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Mobile: +1-310-795-1894 Direct: +1-310-301-5808 One World. One Internet. ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

1 0

FW: London Saturday 21 June remote participation & dial-in details
by Tony Holmes June 16, 2014

June 16, 2014

For those who cannot attend the London meeting From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine@icann.org] Sent: 16 June 2014 19:25 To: krosette(a)cov.com; tony holmes (tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com) Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com; met(a)msk.com; marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben(a)t-online.de) Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: London Saturday 21 June remote participation & dial-in details Dear All, Please find the dial in and remote participation information for the GNSO Council working sessions on Saturday, 21 June 2014 in London which start at 09:00 local time. Remote participation : http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sat-gnso-working Agenda: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working+Sessio n+London+Saturday+2014-06-21> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working+Session +London+Saturday+2014-06-21 Dial-in information: Please note that the dial-in numbers below remain the same for ALL the GNSO related meetings in London. The pass code for each meeting changes as noted below: Saturday Draft AGENDA with audio passcode: Ø 09:00 10:45: UPDATE 1 Ø 11:00 12:00: UPDATE 2 Ø 12:00 13:00: DISCUSSION Ø 14:00 15:15: PREP Ø 15:15 16:00: MOTIONS Ø 16:30 18:15: UPDATE 3 Meeting Transcriptions will be available within approximately 48 hours after the meeting and will be posted on the GNSO Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jun Please let me know if you require further information. Thank you. Kind regards Glen ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: see above 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 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 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 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 06-800-12755 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 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 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 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 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 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 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ---------------------------- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: London Sunday 22 June remote participation & dial-in details
by Tony Holmes June 16, 2014

June 16, 2014

For those who cannot attend the London meeting From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine@icann.org] Sent: 16 June 2014 19:37 To: Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com; tony holmes (tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com) krosette(a)cov.com; Berry Cobb Mail; met(a)msk.com; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben(a)t-online.de) Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: London Sunday 22 June remote participation & dial-in details Dear All, Please find the dial in and remote participation information for the GNSO Council working sessions on Sunday, 22 June 2014 in London which start at 08:45 local time. Remote participation : http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-working Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working+Session +London+Sunday+2014-06-22 Dial-in information: Please note that the dial-in numbers below remain the same for ALL the GNSO related meetings in London. The pass code for each meeting changes as noted below: Sunday Draft AGENDA with audio passcode: 08:45 09:30: NTIA 1 09:30 10:15: CEO 10:15 11:30 : GDD WHOIS 11:30 12:15: NTIA 2 12:15 13:00: EWG 13:00 14:30: BOARD Meeting Transcriptions will be available within approximately 48 hours after the meeting and will be posted on the GNSO Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jun Please let me know if you require further information. Thank you. Kind regards Glen ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: see above 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 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 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 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 06-800-12755 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 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 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 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 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 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 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ---------------------------- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: [gnso-review-dt] Community Outreach and Engagement for the GNSO Review
by Novoa, Osvaldo June 15, 2014

June 15, 2014

Dear all, In the GNSO working group we are now discussing the questions for the 360 evaluation that will be lead by the SIC. In this regard we have been asked to distribute the attached documentation. Please let us know all your comments. Best regards, Osvaldo Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>> Fecha: 15 de junio de 2014 11:48:28 GMT-3 Para: "gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt@icann.org>> Asunto: [gnso-review-dt] Community Outreach and Engagement for the GNSO Review Hi All, Attached is a Draft Plan for Community Outreach and Engagement – please review and be prepared to discuss at the next meeting in London on 22 June<http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-review>. Also, please note that the Frequently Asked Questions and Answers are now available as an informational brochure and hard copies will be distributed in London. Please share the attached brochure with your communities and encourage distribution. This brochure and translations into 5 additional languages, are available on the Community Wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+Background+Informa…>. Best wishes, Larisa Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995 ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

1 0

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Final "Mitigating the Risk of DNS Namespace Collisions Phase One" Report Published
by Tony Holmes June 15, 2014

