<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16722"></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Segoe UI">
<DIV>Thanks for a great summary, Wendy - I agree totally with your observations and suggestions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On the RAA: the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) will NOT vote in favor of the deferred motion, which is basically a watered-down version of the motion NCSG (through me) supported and that was defeated (as we knew). The reason we deferred is to provide an opportunity to seek a way forward with them if possible, and give us in the Non-Contracted Parties House some time to reconvene and figure out next steps. I'm happy to stay as the CPH's Favorite Person to Hate but would appreciate some guidance from members as to what they are prepared to live with, knowing as we do that the Registrars will go ahead and negotiate without us anyway if this stalemate continues.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On WHOIS: Can we have a volunteer get in touch with the Registries Wendy mentions?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On the RAP/UDRP review: the initial team to quickly scope out the issues will be made up of Councilors - do we have a volunteer? A call is likely to take place in April between the team, ICANN Policy staff and probably a few others invited for specific perspective (e.g. to provide data on UDRP proceedings). Our Councilor volunteer(s) for this initial team will be able to suggest those names - depending on what the April chat is intended to do, we can, for example, suggest Konstantinos when the time comes. The idea is that the Issues Report that ICANN staff has to prepare to enable the Council to decide whether or not to proceed with a PDP will be drafted in May, in time for Singapore in June.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On the Budget - I think Wendy's suggestion is excellent. I can put together a short statement - the closing date for public comments is 4 April. Also, FYI, the Council Chair and Vice-Chairs may circulate a request to the Council to do something similar.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks and cheers to all for a good and productive meeting,</DIV>
<DIV>Mary<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#800080>Mary W S Wong</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Professor of Law</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Chair, Graduate IP Programs</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP</EM></DIV>
<ADDRESS>UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Two White Street</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Concord, NH 03301</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>USA</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Email: <A href="mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.edu">mary.wong@law.unh.edu</A></ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Phone: 1-603-513-5143</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Webpage: <A href="http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php">http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php</A></ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: <A href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</A></ADDRESS>>>> </DIV>
<TABLE style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 15px; FONT-SIZE: 1em" border=0 bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV style="BORDER-LEFT: #050505 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 7px">
<TABLE style="FONT: 9pt Segoe UI" bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>From: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>Wendy Seltzer <wendy@SELTZER.COM></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>To:</STRONG></TD>
<TD><NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Date: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>3/17/2011 6:10 PM</TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Subject: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>Items from the GNSO Council discussions</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>As we wrap up our GNSO Council agenda for the week, I want to highlight<BR>some of the items I think NCUC/SG should watch in the next few weeks and<BR>months.<BR><BR>* Registrar Accreditation Agreement: We asked for an observer in RAA<BR>negotiations; the Registries and Registrars said they'd never agree to<BR>that, and the motion failed. Is there any useful compromise we can propose?<BR><BR>* UDRP review. We have been asked to help scope an issues report on<BR>review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure. I think we'd like<BR>that review to assess the balance and protections for legitimate<BR>registrants, e.g. against reverse domain name hijacking, as well as its<BR>use against cybersquatting. We'll be looking for resources and experts<BR>to inform the review, and I'd like to see the review completed in<BR>advance of new URS procedures.<BR><BR>* WHOIS Studies. Shall we have a conversation with the registries who<BR>have expressed some concerns about specific studies, (and registrars,<BR>who have opposed them all), to propose amendments before the combined<BR>motion on all the studies comes back next Council meeting?<BR><BR>* Budget. Council has often found ourselves asking for more policy<BR>support than the policy staff have time to provide. Shall we put a<BR>public comment into the budget process requesting that that GNSO<BR>Council's policy staffing be given higher priority?<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR>--Wendy<BR><BR>-- <BR>Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613<BR>Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy<BR>Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University<BR><A href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html</A><BR><A href="https://www.chillingeffects.org/">https://www.chillingeffects.org/</A><BR><A href="https://www.torproject.org/">https://www.torproject.org/</A><BR><A href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/">http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/</A><BR></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></BODY></HTML>