[npoc-voice] RE: Re:Dedinition who is NGO/NfP, What is protection?

["Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Do we know who is on this new working group yet?  I haven't heard, but I did 
volunteer. Perhaps if we get the WG configured, the WG can meet and then take 
them back to the greater group once a recommendation is formed.

Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel
 
Tel: 703-247-9340
Fax: 703-276-0634
Email: ahansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.bbb.org | Start With Trust
 
Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.
3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600
Arlington, VA  22201

For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog
Find us on: Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube | Flickr





This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please 
notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system 
without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you.


-----Original Message-----
From: klaus.stoll [mailto:klaus.stoll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 10:05 AM
To: Jean-Louis Ecochard
Cc: Carson, Michael; alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx; npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx; Hansen, 
Anjali; 'Branzelle, Judy'; Caroline Figuères; Jan Morton
Subject: Re:Dedinition who is NGO/NfP, What is protection?

Dear Jean-Louis

Greetings and Thanks for your thoughts. I would like to make the following 
observations in response.

Regarding definition want is an NGO/NfP:

a) I wish it was that simple, but in a way that is. We can not simply take any 
definition floating around, as they all have their limitations and create 
injustices which in the end destroy the whole DNS. As I pointed out the ICANN 
multi stakeholder  principles and model should and has to applied in this case 
as it has to in any other ICANN related cases. Instead adopting any faulty in 
in the end arbitrary model it should be up to the NGO/NfP community plus 
stakeholders to decide.

b) You will find that the ICANN community as a whole, (regrettably maybe), will 
receive any definition that comes from the UN/ITU with great suspicion and 
hostility.

c) There should be certainly no differences be made between organizations 
inside and outside the US. We are striving for ONE Internet world, not US plus 
the rest.

I fully agree with you that a existing registrations should be protected from 
being co-opted into the gTLD level and I want to repeat my point that we should 
go further and create a NGP/NfP brand at the gTLD level that is governed by the 
NGF/NfP community, technically run and implemented by a trusted and experienced 
Registrar, that exploits all the new opportunities that community building 
around the new gTLD will bring, whilst providing the Internet user with the 
certainly that a organization registered under that top domain is an legitimate 
NGO/NfP. This brings me back to the beginning of my argument as this legitimacy 
can only be provided by the community itself and not by any simple definition 
adopted. And again, we also have to stay within the multi stakeholder value 
system of ICANN, we can not simply throw it overboard, it would be like taking 
the crucifixion out of Christianity.

Yours

Klaus

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Louis Ecochard
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 2:54 AM
To: klaus.stoll
Cc: Carson, Michael ; alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx ; npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx ; 
Hansen, Anjali ; 'Branzelle, Judy' ; Caroline Figuères ; Jan Morton
Subject: Re: [npoc-voice] Fwd: [liaison6c] Protection of International Olympic 
Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team - Recommendations

Dear Klaus,

Thank you for volunteering on this effort.


On the definition of what an NGO is, it would be easy to start by simply 
adopting any of the many definition floating out there.  The one used by the UN 
such as in use by the World Summit on the Information Society
(WSIS) of the ITU seems relevant to ICANN. This is not an area where we should 
spend much time on - just pick one that is good enough and move on.
We can tune it later on.
I would be in favor of defining an NGO for this purpose as any not-for-profit 
organization who has been granted a .org or .org.xx domain name, except when 
the domain name is solely used for brand protection purposes such as 
redirecting to the .com version of it (e.g. ibm.org -> ibm.com, disney.org -> 
disney.com, etc.) or for commerce (e.g.
www.love.org).

As for protection, I had in mind protection of existing NGO online brands (I.e. 
AAAAA.org in the USA and AAAAA.org.xx outside the USA).
Meaning if an NGO has expanded resources to have a .org or .org.xx presence, it 
should be recognized and protected from being co-opted at the gTLD level. Up to 
us at NPOC to define what we want protection to be. The NGO should not be 
forced to operate its own gTLD, or seek international trademark protection, 
etc. to protect its existing online brands.

For example, if an NGO has a website at chasquinet.org then it should be 
protected from someone creating the .chasquinet gTLD and thus diluting the 
chasquinet.org online brand.

