[council] Re: Briefing Note on the status of protections for Red Cross names and acronyms

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Sat Apr 9 16:52:38 UTC 2016


Thanks Mary, this is helpful.
Stephanie

On 2016-04-08 16:42, Mary Wong wrote:
> Hello again everyone,
>
> To aid in your review of this topic, you can find a copy of the 
> Briefing Note at 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/red-cross-protections-status-30mar16-en.pdf. 
>
>
> In answer to a few questions received, I hope the following 
> information is also helpful:
>
> (1) Page 1 of the Briefing Note includes a list of the relevant Red 
> Cross recommendations for which there is inconsistent GAC advice and 
> GNSO policy.
>
> (2) GAC advice up to the point when the PDP ended (late 2013) was 
> considered by the Working Group. In making its final recommendations, 
> the WG based its conclusions in various instances on GAC 
> recommendations – for example, the list of IGOs whose identifiers were 
> to be protected was the list provided by the GAC in April 2013, and 
> the scope of IGO and Red Cross names to be reserved was also based on 
> GAC advice. In general, the inconsistency between the GAC advice and 
> the final GNSO recommendations lies mostly in the difference in the 
> scope of protection using different types of mechanisms, rather than 
> differences in the names and acronyms recommended for protection by 
> the GAC.
>
> (3) The former Council had noted the possibility of considering 
> amendment of the GNSO recommendations, but had decided not to proceed 
> without further information and input from the Board, especially in 
> relation to the Red Cross identifiers still at issue. This is noted in 
> the status section on Page 3 of the Briefing Note.
>
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
>
>
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>
>
> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
> Date: Friday, April 8, 2016 at 13:16
> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org 
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>)" <council at gnso.icann.org 
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: Briefing Note on the status of protections for Red Cross 
> names and acronyms
>
> Dear all,
>
> We have just received word that the Red Cross representatives will 
> indeed be at the Council’s 14 April meeting, where their short 
> briefing is the first substantive item on your agenda. We have asked 
> them to limit their briefing to 10 minutes or less, which should allow 
> for a further 10 minutes for Q&A.
>
> We hope that the Briefing Note we circulated last Wednesday is helpful 
> to you in preparing for this session. Should you have any questions 
> prior to that, staff will try our best to answer them so that you may 
> have a productive discussion next Thursday.
>
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
>
>
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>
>
> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
> Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:30
> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org 
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>)" <council at gnso.icann.org 
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> Subject: Briefing Note on the status of protections for Red Cross 
> names and acronyms
>
> Dear all,
>
> Per proposed agenda item #4, staff has contacted the Red Cross 
> representatives who met with Heather and James in Marrakech, to invite 
> them to participate on the Council’s April call (as noted below). 
> Given the fact that many current Council members may be new to this 
> topic as well as the fullness of the April agenda, staff has also 
> prepared the attached Briefing Note for the Council.
>
> The Briefing Note is essentially a summary of the current state of 
> protections (both interim and permanent) for different Red Cross names 
> and acronyms, and includes notes on the timelines of the GNSO work, 
> GAC advice and Board action on the topic.
>
> We hope you will find the Briefing Note helpful in your preparation 
> for the April call and in considering potential next steps for the 
> Council on the matter.
>
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
>
>
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>
>
> From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Glen de Saint Géry 
> <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
> Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 09:52
> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org 
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>)" <council at gnso.icann.org 
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> Subject: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 
> 2016 at 21:00 UTC
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please find the proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 
> 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC.
> *
> *http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-14apr16-en.htm
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14+April+2016
>
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating 
> Procedures, 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> approved 
> and updated on 24 June 2015.
>
> For convenience:
>
> ·An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is 
> provided in _Appendix 1_ at the end of this agenda.
>
> ·An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the 
> absentee voting procedures is provided in _Appendix 2_ at the end of 
> this agenda.
>
> Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC: *http://tinyurl.com/gn4sy7u
> *14:00 Los Angeles; 17:00 Washington; 22:00 London; 00:00 Istanbul; 
> 07:00 Hobart
>
> **
>
> *Please be aware that the clocks will have changed in some parts of 
> the world, so refer to the other times below to ensure you join the 
> meeting at the correct time. UTC time remains the same for Council 
> meetings, local time changes. *
>
>
> *GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast*
> To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
>
> Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will 
> not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call.
