April 2017 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: [Soac-leaders-icann59] Cross Community Topic Submission Form
by Alan Greenberg April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Two things to keep in mind. - The Jo'burg meeting is over 2 1/2 months from now, and I may be naive, but I hope this will have been settled by then. - I could not attend the scheduling meeting this week, so perhaps Leon or someone else who attended can confirm, but the rules used to be that the group suggesting a topic had to take responsibility for organizing it (ie setting the detailed agenda, identifying the moderator and speakers , etc.) In the past several HIT topics have been cancelled not due to lack of interest, but the lack of anyone actually putting the session together. Alan At 06/04/2017 04:46 AM, you wrote: >Me too.. +1 > >On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Seun Ojedeji ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: >+1 on this > >On 6 Apr 2017 7:55 a.m., "Andrei Kolesnikov" ><<mailto:andrei@rol.ru>andrei(a)rol.ru> wrote: > SSAC + ALAC + ccNSO over string confusability > (EPSRP) and roadmap to risk assessment > >--andrei > >2017-04-06 2:57 GMT+03:00 LeÃ³n Felipe SÃ¡nchez >AmbÃa <<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>: >Dear all, > >in preparation for ICANN 59 please help us >submit high interest topics so we can add them >to the pool that will be discussed by the planning team. > >The deadline to submit topics is April 13 so we >would really appreciate receiving your >submissions on April 12 at the latest as we >still need to fill the corresponding forms. > >You will also find a draft block schedule of the >meeting so you can begin to have a taste of how our schedule will look like. > > >Best regards, > > >LeÃ³n > >>Inicio del mensaje reenviado: >> >>De: "Tanzanica S. King" >><<mailto:tanzanica.king@icann.org>tanzanica.king(a)icann.org> >>Asunto: [Soac-leaders-icann59] Cross Community Topic Submission Form >>Fecha: 5 de abril de 2017, 10:35:33 GMT-5 >>Para: >>"<mailto:soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org>soac-leaders-icann59(a)icann.org" >><<mailto:soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org>soac-leaders-icann59(a)icann.org> >> >>Dear Community Leaders: >> >>As discussed, please find a document attached >>with links to submit your topic proposals as >>well as a copy of our latest block schedule. >> >>Also, I thought it would be helpful to provide >>this group with the definition of outreach >>created by the Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG). >> >>Outreach Activities are defined as activities >>conducted by SO/AC groups or cross-community >>groups with the intention of increasing >>awareness and interest in ICANN with >>individuals and organizations outside of the ICANN community. >> >>â These activities are consistent with >>ICANNâs function and mission. In ICANNâs >>global multistakeholder model, policy is >>developed in a bottom-up fashion, a process >>that is enhanced and strengthened by reaching >>out to external communities, educating them >>about ICANN and encouraging them to participate if they wish. >> >>Outreach takes many forms; Fellowships, >>NextGen, Newcomerâs Day, Tech Day, DNSSEC >>Workshops, OCTO Trainings, Regional Engagement, and more. >> >>Thanks again for your participation on todayâs call. >> >>Best regards, >>Tanzanica >> >>-------------------------------------------------------- >>Tanzanica S. King >>Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design >>ICANN >> >>Office <tel:+1%20310-301-5800>+1 310 301 5800 >>Mobile <tel:+1%20310-995-3038>+1 310 995 3038 >>Email <mailto:king@icann.org>king(a)icann.org >>www.icann.org > >>_______________________________________________ >>Soac-leaders-icann59 mailing list >><mailto:Soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org>Soac-leaders-icann59(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icann59 > > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > > > >-- >Andrey Kolesnikov ><http://RIPN.NET>RIPN.NET > > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:IS6cxMftPhfBdsywJ2EissCp6c+6bLPm23yU+nWHP/U5Z3COOighbCAgIramc0sATjmnR0uBG0f1S+708a/hjthptqeGDCErOzJ47nWHnZNWwXWH2b4AUOimtxrDtpFiD64e0ZvDncBKFw3EN2cFdw== >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028); > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

3 3

Improving Contractual Compliance
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim April 11, 2017

