- ispcp - lists.icann.org

Call Information: ISPCP Call / 11 September 2013 at 1300 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 10, 2013

Sept. 10, 2013

Dear All, The next ISPCP call is scheduled on Wednesday 11 September 2013 at 1300 UTC. To check your local time: http://tinyurl.com/nfha6mr Please find the dial-in details below: Participant Passcode: Participant: 3429 # Dial-in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie GNSO Secretariat

1 0

RV: [gnso-igo-ingo] v1.2 Consensus Recommendations
by Novoa, Osvaldo Sept. 10, 2013

Sept. 10, 2013

Dear All, After some long holidays I am back on line. During my absence the Working Group on the protection of International Organizations' names has reach rough consensus on some points that differ from our position submitted some months ago. In general our position was: International Governmental Organizations; IGOs, including the Red Cross (RC) and the Olympic Committee (IOC). * Full protection at the top level, names and acronyms. There are no cases of conflict in the new gTLDs. * Protection of the Full name at the second level, the acronyms are added to the Trademark Clearing House and allowed to participate in the Sunrise period of the new gTLD program. International Non Governmental Organizations: INGOs, excluding RC and the IOC. * No protection at any level. * Allow them to use the Trademark Clearing House. Now the new proposal is to grant protection to the INGOs that figure in the Ecosoc List with General Consultative Status or Special Consultative Status. According to the last list there are 148 organizations with General Consultative Status and 2608 in Special Consultative Status. For organizations with General Consultative Status the proposal is to grant them the same protection as to the IGOs. For organizations with Special Consultative Status the proposal is to grant them protection at the second level for their exact name and acronyms by including them in a list in the Trademark Clearing House. The Working Group proposes to modify the UDRP and URS so that they can be used by the protected organizations. I was a bit surprised that these changes were supported by ALACL and the registries. My position is to support the protections for IGOs, RC and IOC, they have some legal protections and I think ICANN should grant them protection also. Although in principle I am against any kind of differential treatment to any entity. This was also the ISPC position. With regards to the INGOs, I don't see any reason to grant them special protections when the governments of any country haven't done so. But in order to reach a consensus in the group and since an important number of the WG participants support some type of protectio for them, I would go as far as granting protections to those INGOs that have General Consultative Status in the Ecosoc list, it's only 148 as of april of this year. As the ALALC stated in some proposals "We can live with it". I don't support granting protection to the NGOs, not all of them are International, that have Special Consultative Status with Ecosoc, they are too many. If you agree with me I would submit our position. Best regards, Osvaldo [cid:649333913@10092013-288A]Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 ________________________________ De: owner-gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org] En nombre de Berry Cobb Enviado el: Jueves, 05 de Septiembre de 2013 01:21 Para: gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org Asunto: [gnso-igo-ingo] v1.2 Consensus Recommendations WG Members, Please find attached two copies of the document we are using for the consensus call. One is marked as a clean version and the other is the one containing the track-changes. This version now includes the missing IGO comments and Poncelet's individual responses. It also includes updates to the principles for implementation based on our discussion today. That section does not yet have GCO input. Stay tuned for the levels of consensus document from Thomas. Thank you all again for your participation today, B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> @berrycobb ________________________________ 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.

1 0

looking for common ground -- my "get ready to mitigate new-gTLD problems" blog post
by Mike O'Connor Aug. 30, 2013

Aug. 30, 2013

hi all, i'm wondering if the ISPCP would like to consider a reply comment in the name-collisions public comment forum that puts forward some of the ideas i'm proposing in this blog post. http://www.haven2.com/index.php/archives/new-gtld-preparedness-project i think ISPs and connectivity providers could help a lot if they actively engaged with a program like this. what do the rest of you think? mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

DomainIncite blog post summarizing "name collisions" comments -- includes ours
by Mike O'Connor Aug. 29, 2013

Aug. 29, 2013

hi all, i thought Kevin did a good job of summarizing the first round of comments in the "name collisions" debate. here's a link to his post http://domainincite.com/14334-name-collisions-comments-call-for-more-gtld-d… mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Fw: [Soac-infoalert] FY14 Budget Action Follow-Up Plans
by WUKnoben Aug. 28, 2013

