<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: AW: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]
- To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: AW: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:04:25 -0500
Sorry about that Jeff. I am mixing issues as you can tell. The PDP team stuff
will likely be considered under AOB at the end. Once we receive a request from
the WT or PPSC we will add it there.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 3:22 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Marika Konings; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Liz Gasster; Avri
Doria; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: AW: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]
That's the STI..where would the PDP Team stuff be discussed.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received
this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original
message.
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 3:02 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Marika Konings; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Liz Gasster; Avri
Doria; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: AW: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]
10 am EST. STI is item 3 on the agenda so it should probably come up
within 20 to 30 minutes of the start of the meeting.
Chuck
Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 17 December 2009
This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
Procedures approved 28 October 2009 for the GNSO Council
Coordinated Universal Time:15:00 UTC - see below for local times (07:00
Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 15:00 London, 16:00 Brussels, 02:00 Melbourne
next day)
Chair: Chuck Gomes; Vice Chairs: Olga Cavalli & Stéphane Van Gelder
Note: This meeting will be recorded.
Scheduled time for meeting 120 mins.
Dial-in numbers sent individually to Council members.
Item1: Administrative matters
1.1. Roll call of Council members
1.2. Update any statements of interest
1.3. Review/amend agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the following Council meetings per
the new Council Operating Procedures:
. 8 October meeting - Approved on 28 November 2009 . 28 October meeting
- Approved on 27 November 2009 . 23 November meeting - Approved on 08 December
2009
Item 2: Motion to approve GNSO Improvements Recommendations for a
Constituency/Stakeholder Group Toolkit of Services
2.1 Refer to the recommendations document at:
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-18oct09-en.pdf
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-18oct09-en.pdf>
2.2 Discussion of recommendations
2.3 See the motion at:
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?17_december_motions
<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?17_december_motions>
2.4 Vote
Item 3: Special Trademark Issues (STI) Review Team
3.1 Update - David Maher, STI Review Group Chair
3.2 Refer to the 7 December STI Report at (Insert link to STI Report)
(not yet available)
3.3 Council action?
Item 4: Action on Issues Report regarding vertical separation of
Registries and Registrars
4.1 Refer to Issues Report on Vertical Integration
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf>
4.2 Overview of Issues Report (Margie Milam)
4.3 Discussion
4.3 See possible motion(s) at:
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?17_december_motions
<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?17_december_motions>
Note: If a motion is acted on to initiate a PDP, absentee voting will
be allowed.
Item 5: Prioritization of GNSO work
5.1 Status Report (Olga Cavalli)
5.2 Council action?
5.3 Next steps?
Item 6: Status updates
6.1 Board update (Denise Michel)
6.2 New gTLD Implementation Process Update (Kurt Pritz)
6.3 Items of interest to the GNSO from the ccNSO (Olga Cavalli/Han
Chuan Lee)
6.4 Other?
6.5 Questions/comments on written status updates sent in advance by
leaders of Working Groups, Work Teams, staff projects, etc.?
Item 7: AOB
Item 8: The updated GNSO Project Status List (formerly Pending Action
Item List) is at:
http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf
<http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf> .
8.1 Questions/comments?
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:34 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Marika Konings; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Liz
Gasster; Avri Doria; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: AW: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]
What time is the meeting? I would be happy to listen in. I
know there are some sensitive issues that staff may want me to respond to as
opposed to them, but I will let them weigh in.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended
only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete
the original message.
From: owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:17 PM
To: Marika Konings; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Liz Gasster; Avri
Doria; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-ppsc] RE: AW: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]
In anticipation of the request being added to the Council
agenda for 17 Dec., would there possibly be value in having Jeff as chair of
the PPSC and/or WT participate in the Council meeting or is it reasonable to
expect that Wolf, Marika and any others on the WT and/or PPSC and the Council
could talk to this satisfactorily?