April 11, 2017

Dear ALAC and Regional Leaders, FYI below. At-Large views would be extremely valuable for continuous improvement of ICANN compliance. Best regards, Rinalia Jamie Hedlund's bog that was just posted on improving contractual compliance: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/improving-contractual-compliance *Improving Contractual Compliance* About ten days ago, members of the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) and the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) submitted a document entitled, “Joint Recommendations for ICANN Compliance <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/rysg-ipc-to-compliance…>.” A few months into my new role leading Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards, I appreciated the constructive input from these two constituencies. At a session <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63144494&preview=/…> at the Non-Contracted Parties House Intercessional 2017 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63144494> in Reykjavik, in sessions at the ICANN58 Community Forum with the At-Large Community <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/9f/I58CPH_Sun12Mar2017-A…> , the Registry Stakeholder Group <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/03/Transcript%20RySG_Par…> , the Registrar Stakeholder Group <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/2c/Transcript%20RrSG%20m…> , the Security and Stability Advisory Committee <https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nnX/ssac-private-meeting-c>, the Business Constituency <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/6c/Transcript%20BC%2014%…> , the Intellectual Property Committee <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/90/2017_03March_14%20IPC…>, and the Governmental Advisory Committee <https://participate.icann.org/p3rrfzfm4p9/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&p…> in Copenhagen, and during formal and informal calls with community members, there were lively discussions regarding the need for improvements in Contractual Compliance. To help us succeed in making desired changes, I asked for examples of where we could do better, as well as specific and concrete recommendations that we could implement. I was specifically asking for more than general statements such as “ICANN isn’t transparent” or “ICANN is bad at compliance”. The RySG-IPC Joint submission, which I understand was underway before these recent discussions, includes recommendations that are clear and specific and can be assessed for feasibility, cost and effort. And that’s just what we in Contractual Compliance will do. There is another effort underway that also recommends improvements to Contractual Compliance. In the “Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations for New gTLDs <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-rt-draft-report-2017-03-07-en>,” the Review Team seeks input on recommendations related to Contractual Compliance. In particular, Recommendation 23 urges ICANN to “Include more detailed information on the subject matter of complaints in ICANN publicly available compliance reports.” The draft recommendations are now out for public comment. This is an excellent opportunity for community members to provide input just as RySG and IPC representatives have done. (Full disclosure – I am a member of the CCT-RT). If you have examples of where Contractual Compliance could improve, especially on its commitment to transparency, and specific and concrete recommendations on how to improve ICANN’s Contractual Compliance function, please consider submitting them to the CCT-RT Public Comment forum. Alternatively, please submit them by email to me at jamie.hedlund at icann.org <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org>. Once the public comment period on the CCT-RT’s closes, we will review all of the input we receive and provide a report on changes that we will undertake as well as a rationale for not undertaking others. Please send us your good ideas! END

4 6

Fwd: CCT-Review] Research: Policy-Oriented Evaluation of the Expansion of the TLD Name Space
by Carlton Samuels April 7, 2017

April 7, 2017

FYI On Apr 5, 2017, at 8:18 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: Thank you for sharing, Brain. Apropos some discussions in the At-Large pertaining types of TLDs that might be supportable for [future] entry in the namespace, this paper certainly provides another point of departure for consideration; essentiality. With your permission, might I share with the ALAC? -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799 <(876)%20818-1799> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Brian Aitchison <brian.aitchison(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear CCTRT, > > Hitting you with another piece of research, although this time more > relevant to the “Choice” aspect of the review. I met the author of the > attached paper in Copenhagen. He’s a PhD researcher working out of Japan’s > Daito Bunka University. His paper is entitled “Policy-Oriented Evaluation > of the Expansion of the Top-Level Domain Name Space.” > > Abstract: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i > d=2909852[papers.ssrn.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__papers.ssrn.com_sol3_p…> > > > He did an analysis of the “essentiality” of new gTLDs to consumers by > measuring the price elasticity between generic, geographic, and > internationalized gTLDs. He uses a regression model that employs > registration fees and TLD type (geographic, generic, internationalized) as > explanatory variables to predict the number of registrations in a given TLD > (the response variable). > > *The most interesting finding to me pertains to geographic TLDs:* *as > registration fees go up, so too do registration numbers*. This is in > contrast to the generic TLDs, which show the relationship we would expect: > as registration fees go up, registration numbers go down. > > The author concludes that this points to geographic TLDs being more > “essential” to consumers, and therefore they may be willing to pay a higher > price. He also finds that for geographic TLDs representing high income > locales, the fee levels have no effect on registration numbers. However, in > low income locales, registration numbers go down as fees go up. > > Some copy-pasted tidbits: > > Based on the analysis of domain name use and pricing across 418 ngTLD's, > it is found that ngTLD's have significantly different levels of > essentiality for domain name registrants depending on the TLD type. In > particular, geographic and internationalised ngTLD's have a higher degree > of essentiality than generic ngTLD's. > > Although these additions [of new gTLDs] were welcome from the perspective > of increased user choice and competition in the domain name market, the > argument of this kind has not been tested yet against user acceptance or > behaviour. According to the result of the analysis in this study, the > author concludes that newly added gTLD's do reflect the diversity of domain > name demands in the Internet community with varying degrees of > essentiality. > > I hope you find this useful. > > Best, > > Brian > > Brian Aitchison, MRes, PhD > > Lead Researcher > > Operations & Policy Research > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > > > Direct Line: +1 310 578 8688 <(310)%20578-8688> > > Mobile: +1 424 353 9041 <(424)%20353-9041> > > Email: brian.aitchison(a)icann.org > > Skype: brian.aitchison.icann > > Twitter: @BrianAitch > > LinkedIn: *linkedin.com/in/baitchison[linkedin.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__linkedin.com_in_baitchi…>* > > www.icann.org[icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMFaQ&…> > > > >