Aug. 28, 2013

FYI Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Robert Hoggarth Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 2:46 AM To: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org Subject: [Soac-infoalert] FY14 Budget Action Follow-Up Plans Dear Community Leaders; I am pleased to report that yesterday the ICANN Board acted to formally approve the organization’s FY14 budget. The documentation of that decision will be published shortly. We are in the process of collecting the details of the budget documentation and I will be preparing specific communications to those of you who submitted FY14 Special Budget Requests (see https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=38045777) to explain the disposition of each of those proposals. We hope to have that information collected and made available to you via email next week. We expect to follow those email communications with real-time telephone discussions to clarify the information, answer any of your questions and discuss specific project/activity implementation plans for several of the approved initiatives that impact specific communities. I am looking forward to working through this process with all of you throughout the fiscal year. Best regards, Rob -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ soac-infoalert mailing list soac-infoalert(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert

1 0

Fw: [council] Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 5 September 2013 at 15:00 UTC
by WUKnoben Aug. 28, 2013

Aug. 28, 2013

See draft agenda for the council meeting next week Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 7:25 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 5 September 2013 at 15:00 UTC Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 5 September 2013 at 15:00 UTC. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated. <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf > For convenience: a.. An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. b.. An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Times 15:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/mdmrnk9 Coordinated Universal Time 15:00 UTC 08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 16:00 London; 17:00 Paris; 03:00 Wellington next day Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audio cast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 mins) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (10 mins) Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics Include review of Projects List and Action List. Comments or questions arising. Item 3: Consent agenda 3.1 - Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings GNSO Council approval of Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board 3.2 – Policy & Implementation Working Group GNSO Council approval of co-chairs J.Scott Evans (BC) and Chuck Gomes (RySG). Item 4: DRAFT MOTION - To approve Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) final report and recommendations (10 mins) This report is published in response to a request by the GNSO Council for a report and analysis on a survey about possible technical requirements of a future WHOIS Service. The objective for the Working Group is to develop a set of proposed recommendations around the measurement of support of proposed technical requirements. After consideration of community input on a draft survey and the implementation of the Lime Survey software within the ICANN IT infrastructure, the survey was made available to the community in September 2012. ICANN staff compiled and consolidated the survey results and the WSWG completed the WSWG Final Report for delivery to the GNSO Council. Here the Council will review a draft motion in preparation for voting to approve the report it at the next meeting. 4.1 – Review the draft motion Motion to approve Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) Final Report and Recommendations: WHEREAS, 1. on 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools; 2. on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements - Final Report; 3. in July 2011, volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey "Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf; 4. on 30 May 2012, the WSWG published a draft of the Whois Service Requirements Survey for public comment, http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey…; 5. on 13 September 2012, the WSWG released the final Whois Service Requirements Survey to solicit input from community members on the possible technical requirements of a future Whois system, http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13sep12-en.htm; 6. on 13 September 2012, ICANN staff compiled and consolidated the survey results and the WSWG completed the WSWG Final Report, (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf) NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, 1. that the GNSO Council thanks the Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) and ICANN staff for their efforts in conducting the survey and compiling survey results of possible technical requirements of a future Whois system; 2. the GNSO Council further approves the recommendations, as defined in the Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf) to send the survey results to other applicable efforts regarding Whois and Domain Name Registration Data for their consideration. 4.2 – Discussion Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – A PDP to develop relevant policies for issues not dealt with during the course of the development of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) ICANN staff has prepared a paper which summarises the outcomes of the 2013 RAA negotiations and so sets the scene for the subsequent, relevant policy development work to be managed by the Council. Here the Council will receive an update from staff and confirm the intended course of action. 5.1 Staff update (Margie Milam /Mary Wong) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next steps Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Metrics and Reporting Working Group (WG) Despite the unanimous support for this resolution, only six volunteers (3 GNSO, 3 ALAC) have signed up for this effort to date, which is not considered sufficiently representative to kick off the Drafting Team (DT). At the ICANN meeting in Durban, ICANN staff was tasked with looking into and proposing alternative ways forward. Apart from renewing the call for volunteers or delaying this effort, the GNSO Council could consider, as this is a non-PDP WG, to explore an alternative approach not necessarily requiring the formation of a DT or WG. Here the Council will review and discuss the alternatives and consider the next steps. 6.1 Staff update (Berry Cobb) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps Item 7: DISCUSSION – GAC Engagement / Working with the BGRC WG Here the Council will discuss activity to date and confirm the intended course of action going forward. 7.1 – Status update 7.2 – Discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: INPUT & DISCUSSION – Prospective improvements to the Policy Development Process (PDP) The Council is committed to ongoing enhancements to the methods of working of the Council and the work initiated and managed by the Council. The PDP process is a cornerstone of policy making within the GNSO and, as such, the work of the Council. The PDP outcomes and associated processes are the subject of focus and attention both within the GNSO and the broader ICANN Community. In this agenda item we will discuss a paper prepared by ICANN staff on potential improvements to the PDP process and consider the appropriate next steps. 8.1 – Input on GNSO PDP Improvements (Marika Konings) 8.2 – Discussion 8.3 – Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION – Role and scope of the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation (SCI) Here the Council will review input received at the ICANN meeting in Durban as well as any subsequent information and confirm the intended course of action. 9.1 – Status update 9.2 – Discussion 9.3 – Next steps Item 10: DISCUSSION – Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, board initiated reviews of the GNSO and the GNSO Council as an integral part of the GNSO are expected. In order to be effectively prepared for these reviews, it was proposed in Beijing that a group be formed to understand the issues and begin to take appropriate next steps. One key suggestion from Beijing was that any group (such as the Council) being reviewed undertakes a form of self-review. The intended course of action may have been impacted by the recently announced proposal to delay any board initiated review activity. Here the Council will discuss and potentially confirm the intended course of action of initiating a non-PDP WG. 10.1 – Current status 10.2 – Discussion 10.3 – Next steps Item 11: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Planning for Buenos Aeries Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Buenos Aires will take planning. GNSO Council Vice Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben has again volunteered to lead this and will be working with the Council and staff on this effort. Here the Council has the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input based on past experience. Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape the approach to and substance of the Council’s proposed meetings with other groups in such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board. 11.1 – Update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 11.2 – Discussion 11.3 – Next steps Item 12: Any Other Business Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting’s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 12:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 16:00 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 18:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 18:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 03:00 (next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/mdmrnk9 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ISP and Connectivity Provider (ISPCP) constituency comments on ICANN's proposal to mitigate name collision risks
by Mike O'Connor Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

