November 2015 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Discussion: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 19, 2015

Nov. 19, 2015

Seun, I believe that this lightweight process is instead of updating the charter, which would require new drafting and then formal action on behalf of all of the chartering bodies to approve the revision. If the chartering bodies all agree to this method, we have effectively changed the mandate of the CWG without having to go through the formalities - quicker and easier. These messages (asking for and getting permission from the chartering bodies) will form part of the overall documentation for the CWG and should be sufficient. Alan At 16/11/2015 11:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello, > >I believe it's in order and I recommend that >while ALAC supports this, we should recommend >that the CWG charter be updated accordingly or >at least the communiquÃ© be formerly referenced in the charter. > >Regards >Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos. >On 16 Nov 2015 16:47, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Please see following message. > >I believe this makes sense. If anyone has >concerns with this, please let us know. Based on >any negative comments, I will initiate a >Consensus Call or formal vote next Monday, 23 >November. The Consensus Call or vote will be for >ALAC Members only, but of course, the discussion >is open to anyone on this list. > >Alan > >>To: ALAC, CCNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC >>Cc: CWG-Stewardship, ICG, CRISP, IANAPLAN, >>CCWG-Accountability, ICANN Implementation & ICANN Policy Staff. >> >> >>Dear Chartering Organizations of the CWG IANA Stewardship, >> >>Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation >> >>At ICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship >>Coordination Group (ICG) confirmed designation >>of the operational communities to be >>responsible for direct implementation oversight of their proposals. >> >>The CWG-Stewardship also met during the course >>of ICANN54 and discussed this role and we >>continued this discussion in a subsequent >>meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. An >>oversight role is not specifically detailed in >>our Charter, but it is the CWG-Stewardshipâs >>view that our role in implementation is to >>ensure that the implementation is consistent >>with the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and >>furthermore, to provide input on the >>implementation work when required by staff >>working on the implementation or, if and when >>necessary, to bring the implementation work >>back in line with the intent of the Final Proposal. >> >>In our view, the most logical option is to have >>the CWG-Stewardship working group continue in >>its current form and with the responsibility to >>monitor the implementation and provide input >>where needed. Of course, this responsibility >>would include regular updates to the Chartering >>Organizations via the appointed members as well >>as consultations with the Chartering >>Organizations should issues be identified that >>are deemed without this specific remit. >> >>We note here for your information, that while >>the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal was >>submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has >>remained active and therefore available when >>needed. This has included being available to >>answer questions from the ICG, or to monitor >>the CCWG-Accountability dependencies and to >>coordinate with the other operational >>communities on shared issues such as IANA intellectual property rights. >> >>As the CWG-Stewardship Charter does not >>specifically address implementation, we would >>like to ensure that the CWG-Stewardshipâs >>proposed approach in relation to implementation >>is not inconsistent with the intent of the >>Chartering Organizations concerning the scope >>and role of the CWG-Stewardship. We therefore >>propose to proceed to oversee the >>implementation work as described above unless >>there are objections from one or more Chartering Organizations. >> >>We would like to emphasize that the >>CWG-Stewardship does not intend to change its >>working methods in light of this ongoing role. >>The group will remain open to anyone who wishes >>to join, and we will welcome informed >>individuals with relevant implementation and >>operational experience to join the CWG-Stewardship in this next phase. >> >>Thank you for your consideration of this matter >>and for your ongoing support of our work. >>Please let us know of any concerns by no later than 30 November 2015. >> >>Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr >>CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