Chuck
________________________________
From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:36 PM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Liz Gasster; Avri Doria;
Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: AW: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]
Wolf-Ulrich, in response to your questions:
- the basic request for the F2F meeting
* The request for the face-to-face meeting was
shared with the PPSC and should be forwarded by Jeff to the GNSO Council
shortly according to his message on 5 December (see
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/msg00117.html)
- background information on budget effect (e.g. average
cost per funded participant)
* based on previous experience, the average
expected costs per participant is estimated to be between $ 1,500 - 2,500. This
estimate includes travel, hotel, food and meeting facilities. Please note that
this is a rough estimate.
- list of items where council recommendations are
expected (GAC rep., SG reps etc.)
* This is for the Council to discuss and decide
upon
- information on potential F2F meeting requests from
other WTs
* As far as I am aware, no other requests for F2F
meetings have been made or are in the pipeline
With best regards,
Marika
On 08/12/09 10:00, "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx"
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks, Liz, for this which I fully share.
Nobody participating within this work team has to take
responsibility that others don't or do it part-time only. The discrepancy
between the number of members nominated to a WT and the number of active
members is inherent to any WT.
As I'm in favour of holding an F2F meeting as soon as
possible I'd like to push this forward that a positive decision could be taken
by the PPSC and the council in principle. Details like whether a GAC
representative should be funded should not be used as key decision factors but
could be recommended by the council. So what I would appreciate being prepared
by staff for the council discussion on Dec 17 is:
- the basic request for the F2F meeting
- background information on budget effect (e.g. average
cost per funded participant)
- list of items where council recommendations are
expected (GAC rep., SG reps etc.)
- information on potential F2F meeting requests from
other WTs
I really hope that this discussion will encourage and
enable more community members to participate actively. But it shouldn't
paralyse the work progress. Regarding the work on a new and modernized PDP the
alternative would be just staying with the old (existing) one. I don't think
that's the best solution.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Liz Gasster
Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Dezember 2009 03:07
An: Avri Doria; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: PPSC; Chuck Gomes
Betreff: RE: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]
All,
I'd like to try to address some of the points that have
been raised about the proposed face-to-face meeting.
Regarding the role of the GNSO Council:
* Staff is not "negating the Council
responsibilities for oversight of the process." Our only point is that the
question of travel funding falls under staff's remit as it currently stands. As
indicated, we do want to encourage the Council to play a more active role in
forecasting budgetary and resource requirements on an annual basis, and to help
ICANN use fees wisely and maintain the appropriate budget levels.
* As Jeff noted, the PPSC is considering the
request now, following its review (deadline of 9 December), the Council will be
asked to provide its view.
Regarding the F2F location, Work Team participation and
who should attend:
* We suggested DC/east coast US because it seemed
like the most central/least amount of travel for the largest number of
participants and the most cost-effective location. The ICANN staff who have
been supporting this WT (Marika, Margie and me) are planning to participate.
* The GAC does not have an official
representative to this group. Bertrand de La Chappelle had been participating
as an individual but he has not been active for awhile now. The GAC could
decide to send an official rep to this meeting.
* It is erroneous to say that participants have
been "excluded" or that the WT is driven by a particular "region." While the WT
was constituted before Stakeholder Groups were created, there have been no
restrictions or guidelines as to how many representatives each Constituency (or
any interested group) could or should have. In any event, SG input will
continue to be encouraged and both the NCSG and SG are, of course, represented
on the Council and will be addressing the new PDP directly there.
* It is great to see that individuals from the
NCUC (and other new faces) are now keen to participate and they are encouraged
to become involved NOW in the WT's substantive efforts on-line and on
conference calls, and not wait until a face-to-face meeting. That said,
enhancing participation on the WT does not equate to getting funded to attend a
particular F2F meeting. This WT has always been open for anyone to participate
and any group to be represented. Every effort has been made to try to get input
and participation from all Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups, including by
setting up surveys and requesting input on documents and discussions. It is
troubling to see that only funded travel seems to drive a sudden need for
'adequate representation' while this interest level seems to have been missing
when it came to participation in the WT's previous 20 calls and 3 surveys.
