Fwd: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: 3 May 2013 17:10 Subject: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu Powerful comments from Chuck Gomes & Verisign about the proposed Registry Agreement and ICANN's lack of good faith in the negotiation process: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-29apr13/msg00002.html It would seem things aren't as cheery and ready to close on RA as ICANN said. Best, Robin
Ah well... if and only if.... .....ICANN would declare the global public interest as its reason to be. And if it'd just get over itself and flat out say 'we a regulator!' all this argumentation over the unilateral right to amend from the RySG would be just some pissing in the wind. The fact is ICANN unilaterally gave registries license to monetize character strings, known and hitherto unknown. And then ICANN took a little shaving from that gift, called a fee. You see so-called third world fleshpots condemned for the exact same thing with tones of high moral dudgeon. Not to make too fine a point of it, the registry operators got themselves a gift that keeps on giving; a protected market, all of us lessees. Quite apart from the unlucky - or plain dumb - few, they're all the better for it. Now, here's the catch. Such action most places are usually in the gift of the state. And the state tends to raise a statist actor, sometimes called a regulator - and in noisome places, a regular 'bagman' - to protect its interests. The common method to retain some measure of control is a license; see the definitive meaning of that term. And since that license is the fiat of the state, it usually is handed down, no input from the licensee other than their name and particulars. Take it. Or, leave it. If ICANN would just come out and state the obvious, "I am a regulator, suck on it' all this unpleasantness would've been avoided. The contract is supposed to reflect ICANN standing athwarts the portal, like Leonidas guarding that gateway to Thermopylae, as it were, protecting the global public interests from the marauding - go with the metaphor now! - 'contracted parties'. The figment is the claim that the contract is this bastion of consensus policy making. That is overstating the facts and brushing the line beyond which propaganda begins. For the contracted parties no way in hell see the rest of the community as having a say in all this. Quick now, who can recall them crying out for all of us, the fry, being invited to the party? To be brutally frank, I see this kvetching of Chuck Gomes and the RySG crowd purely as a manifestation of impatience with the assault on their sense of exceptionalism. Message from me: count your fingers going in. And count 'em again, coming out. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: 3 May 2013 17:10 Subject: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
Powerful comments from Chuck Gomes & Verisign about the proposed Registry Agreement and ICANN's lack of good faith in the negotiation process:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-29apr13/msg00002.html
It would seem things aren't as cheery and ready to close on RA as ICANN said.
Best, Robin _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
*Brilliant analysis Carlton, with the added spice of your style, wherein one recognizes some generous ingredients from Fitzgerald, Naipaul, Rushdie. A joy to read!* * * *Recently, under the aegis of Google,** a "domain name association" was formed, * *http://www.whatdomain.org/ * * * *Where does the global public interest fit into all of this? 3 points:* * * *- The creation of such a business association lifts any ambiguity about whether ICANN should or should not also serve as the domain business association. Clearly, business taking care of its own interests outside of ICANN relieves our corporation from having to worry about those who benefitted and still benefit from the land grab.* * * *- I'd take this even a step further: the "domain name association" will most likely be overwhelmingly English-language, US-based and therefore under US laws regarding trademarks, "intellectual property" (please read "keep off my grass, I got here first"), with a fair proportion of smaller actors in Australia, New Zealand, etc. This association will replicate the current standards, with little room for *registries* from elsewhere. So I would strongly advocate the formation of "domain name associations" in other parts of the world, with the view of creating, one day, a truly worldwide association which would not be beholden unto the mainly US big players.* * * *- Without waiting for that to happen, we should take position on the fact that the creation of a "domain name association" does indeed lift any remaining ambiguity about the remit of ICANN. We should make clear that it is ICANN's duty to serve, above anything else, the global public interest. We should be able to fit this topic into the over-arching theme I suggested in an e-mail sent around yesterday for Atlas-2, "The User Perspective".* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.* 2013/5/4 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Ah well... if and only if....
.....ICANN would declare the global public interest as its reason to be. And if it'd just get over itself and flat out say 'we a regulator!' all this argumentation over the unilateral right to amend from the RySG would be just some pissing in the wind.
The fact is ICANN unilaterally gave registries license to monetize character strings, known and hitherto unknown. And then ICANN took a little shaving from that gift, called a fee. You see so-called third world fleshpots condemned for the exact same thing with tones of high moral dudgeon. Not to make too fine a point of it, the registry operators got themselves a gift that keeps on giving; a protected market, all of us lessees. Quite apart from the unlucky - or plain dumb - few, they're all the better for it.
