- ispcp - lists.icann.org

RE: [ispcp] ISPCP Conference call
by Tony Holmes May 17, 2011

May 17, 2011

In response to my request to hold a call on Friday 20th May I have not received many responses, but have heard that one of our councillors and one of our Exec members would not be able to make that time. Could you please respond back if Thursday 19th at the same time (14.30) would work better? Failing that we will have to move the call nearer to the Singapore meeting. Regards Tony

2 1

ISPCP Conference call
by Tony Holmes May 14, 2011

May 14, 2011

Dear ISPCP Colleagues I would like to propose a conference call which will focus on arrangements for the ISPCP meeting in Singapore. Please respond if you will be able to participate in the call on Friday 20th May commencing at 14.30 UTC Thanks You Tony

3 2

Comments on updated gTLD Applicamt Guide Book
by Tony Holmes May 5, 2011

May 5, 2011

If any member of the Constituency considers the ISPCP need to submit formal comments on the latest gTLD Applicant Guidebook, (see http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-redline-15apr11-en.pdf ) please submit your comments to the list by 10th May 2011. Input received will then be considered as part of any Constituency response. The closing date for comments to ICANN is May 15th. Thank You Tony Holmes ISPCP Chairman

1 0

ENC: Council Motions
by Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf April 11, 2011

April 11, 2011

Dear All, I would like your comments on the RAA Amendment Motion below that criticizes the Contracted parties Voting systematically as a block to block any amendment to the RAA. I'm inclined to vote for option B, but would like to hear comments. Sorry for the short notice. Jaime Wagner <mailto:jaime@powerself.com.br> jaime(a)powerself.com.br Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br De: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Enviada em: quinta-feira, 7 de abril de 2011 11:37 Para: 'contact(a)dndrc.com'; 'zahid(a)dndrc.com'; 'john(a)crediblecontext.com'; 'KnobenW(a)telekom.de'; 'jaime(a)powerself.com.br' Cc: 'david.taylor(a)hoganlovells.com'; 'drd(a)hoganlovells.com' Assunto: Council Motions Greetings, gentlemen! I hope all is well with you. I wanted to touch base with you about the Single-character IDN and RAA Amendment motions. Single-character IDN: David and I had planned to request a deferral b/c the IPC has not had a chance to fully consider this motion. Edmon has reached out to request that we consider otherwise b/c, if the motion doesn't pass today, the provisions can't go in the April 15 Guidebook. Are you all planning to vote? In support? I ask b/c, depending on if you're voting (and doing so in support) and the instructions David and I receive, we may abstain simply to allow the vote to go forward. RAA Amendment: Are you all planning to vote in support of the motion (Process B+)? (Copied below for your reference.) I encourage you to support it. Based on my discussions with Mary, it appears that the NCSG will also support and it would be send a very powerful message, IMHO, if the entire NCPH voted in support. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Also, the NCSG would like to read a statement after the vote and has asked if we will support. I've set out below Mary's original and my suggested revision. I realize this is very short notice, but it would be great if it could be a house-wide statement. (To that end, please feel free to identify changes that you would need to see in order to support.) Mary's version: "The Non-Contracted Parties' House (NCPH) wishes to express its disappointment at the outcome of today's vote on the RAA Amendments, as well as its strong objection to the manner with which the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) approached the process regarding negotiations to the RAA. Today's vote was a good faith attempt by the NCPH to achieve a workable compromise with the CPH, based on the Working Group's Final Report which had showed strong support by the community for a negotiation process that would have included a limited role for observers. We remind the GNSO community that a previous motion which would have adopted this recommendation in full failed because of a negative vote in the CPH. As s a result, today's motion was built from the other alternative recommended in the Final Report, which had been crafted with the acquiescence of Registrar members of the Working Group. The fact that this alternative, compromise motion also failed due to the Registry and Registrar stakeholder groups in the CPH basically voting as a bloc sends a very clear signal to the ICANN community that the CPH does not support ICANN's multi-stakeholder consensus model where its own interests are at stake, and further underscores the ability of the CPH to stymie this participatory model as well as eliminate the ability of Internet users and registrants to have a say in fundamental issues which impact them directly." My suggested revision: The Non-Contracted Parties' House (NCPH) is disappointed and concerned by the outcome of today's vote on the process for proposing RAA Amendments, and strongly objects to the manner with which the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) approached the process regarding proposed further RAA amendments. Today's vote was a good faith attempt by the NCPH to achieve a workable compromise with the CPH, based on the Working Group's Final Report. That report documented strong support by the community for a negotiation process that would have included a limited role for observers. We remind the GNSO community that a previous motion to adopt that recommendation in full failed because of a negative vote by the CPH. Today's motion was based on the other alternative recommended in the Final Report, which had been crafted by Registrar members of the Working Group. The failure of this alternative, compromise motion due to the entire CPH voting as a bloc signals that CPH does not support ICANN's multi-stakeholder consensus model where its own interests are at stake, underscores the CPH's ability to gridlock the multi-stakeholder model, and effectively eliminates the ability of Internet users and registrants to have a say in fundamental issues which impact them directly. We wish to remind the Registrar Stakeholder Group that the constituencies making up the NCPH approved the prior RAA amendments in 2009 only after the Registrar Constituency agreed to "to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps" in developing a process for considering further RAA amendments. The wholesale rejection by the Registrar Stakeholder Group of two potential ways forward, one of which is modeled on a proposal by registrar personnel, and the refusal to propose other alternatives is wholly inconsistent with the stated commitment to participate on a good faith basis. While we hope that the Registrar Constituency did not intentionally mislead us in 2009, we are left with no other explanation. K -*- Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable; Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA; Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending that Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. As amended herein, Process B entails: 1. The prioritized list of topics as set forth in the Final Report is sent to the GNSO Council and ICANN Staff for identification of any topics that would require consensus policy development rather than RAA contract amendment. This step shall be completed not later than sixty (60) days after the date of this resolution. 2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation, to be held at the first ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in Step 1, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to articulate their support of and/or objection to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. 3. Within thirty (30) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole). 4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, written reports monthly on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. The monthly report shall identify (a) topics identified in the Final Report as High or Medium Priority and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"), if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group. 5. The Negotiating Group reviews public comments received and continues negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than September 17, 2012. 6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments. 7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA. 8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. 9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.