This F2F meeting is actually about genuine participation and about bringing the
discussions!
of those 20 calls and 3 surveys together into
conclusions so the public, the PPSC and the GNSO have a concrete initial draft
to consider.
* In addition, this is an open and lengthy
process with many opportunities for anyone to participate and offer ideas.
This WT's initial recommendations will be publicly available for comment and
will be considered by the PPSC; the PPSC's recommendations on a new PDP will be
publicly available for comment and will be considered by the GNSO Stakeholder
Groups, Constituencies and the Council; the Council's proposed new PDP will be
publicly available for comment and will then be considered by the Board.
Regarding the AoC:
* The remit of this specific WT stems from the
Board-approved GNSO Improvements Report. One of the PDP WT's objectives has
been, and continues to be, to encourage more transparency, accountability, and
community deliberation and involvement. Ultimately, a community review team
will be tasked to assess ICANN's efforts as called for in the AoC; this effort
complements, but is independent from, the GNSO's Improvement Process, which
needs to be completed expeditiously.
Thanks, Liz
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 2:18 AM
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: PPSC; Chuck Gomes
Subject: Re: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]
PS. How come no support for a GAC representative at
the F2F. In respect to meeting AoC obligations, this seems a definite
oversight and a risk.
On 6 Dec 2009, at 11:00, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Thanks for getting back to me with such a detailed
note.
>
> I have at this point listened to the recording of the
phone call, and have a few points to make.
>
> First I totally agree with those who believe this is
a GNSO council issue, though of course only after the PPSC has passed it on..
Even if the work was mandated by the Board, it was mandated that the GNSO do
the work. I would also point out that the PPSC was chartered by the GNSO
Council and as such its Working Teams are also governed by that charter. The
GNSO council, in its new form is mandated to management of the policy
development process. This means the whole process, including ICANN Policy
Staff activities taken in support of that Policy Process. For the ICANN Policy
Staff to continue negating and overriding the responsibilities of the council
is unacceptable - and a serious problem, one that is much greater then that of
a PDP face to face meeting.
>
> Second in terms of deciding who should participate.
We must remember that this is being done in light of the Affirmation of
Commitment 9.1
> "(e) assessing the policy development process to
facilitate enhanced cross community deliberations, and effective and timely
policy development."
> That means this cannot be 'just about bringing this
work to closure" . There needs to be a review to insure that the work done to
date meets this new criteria. We need to insure that nay new PDPD process
meets the requirements of the Aoc. The requirements of "Ensuring
accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users"
requires that:
>
> - there be global diversity in the participants - and
if certain regions have not been included in the past, they need to be added
now. the fact that certain participants have been excluded in the past must
not be used to restrict them in the present and the future. The fact that this
is a self selected group of North Americans is _not_ a good thing and does not
seems encouraging in light of the AoC. One can see this is being done for cost
efficiency, but holding it in DC because that is where the North Americans are,
is not really valid reasoning for an ICANN that wishes to show its
international pedigree. This is especially the case in the light of difficulty
with visas into the US, e.g. the NCSG has one possible Latin American
participant, one who had attended several PDP-WT meetings, who withdrew from
consideration because just getting a visa to the US can be an obnoxious several
day job.
>
> - there needs to be full and equal participation of
all relevant interests. At a minimum this means that all SGs[*] needs to be
offered the chance to be adequately represented, even if it means that some new
participants have to come up to speed. SGs MUST be treated equally. It is
fine if those in the Contracted Parties House do not wish to send a full
compliment at ICANN expense. But their willingness not to do so should not be
used as a reason to deny participation to the non-commercial participants who
have no resources of their own to enable participation. The fact that the
Commercial SG group composed of those who often have access to financial
resources are given 3 paid seats, while the Non-Commercial SG who have no
resources are only given 1 seat is completely unacceptable. To characterize
this as mere bickering is cruel and unfair - it needs to be recognized as a
matter of equality and parity that are essential ingredients in insuring the
interests of global!