I think such a simple and effective approach would be welcome by all NGOs that 
have an online presence today, including IOC and IRC.

I hope this helps,
Jean-Louis


On 10/6/12 8:31 AM, "klaus.stoll" <klaus.stoll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Dear Anjali
>
>Greetings. You are asking one of the two main questions in this context:
>What is a Not-For-Profit, or NGO for that matter?.
>
>We must be clear that every country and even every stakeholder in these 
>countries societies have a different view of what is what. We can not 
>make one standard the standard for all, however well the standard is 
>defined or well respected, as someone this standard is not workable in 
>another context.
>What is the solution? I think that we have the great privilege that we 
>are having this conversation in the ICANN ecosystem with it's multi 
>stakeholder values and culture. We can transfer this values to our 
>little problem.
>The
>NGO's and Not-for-Profits should self-organize themselves in such a way 
>that they come up with the standards and also in such a way that the 
>private and governmental sector also have a seat on the table to give 
>their points of view, so that in the end the standards that do the 
>least of harm but are the most just and workable are implemented.The 
>worst thing that can happen is that as already been suggested in 
>another context that a evaluation firm and/or university should be 
>chosen to make the decisions and set the standards.
>
>You might ask now what is the second main question?. In my opinion it is:
>How can we protect the NGO's and Not-for-Profits?. If we say we want to 
>protect them, we also should say how. I think it is obvious that we can 
>not ask ICANN to give any NGO or NfP its own top domain, although it 
>would be nice. But what we can do is to combine one central top domain 
>with the NGO and NfP organizations. We have a concrete and real example 
>at hand in the moment. .ngo has been applied for by PIR.org. If granted 
>they will make the main decisions and decide such questions in one way 
>or another such as what is a NGO?. I think this is a foolish and wrong 
>approach. If a registry is deciding what is a NGO, even if the registry 
>will sub-contract the decision making to a company, sooner or later the 
>registry will be questioned and challenged about one decision or 
>another. The whole domain can become useless and undermined by ongoing 
>challenges and problems.  The solution is that a registry like .ngo is 
>working as closely as possible together with the social sector they 
>present with their domain following strictly the values and rules of 
>ICAN'ss multi stakeholder model. The registry is running the technical 
>back door operations, the NGO/NfP community is running itself and makes 
>and carries out the political and social responsibility. I even think 
>it is unfair for a registry to be asked to define the rules of a 
>community, that is not their business, the community has to rule itself 
>and also carry the consequences of it.  If there is a fair flat price 
>for all, let's say 10.99 for each xyzorganization.ngo, the registry 
>will make their fair cut and don't have to worry about too much how to 
>develop the marketplace as the "customers" are actually doing that on 
>their own.
>Also just imagine the opportunities the fact of a community of users 
>gathered around a joint domain would open up. We might actually start 
>communication and exchanging knowledge and information the way we should.
>If
>you start thinking about it, the mind boggles.
>
>Ok, that was my 5 cents worth on it.
>
>Yours
>
>Klaus
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Hansen, Anjali
>Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 8:32 PM
>To: 'Branzelle, Judy' ; klaus.stoll ; Caroline Figuères ; Jan Morton
>Cc: Carson, Michael ; jecochard@xxxxxxx ; alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx ; 
>npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [npoc-voice] Fwd: [liaison6c] Protection of International 
>Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team - 
>Recommendations
>
>I also support protection of all nonprofits.  I would request that 
>nonprofits be defined broadly to encompass all 501(c) entities pursuant 
>to the U.S. tax code.  There are different categories of nonprofits in 
>the U.S., and I'm not sure about other countries.
>
>Thank you all very much.
>
>Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel
>
>Tel: 703-247-9340
>Fax: 703-276-0634
>Email: ahansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>www.bbb.org | Start With Trust
>
>Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.
>3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600
>Arlington, VA  22201
>
>For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog Find us on: Twitter 
>| Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube | Flickr
>
>
>
>
>
>This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential 
>and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by 
>mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the 
>message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. 
>Thank you.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx] On 
>Behalf Of Branzelle, Judy
>Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 2:00 PM
>To: klaus.stoll; Caroline Figuères; Jan Morton
>Cc: Carson, Michael; jecochard@xxxxxxx; alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx; 
>npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [npoc-voice] Fwd: [liaison6c] Protection of International 
>Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team - 
>Recommendations
>
>
>I fully support protection for all non-profits.
>
>
>Judy Branzelle
>General Counsel
>Goodwill Industries International Inc.
>15810 Indianola Drive
>Rockville, MD 20855
>240-333-5205
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx] On 
>Behalf Of klaus.stoll
>Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:20 PM
>To: Caroline Figuères; Jan Morton
>Cc: Carson, Michael; jecochard@xxxxxxx; alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx; 
>npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [npoc-voice] Fwd: [liaison6c] Protection of International 
>Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team - 
>Recommendations
>
>
>Dear Friends
>
>Greetings. It looks very much to me that protection for all non profits 
>should become one of the policies of NPOC. I would like to hear from 
>anybody who would have strong objections to this and also those who 
>support. I think that as a next step the Chair of the NPOC Policy 
>Committee should create a working group on this and come up with a 
>draft proposal text that we can feed into the ICANN and other ecosystem 
>as soon as possible.
>
>Yours
>
>Klaus
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Caroline Figuères
>Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 5:47 PM
>To: Jan Morton
>Cc: Carson, Michael ; klaus.stoll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; jecochard@xxxxxxx ; 
>alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx ; npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx ; 
>ioc-rcrc-recommendations@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [npoc-voice] Fwd: [liaison6c] Protection of International 
>Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team - 
>Recommendations
>
>
>Dear all
>Fully agree that we should seek protection for all non profits. I am 
>still not in favor of exceptions. Best Caroline
>
>Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>
>Op 4 okt. 2012 om 17:29 heeft Jan Morton <JMorton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> het 
>volgende geschreven:
>
>>
>> I also agree that it is important to seek protection for all nonprofits.
>> Thanks for all you are doing in this arena.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jan Morton
>> Young Life
>> (719) 381-1769
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Carson, Michael
>> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 6:36 AM
>> To: klaus.stoll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jecochard@xxxxxxx; 
>> alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx; ioc-rcrc-recommendations@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [npoc-voice] Fwd: [liaison6c] Protection of 
>> International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) 
>> Drafting Team - Recommendations
>>
>>
>> Klaus and Jean-Louis,
>>
>> Thank you both for your comments.  I wholeheartedly concur with what 
>> has been said.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Michael
>> YMCA of the USA
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> Subject: Re: [npoc-voice] Fwd: [liaison6c] Protection of 
>> International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) 
>> Drafting Team - Recommendations
>> From: "klaus.stoll" <klaus.stoll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Jean-Louis Ecochard <jecochard@xxxxxxx>,Alain Berranger 
>> <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>
>> CC: "npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx"
>> <npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx>,"ioc-rcrc-recommendations@xxxxxxxxx"
>> <ioc-rcrc-recommendations@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Jean-Louis
>>
>> I want to Thank You for raising what might be the most important  
>>aspect in this debate: protection and a plain playing field for all  
>>non-profits. I confess, I think we, including me,  got side tracked in  
>>the debate by concentrating on the individual and not on the  
>>collective. I think it would be great if we could now all, and I  
>>include here the IOC and the IRC, move away from seeking protection  
>>for individual organizations or not, but close ranks and seek 
>>protection  and justice for all!
>>
>> Thanks again for your extremely valuable contribution
>>
>> Yours
>>
>> Klaus
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jean-Louis Ecochard
>> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 12:32 AM
>> To: Alain Berranger
>> Cc: npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx ; ioc-rcrc-recommendations@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [npoc-voice] Fwd: [liaison6c] Protection of 
>> International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) 
>> Drafting Team - Recommendations
>>
>>
>> Cher Alain,
>>
>> I agree and I am in favor of the proposed PDP route.
>>
>> But also want to make it clear that we have to represent the needs of 