4 6

GNSO Board Seat election _ URGENT
by Tony Holmes April 8, 2011

April 8, 2011

In line with the discussion that followed the last ISPCP conference call, which included a question and answer session with Bill Graham who is standing for the GNSO Board seat, I would like to formally propose that we ask our councillors to vote for Bill on behalf of the ISPCP Constituency in the forthcoming election. If you disagree with this proposal or consider the ISPCP need to hold a further conference call to discuss this, please respond by c.o.p Monday 11th April. No response shall signify agreement to the proposal. It's worth adding that both the BC and IPC Constituencies have indicated they will support Bill in the election. Regards Tony

1 0

WG: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 7 April 2011
by KnobenW＠telekom.de April 8, 2011

April 8, 2011

FYI Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Freitag, 8. April 2011 16:54 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 7 April 2011 Dear All, Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following three motions were adopted by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 7 April 2011. 1. Motion to adopt the Charter for the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) ========================================================================================== Whereas the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 8 December 2010 to establish a drafting team to draft a charter for a Standing Committee to track and coordinate implementation of those OSC, PPSC and work team recommendations already approved by the Council and adopted, as recommended by the Communications and Coordination Work Team in its final report of 9 April 2010; Whereas a Drafting Team has formed and its members have developed a Charter for consideration by the GNSO Council; RESOLVED, The GNSO Council hereby adopts the Charter for the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation as proposed (see hereunder); The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to send a request for volunteers to those entities identified in the Charter as eligible for member and observer status of the Standing Committee; The GNSO Council appoints Wolf-Ulrich Knoben as the interim Chair of the Standing Committee, who will serve as the interim Chair until the Standing Committee has selected its own Chair. Charter - Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) General The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and approved by the GNSO Council: . On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems . On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed) The immediate goal of the OSC and PPSC is to develop: Recommendations to implement operational changes, and recommendations for all process changes needed to meet the requirements contained in the "Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group On GNSO Improvements" which are to be implemented with approval and under the guidance of the Council. It should be acknowledged that OSC and PPSC still have tasks to finish, possibly on different timescales. Expiry of their charters has therefore to be taken carefully into consideration by the GNSO Council. Nevertheless, since several OSC and PPSC recommendations have already been adopted and implemented and the practicability of some of them has raised concerns, it is advisable to kick off the SCI work immediately. Following the implementation of further OSC/PPSC recommendations the SCI will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effectiveness of these new recommendations. This in consequence might mean that the OSC/PPSC and SCI will be coexistence for a certain period of time. Working method It is recommended that the SCI follows the "GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf (Approved by the GNSO Council on 16 March 2011)", as deemed appropriate The SCI is expected to carry out the activities identified in this Charter. In carrying out these activities, the SCI may opt to use sub-teams or work teams to carry out part of the tasks for which it may attract volunteers that are not members or observers of the SCI. However, the SCI remains responsible for reviewing and approving any recommendations, which are to be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration. For the periodic review of recommendations, the SCI is expected to develop a consistent review plan indicating items to be reviewed, proposed timeline as well as additional resources needed, if any. This review plan will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its information. For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council. In order to have comprehensive information on the issue available this group is requested to provide the following information, if applicable: 1. Which group do you represent? (E.g. Council, WG.) 2. To which rules or processes implemented by the OSC or PPSC do you refer? 3. Please outline the problems 4. What specific changes do you propose to address the identified problems? 5. Do you have any additional suggestion for making the rules/processes easier to administer? One member of the group which submitted the request should - if not already represented on the SCI - be nominated as an observer to the SCI until the review of the issue in question has been completed. At its kick-off meeting the SCI should nominate a Chair and a Vice Chair from its membership. The Chair and Vice Chair are expected to act in a neutral manner and avoid any situation where a conflict of interest may arise for example as a result of exercising another function or role within ICANN. Members of the Standing Committee (Primary and Alternate members) . 1 representative from each constituency/SG . 