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> **
>
> *__*
>
> *_Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)_*
>
> 1.1 – Roll call
>
> 1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest
>
> 1.3 – Review/amend agenda.
>
> 1.4  – Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings 
> per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
>
> Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council Meeting Minutes, 29 
> February and 9 March 2016 will be posted as approved on xxxx 2016.*__*
>
> *__*
>
> *_Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 minutes)_*
>
> 2.1 – Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / 
> topics, to include review of Projects List 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List 
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items>
>
> *__*
>
> *__*
>
> *_Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)_*
>
> *_Item 4: PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION – Possible Next Steps in Resolving 
> the Issue of Permanent Protection of Certain Red Cross Identifiers (20 
> minutes)_*
>
> In November 2013, the GNSO Council approved 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2> the final 
> recommendations from its Policy Development Process (PDP) Working 
> Group on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs. 
> Subsequently, in April 2014, the ICANN Board approved 
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-04-30-en#2.a> 
> those of the GNSO’s PDP recommendations that are not inconsistent with 
> GAC advice 
> <https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-annex-a-30apr14-en.pdf> 
> received on the topic. For the Red Cross movement, the protections 
> adopted were for the full names Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, 
> Red Lion & Sun at the top and second levels, in the 6 official 
> languages of the United Nations, with an Exception Procedure to be 
> designed during the implementation phase for the affected 
> organizations. However, with respect to the names and acronyms of the 
> 189 national Red Cross societies and the names of the International 
> Red Cross Movement (as noted by the GAC in its Singapore Communique 
> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/34373692/Final%20Communique%20-%20Singapore%202014.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1396971674000&api=v2%29>), 
> the Board requested more time to consider the GNSO’s recommendations 
> as these are inconsistent with GAC advice 
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-annex-b-30apr14-en.pdf> 
> received on the topic. In the interim period, the Board adopted 
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-10-12-en#2.d> 
> temporary protections for the Red Cross national society and 
> international movement names noted in the GAC’s Singapore Communique.
>
> At ICANN55, representatives of the Red Cross met with the GNSO Council 
> leadership to discuss possible next steps. Here the Red Cross 
> representatives will brief the Council on the scope of the Red Cross’ 
> continuing request for permanent protections for those of its national 
> society and international movement identifiers that are not currently 
> covered by the policy recommendations that have been adopted by the 
> GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.
>
> 4.1 – Introduction (James Bladel)
>
> 4.2 – Presentation by representatives of the Red Cross (by invitation)
>
> 4.3 – Q&A / next steps
>
> *_Item 5: VOTE – Approval of Proposed Approach for Implementing 
> Recommendations from the GNSO Review (10 minutes)_*
>
> As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, 
> the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee (now known as the 
> Organizational Effectiveness Committee) appointed Westlake Governance 
> as the independent examiner to conduct the current review of the 
> performance and operations of the GNSO. A GNSO Working Party, chaired 
> by former Councillor Jennifer Wolfe and comprising representatives of 
> all the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, was formed to 
> consult with Westlake over the design and conduct of the review. 
> Westlake's Draft Report was published 
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en> for 
> public comment on 1 June 2015. Following feedback received, including 
> from the GNSO Working Party, Westlake published its Final Report 
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf> 
> on 15 September. The Working Party reviewed all the recommendations to 
> develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board in relation to 
> the implementability and prioritization of the recommendations. The 
> Council received a written update 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-gnso-council-update-21jan16-en.pdf> 
> from the Working Party chair on 29 January, and the Working Party’s 
> proposed Implementation and Feasibility Analysis 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf> 
> was sent to the Council on 28 February.
>
> Here the Council will review the Working Party’s Implementation and 
> Feasibility Analysis, and vote on its adoption as well as agree on 
> next steps in the process.