Internet users. In pragmatic sense, it is important
to remember that the changes being proposed by this group will need to reach a
certain threshhold of votes in the council before being passed onto the Board.
Is it reasonable to consider that those who have been excluded from the process
will be able to approve of the process as having been fair when they were not
adequately represented?
>
> - there be new people looking at the work done to
date, since it is well known that people who have been immersed in the details
for a long time, are often incapable to considering an issue in the light of
new requirements.
>
> Yes any new participants need to review all of the
material and I beleive it is a totally legitimate expectation that everyone
would need to review all of the previous work and I beleive that everyone can,
and should be, be trusted to do so. Yes, it should not be a ground zero
discussion, but we have a new council, with a new mandate, and if we expect it
to be able to sign off on the process having been run will full accountability,
transparency and the interests of global Internet users we better be sure that
all voices who want to participate can fully do so.
>
> Mention was made that remote participation facilities
would be provided. As anyone who has attempted to participate in a face to
face meeting remotely knows, this is not a equal opportunity participation.
Yes you can almost listen and might be able to make a occasional comment, but
contrary to what Marika says, participation in the face to face meeting does
equal participation and one can never make up for having missed a face to face
meting. looked at another way, if face to face participation is not critical,
then why have the face to face meeting at all.
>
> To limit the meeting to so called 'active' members is
to limit it to the old and not to take into account that there has been a large
change in the GNSO and council in the last few months. We have 3 new Board
appointed members of the council in the NCSG, I find it unreasonable that no
account has been taken of having at least one of them attend, or to having them
suggest a proxy for their concerns.
>
> In terms of budget, the fact that the GNSO council
has not been allowed to look at budgets in the past is no reason not to give
the new GNSO Council responsible for management the ability to review the
budget.
>
> As things currently stand, in terms of this face to
face meeting, I will make my personal recommendation that the NCSG PPSC
representative object to this plan, and that if the plan is passed on to the
GNSO Council, the NCSG council members insist on a vote on this plan and that
they then vote against this plan as it stands for the following reasons:
>
> - inequality of representation
> - insufficient details on how much of it will cost
for the ICANN Policy Staff to participate (how many, travel costs and whether
contract or not)
> - no detailed budget
>
> I understand that not having the f2f may make it hard
to hit a timeline, but we must be careful to do the right thing and not just
keep the trains running on time.
>
> a.
>
> [*] this must be done by SG not by constituencies.
For someone to ague that there is only one constituency in the NCSG when there
have been 3 appointed board council members to the NCSG and the NCSG keeps
expanding in size is just plan wrong and prejudicial.
>
>
> Note: On the issue of the Policy Staff sending
confidential reports to the Board - as I have long advocated - this practice
MUST be stopped, especially in respect to the PDP process.
>
>
> On 5 Dec 2009, at 16:57, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>
>> Thanks Avri for your note and I do encourage you to
listen to the
>> recording. I would like to send to you the same
answer I sent to Robin
>> earlier in the week. As chair, it is my
responsibility to make sure
>> that all viewpoints are heard and reflected in the
ultimate report. I
>> need to do that regardless of the actual number of
people that attend
>> meetings or calls. In other words, if the
registrars have 2 people on a
>> call, but the NCSG only has one, I cannot give more
weight to the
>> registrars than to the NCSG simply because they have
more people.
>> Similarly, the fact that there is only one person
from the NCSG that
>> attends a meeting does not mean that its voice is
heard less. We need
>> to stop focusing on the issue of quantity, but
rather quality. It is
>> the same reason why the RySG and RrSG accepted less
members on the STI
>> than the NCSG and CSG have on that committee. The
RrSG and RySG have 2
>> members, while the other 2 SGs have 3 members each.
The registries and
>> registrars agreed early on that as long as our voice
was being heard
>> (which we believe it is), then we would not focus on
the number of reps.