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-leaders-icann59] Cross Community Topic Submission Form
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 6, 2017

April 6, 2017

Dear all, in preparation for ICANN 59 please help us submit high interest topics so we can add them to the pool that will be discussed by the planning team. The deadline to submit topics is April 13 so we would really appreciate receiving your submissions on April 12 at the latest as we still need to fill the corresponding forms. You will also find a draft block schedule of the meeting so you can begin to have a taste of how our schedule will look like. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org> > Asunto: [Soac-leaders-icann59] Cross Community Topic Submission Form > Fecha: 5 de abril de 2017, 10:35:33 GMT-5 > Para: "soac-leaders-icann59(a)icann.org" <soac-leaders-icann59(a)icann.org> > > Dear Community Leaders: > > As discussed, please find a document attached with links to submit your topic proposals as well as a copy of our latest block schedule. > > Also, I thought it would be helpful to provide this group with the definition of outreach created by the Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG). > > Outreach Activities are defined as activities conducted by SO/AC groups or cross-community groups with the intention of increasing awareness and interest in ICANN with individuals and organizations outside of the ICANN community. > > ● These activities are consistent with ICANN’s function and mission. In ICANN’s global multistakeholder model, policy is developed in a bottom-up fashion, a process that is enhanced and strengthened by reaching out to external communities, educating them about ICANN and encouraging them to participate if they wish. > > Outreach takes many forms; Fellowships, NextGen, Newcomer’s Day, Tech Day, DNSSEC Workshops, OCTO Trainings, Regional Engagement, and more. > > Thanks again for your participation on today’s call. > > Best regards, > Tanzanica > > -------------------------------------------------------- > Tanzanica S. King > Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design > ICANN > > Office +1 310 301 5800 > Mobile +1 310 995 3038 > Email king(a)icann.org <mailto:king@icann.org> > www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>_______________________________________________ > Soac-leaders-icann59 mailing list > Soac-leaders-icann59(a)icann.org <mailto:Soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icann59 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icann59>

6 5

Effect of Chinese Domain name Investments
by Carlton Samuels April 5, 2017

April 5, 2017

....not sure what this says about the health of the market but it seems to me a perfectly rational market response.....except maybe to the mavens of the marketplace. What could be interesting is to see how the RySG interprets this development, especially in context of the request for marketing support from ICANN. http://domainnamewire.com/2017/04/05/official-data-show-effects-chinese-dom… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Fwd: [icann-board] ICANN News Alert -- Proposed Fundamentals Bylaws Changes to Move the Board Governance Committee's Reconsideration Process Responsibilities to Another Board Committee
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 5, 2017