>> all non-profits, big and small, members and non-members and that 
>> while IRC and IOC had the resources to pay attention to the early 
>> ICANN texts and hence insert their requests for protection by the 
>> deadlines, it was not the case of other non-profits who either did 
>> not know what was happening (and most still don't ) or did not have 
>> the resources to request protection.
>>
>> With understanding that the exception process is closed and 
>> respecting opinions asking no more exception be made, it is 
>> nonetheless unfair and unjust that so many non-profits brands will 
>> risk being co-opted at the gTLD level and thus have to potentially 
>> spend donor money to making the gTLD right instead of doing good. As 
>> NGOs are a substantial part of the public good,  it is in the utmost 
>> interest of the public good to open this exception process broader 
>> than IRC and IOC's brands to the interest of all NGOs and make it a 
>> standard for the protection of non-profit brands instead of an exception 
>> limited to IRC and IOC.
>>
>> Merci,
>> Jean-Louis Ecochard
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Alain Berranger
>> <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>>
>> Date: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 3:07 PM
>> To: "npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx>"
>> <npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx>>,
>>
>>"ioc-rcrc-recommendations@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:ioc-rcrc-recommendations@ic
>>ann
>>.org>"
>> 
>><ioc-rcrc-recommendations@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:ioc-rcrc-recommendations@ic
>> ann.org>>
>> Subject: [npoc-voice] Fwd: [liaison6c] Protection of International  
>>Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team -  
>>Recommendations
>>
>> Dear NPOC Colleagues,
>>
>> I do not recall an NPOC consultation on this. Hence, it is not 
>> possible to refer to an NCSG opposition, but I presume only to an 
>> NCUC opposition (although I have not followed NCUC on this issue). 
>> That said, we at NPOC need to express ourselves on this issue. I for 
>> one favor the PDP route as an appropriate compromise. What say you?
>>
>> Alain
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx>>
>> Date: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:17 PM
>> Subject: [liaison6c] Protection of International Olympic Committee
>> (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team - Recommendations
>> To: liaison6c
>> <liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ioc-rcrc-recommendations
>> - 28sep12-en.htm Protection of International Olympic Committee (IOC) 
>> / Red Cross Names
>> (RCRC) Drafting Team - Recommendations Comment/Reply Periods (*)
>>
>> Important Information Links
>>
>> Comment Open:
>>
>> 28 September 2012
>>
>> Comment Close:
>>
>> 19 October 2012
>>
>> Close Time (UTC):
>>
>> 23:59 UTC
>>
>> Public Comment
>> Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement
>> -
>> 28sep12-en.htm>
>>
>> Reply Open:
>>
>> 20 October 2012
>>
>> To Submit Your Comments
>> (Forum)<mailto:ioc-rcrc-recommendations@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Reply Close:
>>
>> 9 November 2012
>>
>> View Comments
>> Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/ioc-rcrc-recommendations/>
>>
>> Close Time (UTC):
>>
>> 23:59 UTC
>>
>> Report of Public Comments
>>
>> Brief Overview
>>
>> Originating Organization:
>>
>> GNSO
>>
>> Categories/Tags:
>>
>>
>>  *   Top-Level Domains
>>  *   Second-Level Domains
>>  *   Policy Process
>>  *   Intellectual Property
>>
>> Purpose (Brief):
>>
>> The IOC/RCRC Drafting Team (DT) requests community comment on the 
>> latest recommendations created for second level protections of names 
>> relating to the International Olympic Committee and the Red Cross/Red 
>> Crescent.
>>
>> Current Status:
>>
>> Open for Public Comment
>>
>> Next Steps:
>>
>> The Drafting Team's recommendations will be updated to reflect 
>> community feedback submitted through this forum and via final 
>> agreement of the Drafting Team members. Final recommendations will 
>> then be presented to the GNSO Council for its consideration.
>>
>> Staff Contact:
>>
>> Brian Peck, Margie Milam
>>
>> Email:
>>
>> Policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx?subject=More%20i
>> n 
>> formation%20on%20the%20Protection%20of%20International%20Olympic%20Co
>> m
>> mittee%20%28IOC%29%20/%20Red%20Cross%20Names%20%28RCRC%29%20Drafting%
>> 2 0Team%20%E2%80%93%20Recommendations%20public%20comment%20period>
>>
>> Detailed Information
>>
>> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose
>>
>>
>> As a result of IOC/RCRC being granted top level protections for the 
>> first round of the new gTLD program, the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team was 
>> further tasked to consider whether the same protections should be 
>> afforded at the second level prior to the first delegation of a new 
>> gTLD. Since the beginning of 2012, the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team (DT) 
>> has deliberated about possible second level protections and how to 
>> respond to the GAC's request for protections.
>> The DT now submits the recommendations formulated by the DT and makes 