Dear ICANN, The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers constituency (ISPCP) respectfully submits the following comments on ICANN's August 5 Proposal to Mitigate Name Collision Risks. We are available to respond to any questions or comments. Best regards, Mike O'Connor -- ISPCP Rapporteur - - - - - ISPCP Comment Whereas: the potential for name collision may be substantial Whereas: the potential for name collision often arises from well-established policies and practices in private network environments Whereas: the risk associated with delegating a new TLD label arises from the potentially harmful consequences of name collision, not the collision itself Whereas: name collision in general may threaten the assumption that an identifier containing a DNS domain name will always point to the same thing Whereas: the opportunity for X.509 public key certificates to be erroneously accepted as valid is an especially troubling consequence of name collision Whereas: designation of any applied-for string as “high risk” or “low risk” with respect to delegation as a new gTLD depends on both policy and analysis -- activities which have not yet been completed Whereas: the analysis to evaluate the nature and impact of name-collision risk has not been completed Whereas: corporations, ISPs and connectivity providers may bear the brunt of the security and customer-experience issues resulting from adverse (as yet un-analyzed) impacts from name collision Whereas: those same corporations are in large part not active participants in the ICANN community and are only just becoming aware of these issues Whereas: these issues, due to their security and customer-experience aspects, fall outside the remit of people who normally participate in the ICANN process, requiring extensive wide-ranging briefings even in corporations that do participate actively in the ICANN process Therefore, the ISPCP requests the following. -- that ICANN complete further study of name-collision issues to understand their nature and impact, following the recommendations made in the InterIsle report -- That the initial public comment period be placed on hold until such a study is completed, or if that is deemed infeasible, at least extended for 60 days to allow a more detailed assessment of the important issues raised