6 8

Discussion: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 19, 2015

Nov. 19, 2015

Please see following message. I believe this makes sense. If anyone has concerns with this, please let us know. Based on any negative comments, I will initiate a Consensus Call or formal vote next Monday, 23 November. The Consensus Call or vote will be for ALAC Members only, but of course, the discussion is open to anyone on this list. Alan >To: ALAC, CCNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC >Cc: CWG-Stewardship, ICG, CRISP, IANAPLAN, CCWG-Accountability, >ICANN Implementation & ICANN Policy Staff. > > >Dear Chartering Organizations of the CWG IANA Stewardship, > >Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation > >At ICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) >confirmed designation of the operational communities to be >responsible for direct implementation oversight of their proposals. > >The CWG-Stewardship also met during the course of ICANN54 and >discussed this role and we continued this discussion in a subsequent >meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. An oversight role is not >specifically detailed in our Charter, but it is the >CWG-Stewardship's view that our role in implementation is to ensure >that the implementation is consistent with the CWG-Stewardship Final >Proposal and furthermore, to provide input on the implementation >work when required by staff working on the implementation or, if and >when necessary, to bring the implementation work back in line with >the intent of the Final Proposal. > >In our view, the most logical option is to have the CWG-Stewardship >working group continue in its current form and with the >responsibility to monitor the implementation and provide input where >needed. Of course, this responsibility would include regular updates >to the Chartering Organizations via the appointed members as well as >consultations with the Chartering Organizations should issues be >identified that are deemed without this specific remit. > >We note here for your information, that while the CWG-Stewardship >Final Proposal was submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has >remained active and therefore available when needed. This has >included being available to answer questions from the ICG, or to >monitor the CCWG-Accountability dependencies and to coordinate with >the other operational communities on shared issues such as IANA >intellectual property rights. > >As the CWG-Stewardship Charter does not specifically address >implementation, we would like to ensure that the CWG-Stewardship's >proposed approach in relation to implementation is not inconsistent >with the intent of the Chartering Organizations concerning the scope >and role of the CWG-Stewardship. We therefore propose to proceed to >oversee the implementation work as described above unless there are >objections from one or more Chartering Organizations. > >We would like to emphasize that the CWG-Stewardship does not intend >to change its working methods in light of this ongoing role. The >group will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will >welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and >operational experience to join the CWG-Stewardship in this next phase. > >Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for your ongoing >support of our work. Please let us know of any concerns by no later >than 30 November 2015. > >Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr >CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs

4 3

Re: [ALAC] ACTION: Endorsements: Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team
by tijani.benjemaa＠topnet.tn Nov. 18, 2015

Nov. 18, 2015

Alan and all, I'm sorry, I'm in a big event and have a few time to cosult my mail box. I agree with Alan proposal. I don't feel comfortable with endorsing those who didn't ask for our support. Tijani Le 18 nov. 2015 à 00:58, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> a écrit : There is no formal rule against endorsing candidates who did not identify ALAC in the application. However, I see little merit in evaluating all 72 applications, and for the reasons that Cheryl, outlines, I do not think it proper for us to unilaterally "adopt" a candidate. If you know of someone who you think we should consider, please let me know and I will contact them privately. Alan

1 0

ACTION: Endorsements: Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 17, 2015

Nov. 17, 2015

In Dublin I suggested that the ALT recommend who to endorse for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team and there was a strong feeling within the ALAC that this responsibility not be given to the ALT. The applicants have now been announced and we need to decide who to endorse -https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/aoc/cct/applications. I suggest that we use the same composition for the selection team as we have for a number of other recent groups, for each region, one ALAC Member selected by the Members from that region, and one person selected by the RALO leadership. No one who has submitted an application is eligible to serve of the endorsement group. All team members will need to: - Be familiar with the purpose of the Review (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en) - Review the Applications. - Prepare a brief evaluation of each candidate (details to be provided). Endorsements are due no later than 14 December. Nine people indicated that they were seeking ALAC endorsements, five seeking only an ALAC endorsement, and four list multiple alternatives. I am happy to have the ALAC delegate the endorsements to this group, and if the ALAC agrees, there will be no need for the ALAC to ratify the endorsements. We will be scheduling the first (and possibly only) meeting of the group for the week on November 30th, so please submit names within the next week to ensure that we can select a suitable time for the meeting. To be clear, I am looking for: 1. Any objections to having the group make the endorsements without further ALAC action. 2. The name of the ALAC member from each region to participate in the endorsement process. 3. The name of the regional appointee from each region to participate in the endorsement process. Alan