>> them available for public comment before final submission to the GNSO 
>> Council.
>>
>> Note from the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team Chair:
>> These recommendations are being posted at the request of the Drafting 
>> Team.
>> Although some members of the Drafting Team believe that a PDP is not 
>> necessary at this time to grant second level protections for the 
>> IOC/RCRC, a consensus of the DT does in fact agree that a PDP 
>> represents an appropriate compromise on this issue. With respect to 
>> the Recommendations
>> #2 and #3 (temporary protection at second level), there is strong 
>> support amongst the Drafting Team for those recommendations with 
>> opposition from the Non-commercial Stakeholder Group and Thomas 
>> Rickert. A copy of statements from certain constituencies, 
>> stakeholder groups, and/or individuals is attached as appendices to 
>> the recommendations.
>>
>> Section II: Background
>>
>>
>> The ICANN Board had requested policy advice from the GNSO Council and 
>> the GAC on whether special protections should be afforded to the 
>> RCRC, IOC and/or IGOs. Specifically, in its Singapore resolution, the 
>> Board authorized the President and CEO to implement the New gTLD 
>> Program "which includes the following elements: "the 30 May 2011 
>> version of the Applicant Guidebook, subject to the revisions agreed 
>> to with the GAC on 19 June 2011, including:
>> ...(b) incorporation of text concerning protection for specific 
>> requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the 
>> initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy 
>> advice based on the global public interest....."
>>
>> During September 2011, the GAC also sent advice to the GNSO with a 
>> proposal for granting second level protections based upon the 
>> protections afforded to IOC/RCRC at the first level. In the same 
>> month, section
>> 2.2.1.2.3 was added to the latest version of the new gTLD Applicant 
>> Guidebook dated 19 September 2011.
>>
>> As a result of the GAC proposal submitted to the GNSO, the GNSO  
>>Council created a call for volunteers to form a drafting team about  
>>creating a response to the GAC. The IOC/RCRC Drafting Team was formed  
>>has since created a set of recommendations for protecting the IOC/RCRC  
>>names at the second level and includes an outline for a response to  
>>the GAC from the GNSO. The Drafting Team now wishes to solicit  
>>feedback from the community prior to submission of the recommendations 
>>to  the GNSO Council.
>>
>> See the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team page for more detail at:
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm
>>
>> Section III: Document and Resource Links
>>
>> IOC/RCRC Drafting Team Recommendations
>> Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ioc-rcrc-recommendations-28sep
>> 1
>> 2-en.pdf>
>> [PDF, 152 KB]
>>
>> Section IV: Additional Information
>>
>> None
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not 
>> guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, 
>> reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.
>>
>>
>> Glen de Saint Géry
>> GNSO Secretariat
>> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> g
>> >
>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
>> http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-dir
>> e ctors/> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, 
>> www.schulich.yorku.ca<http://www.schulich.yorku.ca<http://www.schulic
>> h .yorku.ca<http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>>
>> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, 
>> www.gkpfoundation.org<http://www.gkpfoundation.org<http://www.gkpfoun
>> d ation.org<http://www.gkpfoundation.org>>
>> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, 
>> www.chasquinet.org<http://www.chasquinet.org>
>> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>> Skype: alain.berranger
>>
>>
>> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
>> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l'usage exclusif du 
>>destinataire  ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message 
>>sans en être le  destinataire, ou l'employé(e) ou la personne 
>>responsable de le  remettre au destinataire, est par les présentes 
>>avisée qu'il lui est  strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le 
>>distribuer, de le modifier  ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie 
>>. Si le destinataire ne peut  être joint ou si ce document vous a été 
>>communiqué par erreur,  veuillez nous en informer sur le champ  et 
>>détruire ce courriel et toute  copie de celui-ci.
>> Merci de votre coopération.
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
>> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive  
>>use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by  
>>anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person  
>>responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly  
>>prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents  
>>of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be  
>>reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us  
>>immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you 
>>for  your cooperation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>