>
> 5.1 – Presentation of the motion 
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016> 
> (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
> 5.2 – Discussion
>
> 5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>
> *__*
>
> *__*
>
> *_Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Procedures Governing the 
> Selection of the GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee 
> (10 minutes)_*
>
> As part of a two-year pilot program initiated in June 2014, the GNSO 
> Council and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) agreed, through 
> its joint GAC-GNSO Consultation Group 
> <https://community.icann.org/x/phPRAg>, to appoint a GNSO Liaison to 
> the GAC. The purpose of the Liaison role was to facilitate more 
> effective early engagement by the GAC in GNSO policy activities and to 
> contribute toward better information flow between the two bodies. 
> Following Consultation Group review 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-liaison-gac-pilot-29feb16-en.pdf> 
> of the pilot program, the Consultation Group recommended that the 
> Liaison role be made a permanent one in March 2016. Here the Council 
> will review and approve the scope of such a permanent Liaison role as 
> well as the application, selection and confirmation process.
>
> 6.1 – Presentation of the motion 
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April+2016> 
>
>
> 6.2 – Discussion
>
> 6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>
> *__*
>
> *__*
>
> *_Item 7: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of GNSO Input to the ICANN Board on 
> the GAC’s Marrakech Communique (20 minutes)_*
>
> Beginning in mid-2015 with the GAC’s Buenos Aires Communique, the GNSO 
> Council developed a mechanism for reviewing and commenting on aspects 
> of that Communique that are relevant to gTLD policy. The resulting 
> GNSO input on both the GAC’s Buenos Aires and Dublin Communiques were 
> approved by the GNSO Council and sent to the ICANN Board and the GAC 
> Chair (see 
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/robinson-to-icann-board-gac-chair-29jul15-en.pdf 
> and 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-gac-review-31dec15-en.pdf) <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-gac-review-31dec15-en.pdf%29>. 
> Here the Council will review the draft response to the GAC’s Marrakech 
> Communique, drafted by a volunteer group of Councillors, and, if 
> appropriate, approve its being forwarded to the ICANN Board and GAC Chair.
>
> 7.1 – Presentation of the motion 
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April+2016> 
> (Proposer name: Susan Kawaguchi /Jennifer Gore / Rubens Kuhl)
>
> 7.2 – Discussion
>
> 7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>
> *__*
>
> *__*
>
> *_Item 8: COUNCIL APPROVAL – Public Comment on ICANN’s FY17 Proposed 
> Budget (15 minutes)_*
>
> On 5 March 2016, the draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan and Budget was 
> published 
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/op-budget-fy17-five-year-2016-03-04-en> 
> for public comment (closing on 30 April). The GNSO Council had 
> previously provided public comments 
> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-op-budget-fy16-18mar15/pdfWW7Sy3WTwV.pdf> 
> to the FY16 Operating Plan and Budget. At ICANN55, a small group of 
> Councillors had volunteered to work on possible Council comments to 
> the draft FY17 budget. Here the Council will review and, if 
> appropriate, agree to send in the proposed comments.
>
> 8.1 – Update and summary of comments (Keith Drazek / Edward Morris / 
> Carlos Raul Gutierrez)
>
> 8.2 – Discussion
>
> 8.3 – Next steps
>
> *__*
>
> *_Item 9: DISCUSSION – Implementation of the IANA Stewardship 
> Transition Plan (10 minutes)_*
>
> At ICANN55, community discussions were held concerning the upcoming 
> implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan, including at a 
> session on 7 March 
> <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-implementation/transcript-iana-stewardship-implementation-07mar16-en>. 
> Several GNSO community members voiced concerns about whether the 
> proposed implementation plan would meet the requirements of the Cross 
> Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Proposal on 
> Naming-Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship 
> <https://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg>). On 25 March a Call for 
> Volunteers <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en> was 
> issued for additional CCWG participation, including for implementation 
> of the adopted Work Stream 1 recommendations.
>
> Here the Council will discuss the community concerns that have been 
> raised, and review possible next steps in relation to the 
> CWG-Stewardship and ICANN staff that have been charged with developing 
> the implementation plan.