1 0

"IDN basics" videos are up on our site
by Mike O'Connor Aug. 25, 2013

Aug. 25, 2013

hi all, i walked out of our last call with an action item to get cracking on the "educate Mikey about IDNs" project that Chris Wright (of the dotShavaka Registry (http://xn----1mcbc7cp0fnu.xn--mgbaam7a8h/index-en.php) dreamed up in Durban. i'm happy to report that we finished it up last week and i've posted the result to our web site. i think it's great. i learned a *lot* about IDNs and feel a lot more comfortable talking about them in a policy context. here's the link to the series: http://www.ispcp.info/policy-resources/idns-a-brief-whirlwind-tour/ and here's what is covered: Session 1: Introduction to IDNs (24:49) – covers the basics of DNS, ASCII, Unicode, languages and scripts. It focuses on how computers process domain names. After the session, users will have a better understanding of the following concepts: encoding systems, ASCII, case insensitivity of domain names, Unicode, code point, and challenges of Unicode. Session 2: Introduction to IDNA (Internationalized Domain Names for Applications) (14:40) – covers the basics of the IDNA protocol. After the session, users will have a better understanding of: what IDNA does, punycode encoding and decoding, U-Labels and A-Labels. Sessions 3: IDN Registrations and Registry/Registrar operations (25:36) – covers the basics of registry and registrar operational practices that are needed to support IDNs. After the session, users will have a better understanding of what registries need to do to support IDNs, when/where the registry/registrar interaction takes place. Session 4: Blocking Variants (15:02) – covers the basics of variants of IDNs and how a registry could provision them in order to maintain the security of an IDN namespace. It provides examples of variants, the security issues they pose, challenges of supporting variants, and one registry’s practice to handle variant blocking. Session 5: Activating Variants (16:46) – covers the basics of blocked vs active variants, what the challenges of activating variants are from a registry’s perspective, and Shavaka Registy’s approach to active variants. Session 6: IDNs putting it all together (15:15) – a brief review of the topics covered in this series, an overview of some of the challenges for IDN adoption and a brief discussion of why IDNs matter. Here’s a link to the slide deck that Chris used during the conversation. the whole series comes to something over 3 hours -- so i'd suggest taking it in a few bites rather than all at once. but most of the bites are pretty manageable -- about 15 minutes long. there are a couple 25 minute ones that cover topics that just didn't split up very well. see what you think. all the credit for the good ideas belongs to Chris Wright and Steve Sheng. all the bad ideas are mine. mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 2

thank you
by Mike O'Connor Aug. 23, 2013

Aug. 23, 2013

hi all, it is an honor to be able to represent you on the Council. i am replacing Wolf-Ulrich, and thus have big shoes to fill. i aspire to his wisdom and effectiveness although that is a big leap for me. let me be the first to thank him for his efforts. i'm sure that his good deeds will not go unpunished. :-) let me also join in thanking Tony for taking on another term as our Chair. his job just got a little harder, now that that he's got a less-experienced more erratic junior Council member to chivvy along. thanks! mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

FW: Results of the election for the ISPCP Chairman
by Tony Holmes Aug. 23, 2013

Aug. 23, 2013

Dear Glen Many thanks for your assistance and support in running the election. Your efforts are very much appreciated. Regards Tony From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: 23 August 2013 09:03 To: tony holmes (tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com) Anthony Harris; Novoa, Osvaldo; WUKnoben; alain.bidron(a)orange.com Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Results of the election for the ISPCP Chairman Dear All, Pursuant to the rules for the election for the position of ISPCP Chairman · Glen will formally advise who the successful nominees are in the period between the nomination period ending (22nd) and the start of the voting period. · In the case where there is only one nominee, they will automatically be proclaimed as the new Chairman without a formal vote. There has been only one nominee, Tony Holmes, nominated by Mikey OConnor, duly seconded by Osvaldo Novoa and Alain Bidron, who has accepted the nomination, and pursuant to the voting process, Tony Homes is proclaimed as the chair without a formal vote. Congratulations Tony! Kindly pass this message on to your mailing lists please. Thank you for your confidence in me as independent facilitator. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1