June 15, 2014

Just wanted to make sure all are aware of this report, prior to the London meeting. Pretty essential reading for all ISPs! Tony From: ICANN News Alert [mailto:communications@icann.org] Sent: 11 June 2014 17:35 To: tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Final "Mitigating the Risk of DNS Namespace Collisions Phase One" Report Published <http://www.icann.org/> Image removed by sender. ICANN News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-06-10-en _____ Final "Mitigating the Risk of DNS Namespace Collisions Phase One" Report Published 10 June 2014 ICANN today announced the publication of the final "Mitigating the Risk of DNS Namespace Collisions Phase One" report by JAS Global Advisors ("JAS"). Download the Mitigating the Risk of DNS Namespace Collisions Phase One report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-mitigation-study…> [PDF, 392 KB] The JAS study, which was commissioned by ICANN, provides a set of recommendations that describe a comprehensive approach to reducing current and future DNS namespace collisions, alerting operators of potential DNS namespace related issues, and providing emergency response capabilities in the event that critical (e.g., life safety) systems are adversely impacted. The final Phase One report takes into consideration feedback received during the public comment period that closed on 21 April 2014. The JAS report, along with additional community feedback and other pertinent data, will be considered prior to providing the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee with a proposal to address name collisions for new gTLDs as part of the New gTLD Collision Occurrence Management Plan adopted on 7 October 2013, please visit https://features.icann.org/new-gtld-collision-occurrence-management. A session to discuss this proposal and collect feedback from the community will be held at the ICANN meeting in London on 23 June 2015 at 17:00-18:30 local time. Schedules are subject to change, so please visit http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule-full for the most updated information. Additional information on name collisions, including resources for IT professionals, can be found at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-collision-2013-12-06-en. This message was sent to tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Image removed by sender. iContact - Try It Free! <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=12551136&l=6333&s=4AE2&m=93…> Manage Your Subscription Image removed by sender.

1 0

RV: GNSO Background Briefings
by Novoa, Osvaldo June 12, 2014

June 12, 2014

FYI [cid:421510615@12062014-3097]Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 ________________________________ De: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Marika Konings Enviado el: Jueves, 12 de Junio de 2014 05:34 Para: 'GNSO Council List' Asunto: [council] GNSO Background Briefings Dear All, To aid your preparations for the ICANN meeting in London, please find attached the GNSO background briefings. Feel free to share these with your respective communities and anyone else interested. Best regards, Marika ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

1 0

RV: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions
by Novoa, Osvaldo June 12, 2014

