<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Lucida Grande";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I disagreed with Mary’s suggestion on the chat and continue to for a number of reasons. First, implicit in Mary’s note is the notion that the Council has made the decision to abandon the Drafting Team approach, which is a notion I only advocated by the NCSG on the call.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><br>Second, it sends the wrong message to the current Drafting Team and will make it next to impossible for the Drafting Team to get any work done between now and Prague. They will not want to do any work on the second level issues as they will believe that doing such work would be a waste of their time (Since the GNSO as a whole is “continuing to work” on the issue). That feeling has already been expressed by several members of the DT (prior to the GNSO Council call). There is a strong belief that any future work will be a waste of their volunteer time. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>So, if we actually expect the DT to keep working on a response, which was what I clearly heard on the call, then let’s just state that the Drafting Team is continuing to work on the issue and will provide its recommendations back to the GNSO Council. If on the other hand the GNSO as a whole is willing to get on calls every two weeks and really work in earnest on the response, then I am fine with the message Mary suggests and I expect to see you all on the call next Wednesday as scheduled. I am fine with taking either approach…the Drafting Team works on it, or the GNSO as a whole works on its. But we can’t just state that the GNSO as a whole is working on it, and then it turns out no one actually does.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:6.0pt;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Jeffrey J. Neuman</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#3366FF'> <br></span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#068658'>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs</span></b><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#7D7D7D'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Stéphane Van Gelder<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:50 PM<br><b>To:</b> GNSO Council List<br><b>Subject:</b> [council] IOC/RC<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Councillors,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>As discussed during today's call, I would like to ask the Council for clear direction on what next steps to take on the IOC/RC DT.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>You will recall that on the call I suggested that we instruct the DT to continue its work and that a short message be sent to the GAC.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Mary had the following suggestion on the call:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Lucida Grande","serif";color:#0034CC'>Mary Wong: @Stephane, in view of the apparent confusion over the DT issue, can you respond to the GAC simply stating what the DT has done to date and indicating that the GNSO as a whole is continuing to work on the second level issue without specifically mentioning that the DT will be the group doing the work? And then including that question on the agenda for our next mtg?</span></u><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Lucida Grande","serif";color:#0034CC'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Please add to this discussion so that we can determine what our next steps should be.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black'>Stéphane Van Gelder<br>Directeur Général / General manager<br>INDOM Group NBT France<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black'>----------------<br>Head of Domain Operations<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black'>Group NBT<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>