6 6

Re: [ALAC] ACTION: Endorsements: Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 17, 2015

Nov. 17, 2015

Regarding decision, if the ALAC delegates, it is effectively making the decision. We'll see what others think. From my perspective, since this kind of recommendation is not likely to be over-ridden by the ALAC, having the ALAC make the final decision just takes time from the selection process. Alan At 16/11/2015 11:52 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello Alan, > >I am in support of the group preparing the summary of each person >and making their recommendation. > >I think actual selection should be the role of ALAC. > >Thanks > >Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos. >On 17 Nov 2015 03:13, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >In Dublin I suggested that the ALT recommend who to endorse for the >Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team and >there was a strong feeling within the ALAC that this responsibility >not be given to the ALT. The applicants have now been announced and >we need to decide who to endorse >-<https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/aoc/cct/applications>https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/aoc/cct/applications. > >I suggest that we use the same composition for the selection team as >we have for a number of other recent groups, for each region, one >ALAC Member selected by the Members from that region, and one person >selected by the RALO leadership. No one who has submitted an >application is eligible to serve of the endorsement group. All team >members will need to: > >- Be familiar with the purpose of the Review >(<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en) >- Review the Applications. >- Prepare a brief evaluation of each candidate (details to be provided). > >Endorsements are due no later than 14 December. > >Nine people indicated that they were seeking ALAC endorsements, five >seeking only an ALAC endorsement, and four list multiple alternatives. > >I am happy to have the ALAC delegate the endorsements to this group, >and if the ALAC agrees, there will be no need for the ALAC to ratify >the endorsements. > >We will be scheduling the first (and possibly only) meeting of the >group for the week on November 30th, so please submit names within >the next week to ensure that we can select a suitable time for the meeting. > >To be clear, I am looking for: > >1. Any objections to having the group make the endorsements without >further ALAC action. > >2. The name of the ALAC member from each region to participate in >the endorsement process. > >3. The name of the regional appointee from each region to >participate in the endorsement process. > >Alan > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Discussion: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 17, 2015