June 12, 2014

All, I think we should consider a revision in our charter in order to prevent our members from voting in more than one SG/C. Best regards, [cid:234104814@12062014-307B]Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 ________________________________ De: owner-gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org] En nombre de Stephane Van Gelder Enviado el: Miércoles, 11 de Junio de 2014 17:08 Para: Marika Konings CC: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; James M. Bladel; Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org Asunto: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks Marika, very useful. It's no surprise that there is no such provision for the CSG, as that group delegates this sort of thing to its constituencies. I am however surprised that the ISP and the IPC don't have such a provision. Is there any way of asking them just to make sure, rather than just relying on their charters? Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com<http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 11 June 2014 10:10, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Having looked at the different SG/C charters, I have found the following provisions that deal with membership/voting in more than one SG/C: RySG (see http://www.gtldregistries.org/sites/gtldregistries.org/files/Charter_of_the…) * A Registry that is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership with, or affiliated with any entity that votes in another stakeholder group or constituency in either house of the GNSO is not eligible for voting membership in the RySG. Any question regarding eligibility or exceptions shall be determined by a vote of the RySG. RrSG (current charter does not appear to address this issue, but it is covered in the revised charter that is currently posted for public comment, see http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-rrsg-charter-redline-30may14…) * Potential Conflicts with another Stakeholder Group (SG) If a Member serves as a registrar with no unaffiliated third-party registrants, or is under common ownership with an entity that in the last 12 months: has voted in another ICANN SG or any Constituency of another SG; or holds a signed Registry contract with ICANN that includes an exemption from the Registry Operator Code of Conduct (Specification 9 of the 2013 standard registry contract) that prohibits a Registry to directly or indirectly show any preference or provide any special consideration to any registrar with respect to operational access to registry systems and related registry services, unless comparable opportunities to qualify for such preferences or considerations are made available to all registrars on substantially similar terms and subject to substantially similar conditions; then their Registered or Non-Registered representatives shall not be eligible to hold office in the RrSG for the Executive Committee, NomCom, or GNSO, or any other future electable RrSG position. In addition, a Voting Member cannot have a representative who is also a voting member or represents a voting member in another SG. Any disagreement regarding whether an individual is eligible to hold office shall be decided by a majority vote of the RrSG. NPOC (see current charter at https://community.icann.org/display/NPOCC/Charter) * Committee Structure and Officer Requirements - 2.2 Eligibility Sections 2.2 through 2.10 provide rules and requirements for all NPOC leadership positions elected by the membership and, as such, apply to the Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretariat, and Chairs of the Membership, Policy, and Communication Committees. To be eligible for a committee officer position, candidates must: 2.2.1 Have been his/her organization's representative of record, in good standing, for a period of at least six (6) months; 2.2.2 Not already hold a committee leadership position; 2.2.3 Not be currently serving as a GNSO Council Member; and 2.2.4 Not be NPOC Chair if serving on the ICANN Nominating Committee, as an officer of another ICANN constituency or as an officer of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). NCUC (see current charter at http://www.ncuc.org/governance/bylaws/) * B. Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCUC specifically excludes: 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office and/or elect government officials 2. Commercial organizations and associations of or for the benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-profit in form) 3. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with ICANN, or are represented in ICANN through another Supporting Organization NCSG (see current charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf) * 2.2.1. Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCSG specifically excludes: 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office and/or elect government officials; 2. Commercial organizations and associations that advocate for the benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non--profit in form); 3. Organizations that are represented in ICANN through another Supporting Organization specified in the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Stakeholder Group; 4. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with ICANN; 5. Government organizations or government departments whether local, regional or national; and 6. Intergovernmental organizations whose membership primarily includes nation states. ISPCP (see current charter at https://community.icann.org/x/EgWpAQ) * No specific provision found IPC (see current charter at http://www.ipconstituency.org/bylaws/) * No specific provision found BC (see current charter at http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm) * Membership criteria: 3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this excludes: not for profit entities excepting trade associations representing for profit entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry operator, prospective registry, registrar, reseller, or otherwise related to domain name supply, or similar; other groups whose interests may not be aligned with business users described in Article 3.1. Trade associations for whom a minority of members may belong to or could belong to any of the other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership. CSG (see current charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/csg-charter-01nov10-en.pdf) * No specific provision found Obviously I may have missed something, so please feel free to correct or add to this information, but in short it looks like some SG/C deal with this issue through the membership or officer eligibility criteria while others look more specifically at who is eligible to vote while some do not appear to have any specific provisions in place. Best regards, Marika From: Stephane Van Gelder <svg(a)milathan.com<mailto:svg@milathan.com>> Date: Tuesday 10 June 2014 23:58 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions I don't believe this is an issue as I think all SGs in the CPH and all constituencies in the NCPH have rules that prohibit a voting member from being a voting member of another group in the GNSO. Can staff perhaps enlighten us on this? Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com<http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 10 June 2014 19:48, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: It's something that probably needs to be addressed if it hasn't been already. I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in multiple places on policies etc., that benefited them I don't have an issue with companies / organisations having membership (of some kind) in multiple groups. If, for example, we were to start selling more transit etc., then we'd probably want to follow the ISPs more closely. But voting is a different matter. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org>] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM To: Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes to their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members from voting if they are voting members in other SGs. But it is not clear to me how this is enforced on a community-wide basis. J. On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: > >Hi, > >I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about >being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many >divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have >staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. > >But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the >requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site. > I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not >sure it is followed by all with equal fervor. > >Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the >various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. > >avri > > >On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: >> >> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to >> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of >> one entity within multiple constituencies. >> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the >> entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by >> specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one constituency. >> >> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational >> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. >> >> Best, >> >> Volker >> >> >> >> Am 06.06.2014 23<tel:06.06.2014%2023>:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: >>> Dear Chuck, James and all, >>> >>> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last >>>one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an >>>understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to >>>the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now >>>appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - >>>within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties >>>were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how >>>Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to >>>that mashup... >>> >>> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment >>> James, re: >>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it >>> is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's >>> interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various >>> bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another >>> in their interests and actions. >>> >>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the >>> NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different >>> views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a >>> serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the >>> organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise >>> the community. >>> >>> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the >>>years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the >>>other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not >>>locked in stalemates, e.g. >>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries >>>handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own >>>registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the >>>intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that >>>over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of >>>the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I >>>do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will >>>haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as >>>conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what >>>happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. >>> >>> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get >>> on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... >>> stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants >>> (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. >>> >>> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and >>> tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey >>> respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We >>> just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all >>> of these critical questions. >>> >>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has >>>also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the >>>ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I >>>consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via >>>the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this >>>year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those >>>Board members that come through the SG's get... >>> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical >>>methodology? >>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the >>>community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can >>>imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each >>>constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates >>>for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? >>> Would >>> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the >>>Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. >>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, >>>absolutely... >>> >>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope >>>to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. >>>Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we >>>like it or not. And then what? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> >>> Ron Andruff >>> dotSport LLC >>> www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org>] >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 >>> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-review-dt@icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>> Questions >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>> >>>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >>>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >>>>> primary role? >>>>> >>>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without >>>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have >>>> great trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely >>>> in electing a Board member this time. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this >>>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of >>>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe >>>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing >>>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, >>>> then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. >>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years >>> and gets worse all the time. >>> >>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the >>>difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the >>>other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not >>>too likely. >>> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has >>>never been a workable formula. >>> >>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of >>> their neighbors. >>> >>> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed >>>when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a >>>compromise, but that is not way to live. >>> >>>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is >>>> obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from >>>> ever being able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That >>>> is a kind of dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. >>> >>> [Chuck >>>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality >>>> is that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. >>>> If you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore >>>> ways to rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't >>>> discussed this with others in the CPH but I personally would be >>>> fine with that as long as the candidates have good leadership >>>> skills and are able to commit the time. >>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH >>> people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could >>> ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always >>> split. >>> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather >>> funny. >>> Pathetic humor, but funny. >>> >>>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO >>>>> in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. >>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly >>>all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. >>> >>>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in >>>> both on the NCPH side. >>>> >>>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever >>>> consider adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, >>>> that looks like a possible limitation. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly >>>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. >>> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. >>> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. >>>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. >>>> >>>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my >>>> perception is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in >>>> gathering information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] >>>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering >>>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this >>>> exercise, i.e., the timing. >>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time >>> is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find >>> out what needs to be done. >>> >>> >>>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the >>>> questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is >>>> wonderful and I am wrong. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask >>>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say >>>> everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am >>>> not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. >>> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key >>> component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, >>> but a critical one. >>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or >>> you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to >>> form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict >>> diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus >>> SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in >>> the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was >>> far more dynamic in the past. >>> >>>> >>>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. >>>> >>>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost >>>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is >>>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the >>>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. >>>> >>>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem >>>> that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected >>>> by >>>> 5 people. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. >>> >>> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea >>>that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one >>>instance and by >>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small >>>enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the >>>AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit >>>more depth. >>> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a >>>large more diverse representative voting populations makes for >>>better democracy, aka it is better for accountability >>> >>>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation >>>> on the community's influence on the GNSO. >>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee >>> (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this >>> mishigas*. >>> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some >>>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is >>>> providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group >>>> and representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is >>>> much more valuable than any vote would be. >>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she >>>could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs >>>in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. >>>Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains >>>his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects >>>three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part >>>of that. >>> >>> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage >>> teams? >>> We would be contributing just as much. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness >>> >> ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

2 1