Now, here's the catch. Such action most places are usually in the gift of the state. And the state tends to raise a statist actor, sometimes called a regulator - and in noisome places, a regular 'bagman' - to protect its interests. The common method to retain some measure of control is a license; see the definitive meaning of that term. And since that license is the fiat of the state, it usually is handed down, no input from the licensee other than their name and particulars. Take it. Or, leave it.
If ICANN would just come out and state the obvious, "I am a regulator, suck on it' all this unpleasantness would've been avoided.
The contract is supposed to reflect ICANN standing athwarts the portal, like Leonidas guarding that gateway to Thermopylae, as it were, protecting the global public interests from the marauding - go with the metaphor now! - 'contracted parties'. The figment is the claim that the contract is this bastion of consensus policy making. That is overstating the facts and brushing the line beyond which propaganda begins. For the contracted parties no way in hell see the rest of the community as having a say in all this. Quick now, who can recall them crying out for all of us, the fry, being invited to the party?
To be brutally frank, I see this kvetching of Chuck Gomes and the RySG crowd purely as a manifestation of impatience with the assault on their sense of exceptionalism. Message from me: count your fingers going in. And count 'em again, coming out.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: 3 May 2013 17:10 Subject: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
Powerful comments from Chuck Gomes & Verisign about the proposed Registry Agreement and ICANN's lack of good faith in the negotiation process:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-29apr13/msg00002.html
It would seem things aren't as cheery and ready to close on RA as ICANN said.
Best, Robin _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
Dear JJ: Evan has promised to send you something that might go nicely with what is advocated here. I truly value your judgment and advice. So from me personally, it is always gratifying to know that you - and other colleagues - are so in touch with the influences that colour my view of the world. Best, -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:15 PM, JJS <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Brilliant analysis Carlton, with the added spice of your style, wherein one recognizes some generous ingredients from Fitzgerald, Naipaul, Rushdie. A joy to read!* * * *Recently, under the aegis of Google,** a "domain name association" was formed, * *http://www.whatdomain.org/ * * * *Where does the global public interest fit into all of this? 3 points:* * * *- The creation of such a business association lifts any ambiguity about whether ICANN should or should not also serve as the domain business association. Clearly, business taking care of its own interests outside of ICANN relieves our corporation from having to worry about those who benefitted and still benefit from the land grab.* * * *- I'd take this even a step further: the "domain name association" will most likely be overwhelmingly English-language, US-based and therefore under US laws regarding trademarks, "intellectual property" (please read "keep off my grass, I got here first"), with a fair proportion of smaller actors in Australia, New Zealand, etc. This association will replicate the current standards, with little room for *registries* from elsewhere. So I would strongly advocate the formation of "domain name associations" in other parts of the world, with the view of creating, one day, a truly worldwide association which would not be beholden unto the mainly US big players.* * * *- Without waiting for that to happen, we should take position on the fact that the creation of a "domain name association" does indeed lift any remaining ambiguity about the remit of ICANN. We should make clear that it is ICANN's duty to serve, above anything else, the global public interest. We should be able to fit this topic into the over-arching theme I suggested in an e-mail sent around yesterday for Atlas-2, "The User Perspective".* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.*
2013/5/4 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Ah well... if and only if....
.....ICANN would declare the global public interest as its reason to be. And if it'd just get over itself and flat out say 'we a regulator!' all this argumentation over the unilateral right to amend from the RySG would be just some pissing in the wind.
The fact is ICANN unilaterally gave registries license to monetize character strings, known and hitherto unknown. And then ICANN took a little shaving from that gift, called a fee. You see so-called third world fleshpots condemned for the exact same thing with tones of high moral dudgeon. Not to make too fine a point of it, the registry operators got themselves a gift that keeps on giving; a protected market, all of us lessees. Quite apart from the unlucky - or plain dumb - few, they're all the better for it.
Now, here's the catch. Such action most places are usually in the gift of the state. And the state tends to raise a statist actor, sometimes called a regulator - and in noisome places, a regular 'bagman' - to protect its interests. The common method to retain some measure of control is a license; see the definitive meaning of that term. And since that license is the fiat of the state, it usually is handed down, no input from the licensee other than their name and particulars. Take it. Or, leave it.
If ICANN would just come out and state the obvious, "I am a regulator, suck on it' all this unpleasantness would've been avoided.
The contract is supposed to reflect ICANN standing athwarts the portal, like Leonidas guarding that gateway to Thermopylae, as it were, protecting the global public interests from the marauding - go with the metaphor now! - 'contracted parties'. The figment is the claim that the contract is this bastion of consensus policy making. That is overstating the facts and brushing the line beyond which propaganda begins. For the contracted parties no way in hell see the rest of the community as having a say in all this. Quick now, who can recall them crying out for all of us, the fry, being invited to the party?