>>
>> With respect to ICANN policy staff, I will let ICANN
staff address.
>>
>> Finally, with respect to new blood, I believe that
is an issue for all
>> working groups as they are COMMENCING their work.
As we are trying to
>> wrap up our work, I am not sure the face to face
meeting (intended to
>> finalize a report) is the place to make the call for
diversity. The
>> group discussed this issue at length and felt that
the persons being
>> funded should be ones that either (i) active in the
group or (ii) are
>> dedicated to the remain active in the group for the
reminder of its life
>> span. I am paraphrasing, but you should listen to
the recording. We do
>> not believe someone should be funded to attend the
face to face if they
>> have rarely if ever been on a WT call or meeting or
have never filled
>> out any of the surveys. Anyone and everyone is free
to participate
>> remotely.
>>
>> I hope that helps to understand some of our thinking.
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
>>
>>
>> The information contained in this e-mail message is
intended only for
>> the use of the recipient(s) named above and may
contain confidential
>> and/or privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient you
>> have received this e-mail message in error and any
review,
>> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
message is strictly
>> prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please
>> notify us immediately and delete the original
message.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Avri Doria
>> Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 4:36 AM
>> To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: PPSC; Chuck Gomes
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On reading it, and I have not listened to the
recording of the meeting
>> yet, I object to the disparity in treatment between
the two non
>> contracted SG groups.
>>
>> There should be the same number of representatives
from each of the
>> Stakeholder groups. As written this prevents the
council members
>> appointed from the Board, or other member the NCSG
executive committee
>> wishes to send, from participating. This continues
a disparity in the
>> treatment between non-commercial and commercial that
was to have been
>> eliminated by the restructuring.
>>
>> It should either be 1 from each SG or 3 from each.
The number of
>> constituencies should be irrelevant at this point.
>>
>> I will be checking with the NCSG Executive
Committee, so at this point
>> this is a personal point of view, but as Chair of
the NCSF Executive
>> Committee I wish to lodge a provisional protest.
>>
>> I also object that this request to the Council does
not include specific
>> information on the staff that the ICANN Policy
groups plans to send. I
>> understand their very active participation in this
work team, and think
>> that council members should know how many staff
members will be sent
>> since that is part of the expense that needs to be
accounted for.
>>
>> I have heard other details about discussions during
the meeting that
>> concern me, especially that affect to the need to
include new blood and
>> diversity in this group, but will comment on those
specifically once I
>> have listened to the recording.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5 Dec 2009, at 07:43, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>>
>>> Dear PPSC members,
>>>
>>> Please find enclosed a draft request for a PDP Work
Team face to face
>> meeting in January 2010 setting for the rationale
for needing such a
>> working session. This draft was discussed by the
PDP Work Team this
>> past Thursday. It is our intent to send this to the
GNSO Council by no
>> later than December 9th so that it can be discussed
at the GNSO Council
>> meeting.
>>>
>>> As this is a first, we wanted to make sure that the
entire PPSC was
>> made aware of the request prior to sending it to the
Council. Unless
>> there is a strong objection by the PPSC as a whole,
this will be sent to
>> the Council next Wednesday. I have also included
Chuck Gomes on this
>> note so that he is aware that this will be coming.
>>>
>>> I know there are a few on the Council that have
expressed reservations
>> about the face to face and that is the reason this
document has been put
>> together - namely, to explain our rationale.
>>>
>>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
>>> 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
>>> Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079
Fax: +1.703.738.7965
>> / jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx / www.neustar.biz
>>> The information contained in this e-mail message is
intended only for
>> the use of the recipient(s) named above and may
contain confidential
>> and/or privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient you
>> have received this e-mail message in error and any
review,
>> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
message is strictly
>> prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please
>> notify us immediately and delete the original
message.
>>>
>>> <Request for a PDP WT Face to Face meeting -
updated 3 December
>> 2009.doc>
>>
>>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|