1 NomCom appointee Members of the Standing Committee may designate an alternate who can participate in the SCI deliberations in case of absence of the primary member. Only one of the two, primary or alternate, may take part in a consensus call. Observers of the Standing Committee . 1 representative from each constituency in formation . Liaison or an appointed representative from other ICANN Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees (as determined by the SCI as appropriate) . 1 observer representing the group that has submitted a request for review during the time that the request for review is being dealt with (provided that the group is not yet represented on the SCI) Staff Support The ICANN Staff assigned to the SCI will fully support the work of the committee as directed by the Chair including meeting support, document drafting, editing and distribution and other substantive contributions when deemed appropriate. Staff assignments to the SCI: . GNSO secretariat . 1 ICANN policy staff member Decision making Unless otherwise determined by the SCI members, committee decisions will be made by using a "full consensus" process as described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (see section 3.6). Reporting At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: . The issues dealt with and related status . Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council . An activity timeline 2. Motion on the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs =========================================================== WHEREAS, The Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) was created by mutual charters of the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg-charter.pdf) and the GNSO (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200907) The JIG identified 3 issues of common interest: 1. Single Character IDN TLDs; 2. IDN Variant TLDs; and, 3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs; The JIG has issued an Initial Report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-initial-report-26jul10-en.pdf) for public comments (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm) and thereupon a Draft Final Report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-draft-final-report-04dec10-en.pdf) for public comments (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04dec10-en.htm) and have incorporated the comments into, and has reached consensus on the Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs; The JIG recommendations are consistent with the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New Top-Level Domains (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm) including the GNSO IDN WG Final Outcomes Report (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm) and the GNSO Reserved Names WG (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm) on the issue of Single Character IDN gTLDs; and, The JIG recommendations suggested implementable measures for the acceptance of Single Character IDN gTLDs. RESOLVED, The GNSO Council approves the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs, and forwards the report to the ICANN board and staff for its implementation into the next version of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook as it pertains to the new gTLDs. Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ccNSO Chair. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its appreciation to the JIG for their hardwork, and look forward to receiving further reports on "IDN Variant TLDs" and "Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs". 3. MOTION RE: Revision of Section 5.0 Statements of Interest of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures ========================================================================================================= (This motion allowed for absentee voting and the Secretariat confirms receiving the two positive absentee votes from Wendy Seltzer and Zahid Jamil) WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008; WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations; http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe… WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in Section 5 Statements of Interest in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf that would simplify and clarify the procedures; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the OSC with completing a revision to improve Section 5; WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 04 February 2011 a proposed revision of Section 5 http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb11-en… that removes the requirement for Disclosures of Interest, and provides clearer guidance on the contents of Statements of Interest and on updating them in a timely manner; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the proposed revision of Section 5.0 at its 24 February 2011 meeting and initiated a 30-day public comment period http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-5 on the document; WHEREAS, there were no comments on the proposed revision of Section 5.0 http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb11-en… in the public forum and the final version http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb11-en… is submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the revision of Section 5.0 as proposed by the OSC and instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the revised Section 5.0 http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb11-en… into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED, that each Working Group formed after the date of this resolution shall utilize the procedures in the revised Section 5.0. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the members of the OSC for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations. 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