To be brutally frank, I see this kvetching of Chuck Gomes and the RySG crowd purely as a manifestation of impatience with the assault on their sense of exceptionalism. Message from me: count your fingers going in. And count 'em again, coming out.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: 3 May 2013 17:10 Subject: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
Powerful comments from Chuck Gomes & Verisign about the proposed Registry Agreement and ICANN's lack of good faith in the negotiation process:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-29apr13/msg00002.html
It would seem things aren't as cheery and ready to close on RA as ICANN said.
Best, Robin _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
Carlton and JJS, To your mind, why is it that the board hasn't provided a rationale as to why it would support the unilateral right to amend? What are the constraints? Where is staff getting the motivation to push from? Fadi's remarks during the Ry call in March indicated that there will be no new gTLD lift off without agreement on PICs and from Beijing I get a sense that he will pursue it. Rinalia On May 5, 2013 11:31 PM, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear JJ: Evan has promised to send you something that might go nicely with what is advocated here.
I truly value your judgment and advice. So from me personally, it is always gratifying to know that you - and other colleagues - are so in touch with the influences that colour my view of the world.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:15 PM, JJS <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Brilliant analysis Carlton, with the added spice of your style, wherein one recognizes some generous ingredients from Fitzgerald, Naipaul, Rushdie. A joy to read!* * * *Recently, under the aegis of Google,** a "domain name association" was formed, * *http://www.whatdomain.org/ * * * *Where does the global public interest fit into all of this? 3 points:* * * *- The creation of such a business association lifts any ambiguity about whether ICANN should or should not also serve as the domain business association. Clearly, business taking care of its own interests outside of ICANN relieves our corporation from having to worry about those who benefitted and still benefit from the land grab.* * * *- I'd take this even a step further: the "domain name association" will most likely be overwhelmingly English-language, US-based and therefore under US laws regarding trademarks, "intellectual property" (please read "keep off my grass, I got here first"), with a fair proportion of smaller actors in Australia, New Zealand, etc. This association will replicate the current standards, with little room for *registries* from elsewhere. So I would strongly advocate the formation of "domain name associations" in other parts of the world, with the view of creating, one day, a truly worldwide association which would not be beholden unto the mainly US big players.* * * *- Without waiting for that to happen, we should take position on the fact that the creation of a "domain name association" does indeed lift any remaining ambiguity about the remit of ICANN. We should make clear that it is ICANN's duty to serve, above anything else, the global public interest. We should be able to fit this topic into the over-arching theme I suggested in an e-mail sent around yesterday for Atlas-2, "The User Perspective".* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.*
2013/5/4 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Ah well... if and only if....
.....ICANN would declare the global public interest as its reason to be. And if it'd just get over itself and flat out say 'we a regulator!' all this argumentation over the unilateral right to amend from the RySG would be just some pissing in the wind.
The fact is ICANN unilaterally gave registries license to monetize character strings, known and hitherto unknown. And then ICANN took a little shaving from that gift, called a fee. You see so-called third world fleshpots condemned for the exact same thing with tones of high moral dudgeon. Not to make too fine a point of it, the registry operators got themselves a gift that keeps on giving; a protected market, all of us lessees. Quite apart from the unlucky - or plain dumb - few, they're all the better for it.
Now, here's the catch. Such action most places are usually in the gift of the state. And the state tends to raise a statist actor, sometimes called a regulator - and in noisome places, a regular 'bagman' - to protect its interests. The common method to retain some measure of control is a license; see the definitive meaning of that term. And since that license is the fiat of the state, it usually is handed down, no input from the licensee other than their name and particulars. Take it. Or, leave it.
If ICANN would just come out and state the obvious, "I am a regulator, suck on it' all this unpleasantness would've been avoided.
The contract is supposed to reflect ICANN standing athwarts the portal, like Leonidas guarding that gateway to Thermopylae, as it were, protecting the global public interests from the marauding - go with the metaphor now! - 'contracted parties'. The figment is the claim that the contract is this bastion of consensus policy making. That is overstating the facts and brushing the line beyond which propaganda begins. For the contracted parties no way in hell see the rest of the community as having a say in all this. Quick now, who can recall them crying out for all of us, the fry, being invited to the party?
To be brutally frank, I see this kvetching of Chuck Gomes and the RySG crowd purely as a manifestation of impatience with the assault on their sense of exceptionalism. Message from me: count your fingers going in. And count 'em again, coming out.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: 3 May 2013 17:10 Subject: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
Powerful comments from Chuck Gomes & Verisign about the proposed Registry Agreement and ICANN's lack of good faith in the negotiation process:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-29apr13/msg00002.html
It would seem things aren't as cheery and ready to close on RA as
ICANN
said.