>
> 9.1 – Summary & update (James Bladel)
>
> 9.2 – Discussion
>
> 9.3 – Next steps
>
> *__*
>
> *_Item 10: DISCUSSION – Planning for “Meeting B” (ICANN Policy 
> Forum)(10 Minutes)_*
>
> At ICANN55, the GNSO held several discussions, including with the 
> ICANN Board, concerning the focus, duration and meeting schedule for 
> the first designated ICANN Policy Forum, to take place in Helsinki as 
> ICANN56 (i.e. the initial so-called “Meeting B”). Specific concerns 
> were raised about the apparent lack of time for actual policy work in 
> the overall Meeting B schedule when all the current draft SO/AC/Board 
> proposals were put together, and about the lack of opportunity for 
> different SO/AC/Board groups to interact with one another. A small 
> group of SO/AC volunteers has been formed to address these concerns.
>
> Here the Council will hear from its representatives to this group, and 
> discuss further plans for finalizing the GNSO’s schedule for ICANN56 
> so as to maximize the policy focus for Meeting B. This includes 
> confirmation of the PDP Working Group(s) to be invited to consider 
> conducting a face-to-face working meeting in Helsinki, on a day either 
> precedent or subsequent to the ICANN56 schedule.
>
> 10.1 – Update (Donna Austin / Volker Greimann)
>
> 10.2 – Discussion
>
> 10.3 – Next steps
>
> *_Item 11: DISCUSSION – Status of Cross Community Working Group on 
> Internet Governance (10 minutes)_*
>
> The Charter 
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888213/Charter%20ccWG%20IG%202014%20v05.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1423208903000&api=v2> 
> for this Cross Community Working Group was ratified 
> <https://community.icann.org/x/oQInAw> by the ccNSO Council (September 
> 2014), the GNSO Council (October 2014), and the ALAC (April 2015). The 
> CCWG Charter states its scope as doing “whatever it deems relevant and 
> necessary to facilitate and ensure engagement and participation of the 
> ICANN community in the global Internet governance scene and 
> multi-stakeholder decision-making processes”, with regular updates to 
> be provided to its Chartering Organizations and a periodic Progress 
> Paper where appropriate. The Charter also provides that the Chartering 
> Organizations should review the Charter and CCWG deliverables in order 
> to determine whether the group should continue or be dissolved, with 
> the proviso that the CCWG will continue if at least two of its 
> Chartering Organizations extend the Charter and notify the other 
> Chartering Organizations accordingly.
>
> During the CCWG co-chairs’ update to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils at 
> ICANN55, there was some discussion over whether a CCWG format or other 
> arrangement might be the most appropriate form for SO/AC interaction 
> on Internet governance matters, especially given the expected 
> forthcoming finalization 
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-02-22-en> 
> of a Uniform Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs by the 
> CCWG-Principles. Here the GNSO Council will continue that discussion, 
> with a view toward agreeing on the appropriate next steps for the CCWG 
> on Internet Governance.
>
> 11.1 – Introduction and summary (Carlos Raul Gutierrez)
>
> 11.2 – Discussion
>
> 11.3 – Next steps
>
> *__*
>
> *_Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes)_*
>
> *__*
>
> 12.1 – Proposed approach to Expert Working Group on Internationalized 
> Registration Data (IRD) Final Report
>
> _________________________________*__*
>
> **
>
> *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 
> <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): 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* 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>*)*
>
> 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.)
>
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 21:00
>
> Local time between March and October Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> California, USA (PDT 
> <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) 
> UTC-7+0DST 14:00
> San José, Costa Rica UTC-5+0DST  16:00
> Iowa City, USA (CDT <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) 
> UTC-5+0DST 16:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+0DST 17:00
> Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART 
> <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) 
> UTC-3+0DST 18:00
> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+0DST 18:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 22:00
> Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 23:00
> Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 23:00
> Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 00:00 next day
> Perth, Australia (WST 
> <http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) 
> UTC+8+0DST 07:00 next day
> Singapore (SGT) UTC +8  05:00 next day
> Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 07:00 next day
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local 
> time (with exceptions)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com 
> <http://www.timeanddate.com/>
> *http://tinyurl.com/gn4sy7u
>
> *Please let me know if you have any questions.
> Thank you.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Glen
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> *gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>*
> *http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>*
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160409/b936a00d/attachment.html>


More information about the council mailing list