ENC: [council] Research team announced for Whois Misuse study
by Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf April 5, 2011

April 5, 2011

fyi Jaime Wagner jaime(a)powerself.com.br Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br De: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Liz Gasster Enviada em: terça-feira, 5 de abril de 2011 13:19 Para: council(a)gnso.icann.org Assunto: [council] Research team announced for Whois Misuse study All, the following has been posted at: http://blog.icann.org/ Thanks, Liz Cylab at Carnegie Mellon University selected to conduct study of Whois Misuse By Liz Gasster I am delighted to report that ICANN has engaged the Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) of Pittsburgh, PA, USA, CyLab to conduct a set of Whois Misuse Studies. Working under the direction of principal investigator Dr. Nicolas Christin, this highly regarded cybercrime lab expects to spend approximately one year analyzing the extent, nature, and impact of harmful actions taken using Whois contact information. To accomplish this, the CMU team will survey gTLD domain Registrants about Whois misuse incidents they have experienced and use experiments to measure how well anti-harvesting measures reduce Whois misuse. Registries, Registrars, other cybercrime researchers, and law enforcement organizations will also be surveyed about reported cases of misuse. These complementary studies are expected to provide the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council with the empirical data needed to assess community concerns about misused Whois contact information and inform any resulting policy changes. ICANN looks forward to working with CMU to apply their cybercrime expertise and experience to this challenging topic. To learn more about Whois Misuse Studies or additional studies currently being considered by the GNSO, visit http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/index.html http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/index.html. To learn more about Dr. Christin and his work at the CMU CyLab, visit http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/nicolasc http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/nicolasc.

1 0

ENC: Call details & Adobe Connect for GNSO Council meeting Thursday 7 April 2011 at 20:00 UTC
by Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf April 4, 2011

April 4, 2011

GNSO Council meeting audiocast <http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Meeting Time 20:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:20:00 UTC - see below for local times (13:00 Los Angeles, 16:00 Washington DC, 21:00 London, 22:00 Brussels, Friday 8 April 05:00 Tokyo; 06:00 Melbourne

1 0

WG: Call details & Adobe Connect for GNSO Council meeting Thursday 7 April 2011 at 20:00 UTC
by KnobenW＠telekom.de April 3, 2011

April 3, 2011

FYI Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ________________________________ Von: owner-ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Samstag, 2. April 2011 21:36 An: mail=ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org Betreff: Call details & Adobe Connect for GNSO Council meeting Thursday 7 April 2011 at 20:00 UTC Dear Councillors, Please notify your constituency and stakeholder group members that the meeting will be audio cast GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u <http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u> Meeting Time 20:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:20:00 UTC - see below for local times (13:00 Los Angeles, 16:00 Washington DC, 21:00 London, 22:00 Brussels, Friday 8 April 05:00 Tokyo; 06:00 Melbourne Other times may be found at: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html Participant passcode: COUNCIL Please click on the link to join the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/ To log into the Adobe Connect room, please use the login ID and password that you have recently received via email Please let me know immediately if you have any questions in this connection. The agenda is posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-07apr11-en.htm The agenda on the Wiki has the latest updates: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+7+April+2011 The motions before Council can be viewed here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+7+April+2011 Please let me know whether you would like the operator to call you and please provide the telephone number where you can be reached. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen

1 0

ICANN ISPCP Constituency comments on IANA Functions
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

Please find attached comments submitted on behalf of ICANNs Internet Service Provider & Connectivity Providers Constituency (ISPCP), to the request for comments on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions. Tony Holmes Chairman ICANN ISPCPConstituency

1 0