Nov. 17, 2015

We have two capable co-chairs and I am happy to leave the decision to them. If you feel strongly about this, then you are free to raise the issue on the CWG mailing list. Alan At 16/11/2015 04:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello Alan, > >What we are basically doing by this request is >modifying the charter, that is exactly the >process that is happening right now[1] so I >don't really think there will be any other >issue/challenge with referencing the update in >the charter. It is the charter that determines >the scope of work of the CWG and when there is >an expansion (which is agreed to by the >Chartering organisation) the charter should reflect such. > >While I support the expansion of CWG scope to >cover the intent of the request, I believe it >should be reflected in the charter. This will >not require more process than we are already going through right now. > >That said since Co-Chairs have already sent out >the message in this manner(which is cool), the >CWG should reference this document (with formal >approval of Chartering organisations in the >charter). It's a minor process/documentation >that we should not ignore and let go on. > >Regards >1. In the event it is decided that the charter >needs to be modified to address the omission or unreasonable >impact, the co-chairs may propose to modify the >charter. A modification shall only be effective after >adoption of the adjusted charter by the >chartering organizations in accordance with their own rules and >procedures. > >Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos. >On 16 Nov 2015 21:06, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Seun, I believe that this lightweight process is >instead of updating the charter, which would >require new drafting and then formal action on >behalf of all of the chartering bodies to >approve the revision. If the chartering bodies >all agree to this method, we have effectively >changed the mandate of the CWG without having to >go through the formalities - quicker and easier. > >These messages (asking for and getting >permission from the chartering bodies) will form >part of the overall documentation for the CWG and should be sufficient. > >Alan > >At 16/11/2015 11:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >>Hello, >> >>I believe it's in order and I recommend that >>while ALAC supports this, we should recommend >>that the CWG charter be updated accordingly or >>at least the communiquÃÂ© be formerly referenced in the charter. >> >>Regards >>Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >>Kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>On 16 Nov 2015 16:47, "Alan Greenberg" >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>Please see following message. >>I believe this makes sense. If anyone has >>concerns with this, please let us know. Based >>on any negative comments, I will initiate a >>Consensus Call or formal vote next Monday, 23 >>November. The Consensus Call or vote will be >>for ALAC Members only, but of course, the >>discussion is open to anyone on this list. >>Alan >> >>>To: ALAC, CCNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC >>>Cc: CWG-Stewardship, ICG, CRISP, IANAPLAN, >>>CCWG-Accountability, ICANN Implementation & ICANN Policy Staff. >>> >>>Dear Chartering Organizations of the CWG IANA Stewardship, >>> >>>Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation >>>At ICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship >>>Coordination Group (ICG) confirmed designation >>>of the operational communities to be >>>responsible for direct implementation oversight of their proposals. >>> >>>The CWG-Stewardship also met during the course >>>of ICANN54 and discussed this role and we >>>continued this discussion in a subsequent >>>meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. An >>>oversight role is not specifically detailed in >>>our Charter, but it is the >>>CWG-StewardshipÃ¢s s view that our role in >>>implementation is to ensure that the >>>implementation is consistent with the >>>CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and >>>furthermore, to provide input on the >>>implementation work when required by staff >>>working on the implementation or, if and when >>>necessary, to bring the implementation work >>>back in line with the intent of the Final Proposal. >>> >>>In our view, the most logical option is to >>>have the CWG-Stewardship working group >>>continue in its current form and with the >>>responsibility to monitor the implementation >>>and provide input where needed. Of course, >>>this responsibility would include regular >>>updates to the Chartering Organizations via >>>the appointed members as well as consultations >>>with the Chartering Organizations should >>>issues be identified that are deemed without this specific remit. >>> >>>We note here for your information, that while >>>the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal was >>>submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship >>>has remained active and therefore available >>>when needed. This has included being available >>>to answer questions from the ICG, or to >>>monitor the CCWG-Accountability dependencies >>>and to coordinate with the other operational >>>communities on shared issues such as IANA intellectual property rights. >>> >>>As the CWG-Stewardship Charter does not >>>specifically address implementation, we would >>>like to ensure that the CWG-StewardshipÃ¢â¬s >>>proposed approach in relation to >>>implementation is not inconsistent with the >>>intent of the Chartering Organizations >>>concerning the scope and role of the >>>CWG-Stewardship. We therefore propose to >>>proceed to oversee the implementation work as >>>described above unless there are objections >>>from one or more Chartering Organizations. >>> >>>We would like to emphasize that the >>>CWG-Stewardship does not intend to change its >>>working methods in light of this ongoing role. >>>The group will remain open to anyone who >>>wishes to join, and we will welcome informed >>>individuals with relevant implementation and >>>operational experience to join the CWG-Stewardship in this next phase. >>> >>>Thank you for your consideration of this >>>matter and for your ongoing support of our >>>work. Please let us know of any concerns by no later than 30 November 2015. >>> >>>Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr >>>CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>

1 0

The 2016 NOMCOM webpage is live
by Eduardo Diaz Nov. 12, 2015

Nov. 12, 2015

FYI. The 2016 NomCom webpage is live. The URL is: https://www.icann.org/nomcom2016. The webpage will be updated regularly. -ed

1 0

RESPONSE REQUESTED - ICANN 55 Travel Confirmation
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 12, 2015

Nov. 12, 2015

Dear ALAC Members and Liaisons, While many of us are still following up from ICANN 54, it is already to start planning for ICANN 55. This meeting will be held in Marrakech between 5-10 March 2016. Could you please let staff know by Monday, 16 November if you will NOT be able to travel to Marrakech to participate in ICANN 55? Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment suggestion
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 10, 2015