April 5, 2017

Hello everyone, This is something we need to analyze thoroughly and comment on I believe. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: "ICANN News Alert" <no-reply(a)external.icann.org> > Asunto: [icann-board] ICANN News Alert -- Proposed Fundamentals Bylaws Changes to Move the Board Governance Committee's Reconsideration Process Responsibilities to Another Board Committee > Fecha: 31 de marzo de 2017, 18:47:19 GMT-6 > Para: <icann-board(a)icann.org> > Responder a: no-reply(a)external.icann.org > > <http://www.icann.org/>News Alert > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-03-31-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-03-31-en> > Proposed Fundamentals Bylaws Changes to Move the Board Governance Committee's Reconsideration Process Responsibilities to Another Board Committee > 31 March 2017 > > Open Date: 31 March 2017 Close Date: 10 May 2017 > Originating Organization: Legal > Categories/Tags: Accountability/Transparency, Bylaws > Brief Overview: ICANN is posting for public comment proposed Fundamental Bylaws revisions that would move the Board Governance Committee's (BGC) responsibilities for the Reconsideration process as set forth under Article 4, Section 4.2 of the Bylaws to the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC). No other changes to the Reconsideration process are proposed or anticipated as a result of these Bylaws modifications. > Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-bgc-2017-03-31-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-bgc-2017-03-31-en> > > This message was sent to icann-board(a)icann.org <mailto:icann-board@icann.org> from: > ICANN News Alert | no-reply(a)external.icann.org <mailto:no-reply@external.icann.org> | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Email Marketing by <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> > Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=20666176&l=6333&s=RSGT&m=10…> _______________________________________________ > icann-board mailing list > icann-board(a)icann.org <mailto:icann-board@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-board <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-board>

6 6

Fwd: [ccnso-council] Fundamental bylaws revisions for public comment
by Maureen Hilyard April 4, 2017

April 4, 2017

Hi Bastiaan As an initial explanation,I am passing on this message which I have just received from a ccNSO member to other ccTLD managers about why they should respond to this request. Its basic but it encourages the members to participate in their new rights as the Empowered Community. Maureen ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> Date: Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Fundamental bylaws revisions for public comment To: ccnso-council(a)icann.org Dear fellow ccTLD-managers The following is a personal opinion, sent in my capacity as a ccTLD manager, not as a ccNSO Council Member> When you read the proposal at the end of the link you may well feel that it is unimportant or irrelevant. For reasons I will explain here, I would encourage you not to take that view. https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-bgc-2017-03-31-en. > It may seems at first quite strange that ICANN is proposing to change Fundamental Bylaws so soon after they were all set up, at great expense of time and money. However, on closer inspection, this proposed change is quite routine, beneficial and appears to be proposed for good reason. Why is it important? Well, it's important for the reason that this is the first time that the Empowered Community powers need to be exercised. It's important, I suggest, exactly because it's a harmless (in my opinion) and positive change. This means that we (the ccNSO as part of the Community) can focus on making sure that the Powers and the structure works well. If we do not participate, or pass it off as unimportant, then the whole purpose of the transition and Empowerment will be, in my opinion, diminished. So with that in mind, I encourage all of you to read the proposal, and express your views, here on the list, and elsewhere. That way a response based on the positive approval of the ccNSO members (as distinct from a mere lack of disapproval) can be made. With that in mind I confirm that both .GG and .JE support the proposed Bylaw changes. Nigel Roberts _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council

2 1

Judge Orders Verisign to Transfer/Repatriate the Domain Name
by Carlton Samuels April 3, 2017

April 3, 2017

.....interestingly, the action was filed 'in rem' - meaning to be enforced where the property is located - even though the WHOIS record showed an Egypt address. Again highlighting the role US courts can play in domain name disputes. http://domainnamewire.com/2017/04/03/judge-orders-verisign-transfer-costari… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion
by Carlton Samuels April 3, 2017

April 3, 2017

As the world turns........ ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kurt Pritz <kurt(a)kjpritz.com> Date: Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 5:16 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, avri(a)apc.org Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Hi Jeff, Avri, et al: I saw that this has been published. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/ correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-14mar17-en.pdf The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.” In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANN’s role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries. To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question. In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this. However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action. ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN? All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this? Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work. With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,” to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry. During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created. My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion. That recommendation could simply be a statement that it *is * the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry. We can show that we can act. Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt(a)kjpritz.com +1.310.400.4184 <(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

5 7

Performance Metrics for 2015AGM-2016AGM
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 3, 2017

April 3, 2017

Dear All, ALAC Members & ALAC Liaisons Performance Metrics for 2015AGM-2016AGM period is now posted on the wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/4xC4Aw>. Thank you. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Website: <https://atlarge.icann.org/> atlarge.icann.org Facebook: <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> facebook.com/icann<facebook.com/icannatlarge><https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> @<@ICANNAtLarge><https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<@ICANNAtLarge> [unknown.png]

1 0