Nov. 10, 2015

This is a new proposal by Brazil to replace the current Bylaw change to address Stress Test 18. It re-instates the requirement that the Board reject GAC advice by a supermajority, one of the ATRT outcomes that was proposed several months ago. At that time, there was significant push back that increasing the rejection threshhold increased the power of the Board. Although possible technically correct, in my mind, it would not make a difference, because rejection of GAC advice, in the relatively rare times it has happened, has been nearly or completely unanimous. This is now accompanied by a much stronger requirement to consider the advice of all ACs including the ALAC. This may well be a way to bypass the GAC's rejection of the ST18 outcomes and at first glance, I would support it. Comments? Alan >To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" > <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:28:46 +0000 >Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment suggestion > >Dear CCWG colleagues, > >As you are aware, in Dublin the GAC has provided >a consensus input with regards to the bylaw >amendments derived from ST18. The GAC input was the following: > >"The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped >the GAC to have a better understanding of the >different views on the issue. In assessing the >different rationales presented so far related to >Stress Test 18, the GAC considered: > * The need that each and every Advisory > Committee ensures that the advice provided is > clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee; > * The need that each and every Advisory > Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus; > * The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice; > * The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as > reiterated by the ATRT2, to set the threshold > for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a > 2/3 majority voting, consistent with the > threshold established for rejection of ccNSO and GNSO PDP recommendations. > >In view of the above, having considered concerns >expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed to >further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and >to submit any further input to the CCWG taking >into account the timelines of the CCWG. GAC >Members will continue to work within the CCWG to >finalise the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability." > >With the aim of addressing the input given by >the GAC in its ICANN 54 communiqué and the >original concerns expressed by the ST18 >proponents, I present for your consideration the >following alternative amendments (underlined) in ICANN bylaws. > >ARTICLE XI: ADVISORY COMMITTEES >Section 1. GENERAL >The Board may create one or more Advisory >Committees in addition to those set forth in >this Article. Advisory Committee membership may >consist of Directors only, Directors and >non-directors, or non-directors only, and may >also include non-voting or alternate members. >Advisory Committees shall have no legal >authority to act for ICANN, but shall report >their findings and recommendations to the Board. >Where the ICANN Board is obliged to pay due >deference to advice from Advisory Committees and >where that advice, if not followed, requires >finding mutually agreed solutions for >implementation of that advice, the Advisory >Committee will make every effort to ensure that >the advice provided is clear and reflects the >consensus view of the committee. In this >context, each Advisory Committee has the right >to determine its particular definition of consensus. > >ARTICLE XI: ADVISORY COMMITTEES >Section 2. SPECIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEES >Item 1.j >The advice of the Governmental Advisory >Committee on public policy matters shall be duly >taken into account, both in the formulation and >adoption of policies. In the event that the >ICANN Board determines to take an action that is >not consistent with the Governmental Advisory >Committee advice, it shall so inform the >Committee and state the reasons why it decided >not to follow that advice. Any GAC Advice >approved by a GAC consensus may only be rejected >by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the >Board. The Governmental Advisory Committee and >the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and >in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. > >Kind regards, > >Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva >Divisão da Sociedade da Informação >Ministério das Relações Exteriores >T: +55 61 2030-6609 > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

5 6

No Statement? Removal of Searchable Whois Service From .MEET Registry Agreement
by Ariel Liang Nov. 8, 2015

Nov. 8, 2015

Dear All, As you may be aware, there is a public comment period on the Removal of Searchable Whois Service From .MEET Registry Agreement <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/meet-proposed-amendment-2015-10-22-en > , which will close on December 4. The ALAC did not submit a Statement on a public comment of a similar type <https://community.icann.org/x/YI1CAw> . If anyone believes that the ALAC should respond to the aforementioned public comment period, please be so kind to let me and Alan Greenberg know and state your reason. If we do not hear from anyone, this public comment will most likely be marked No Statement¹. Thank You, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype: ariel.liang.icann Mobile: +1 (310) 804-2761 Email: ariel.liang(a)icann.org Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icannatlarge <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>

2 1