Best, Robin _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
Hi Rinalia: I think a significant but maybe still minority set have in principle; must be the reason the concept appears in the RAA and RA Agreements. But this fear of being the DNS 'regulator' cripples their public posture, at least until they see which way the wind blows. Then in addition, I really do believe there is a very small group of senior policy staff that are fellow travelers; they hold the view that ICANN must be more activist in the broad public interest. These seem to be feeling their oats and feeding off Fadi's seeming commitment to push the envelope. So far as I am concerned, the ALAC must deliberately calibrate all of our public postures to support this development. Best, -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
Carlton and JJS,
To your mind, why is it that the board hasn't provided a rationale as to why it would support the unilateral right to amend? What are the constraints?
Where is staff getting the motivation to push from?
Fadi's remarks during the Ry call in March indicated that there will be no new gTLD lift off without agreement on PICs and from Beijing I get a sense that he will pursue it.
Rinalia On May 5, 2013 11:31 PM, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear JJ: Evan has promised to send you something that might go nicely with what is advocated here.
I truly value your judgment and advice. So from me personally, it is always gratifying to know that you - and other colleagues - are so in touch with the influences that colour my view of the world.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:15 PM, JJS <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Brilliant analysis Carlton, with the added spice of your style, wherein
one recognizes some generous ingredients from Fitzgerald, Naipaul, Rushdie. A joy to read!* * * *Recently, under the aegis of Google,** a "domain name association" was formed, * *http://www.whatdomain.org/ * * * *Where does the global public interest fit into all of this? 3 points:* * * *- The creation of such a business association lifts any ambiguity about
whether ICANN should or should not also serve as the domain business association. Clearly, business taking care of its own interests outside of ICANN relieves our corporation from having to worry about those who benefitted and still benefit from the land grab.* * * *- I'd take this even a step further: the "domain name association" will
most likely be overwhelmingly English-language, US-based and therefore under US laws regarding trademarks, "intellectual property" (please read "keep off my grass, I got here first"), with a fair proportion of smaller actors in Australia, New Zealand, etc. This association will replicate the current standards, with little room for *registries* from elsewhere. So I
would strongly advocate the formation of "domain name associations" in other parts of the world, with the view of creating, one day, a truly worldwide association which would not be beholden unto the mainly US big players.* * * *- Without waiting for that to happen, we should take position on the
fact that the creation of a "domain name association" does indeed lift any remaining ambiguity about the remit of ICANN. We should make clear that it is ICANN's duty to serve, above anything else, the global public interest. We should be able to fit this topic into the over-arching theme I suggested in an e-mail sent around yesterday for Atlas-2, "The User Perspective".* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.*
2013/5/4 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Ah well... if and only if....
.....ICANN would declare the global public interest as its reason to
be.
And if it'd just get over itself and flat out say 'we a regulator!' all this argumentation over the unilateral right to amend from the RySG would be just some pissing in the wind.
The fact is ICANN unilaterally gave registries license to monetize character strings, known and hitherto unknown. And then ICANN took a little shaving from that gift, called a fee. You see so-called third world fleshpots condemned for the exact same thing with tones of high moral dudgeon. Not to make too fine a point of it, the registry operators got themselves a gift that keeps on giving; a protected market, all of us lessees. Quite apart from the unlucky - or plain dumb - few, they're all the better for it.
Now, here's the catch. Such action most places are usually in the gift of the state. And the state tends to raise a statist actor, sometimes called a regulator - and in noisome places, a regular 'bagman' - to protect its interests. The common method to retain some measure of control is a license; see the definitive meaning of that term. And since that license is the fiat of the state, it usually is handed down, no input from the licensee other than their name and particulars. Take it. Or, leave it.
If ICANN would just come out and state the obvious, "I am a regulator, suck on it' all this unpleasantness would've been avoided.
The contract is supposed to reflect ICANN standing athwarts the portal, like Leonidas guarding that gateway to Thermopylae, as it were, protecting the global public interests from the marauding - go with the metaphor now! - 'contracted parties'. The figment is the claim that the contract is this bastion of consensus policy making. That is overstating the facts and brushing the line beyond which propaganda begins. For the contracted parties no way in hell see the rest of the community as having a say in all this. Quick now, who can recall them crying out for all of us, the fry, being invited to the party?
To be brutally frank, I see this kvetching of Chuck Gomes and the RySG crowd purely as a manifestation of impatience with the assault on their sense of exceptionalism. Message from me: count your fingers going in. And count 'em again, coming out.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: 3 May 2013 17:10 Subject: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
Powerful comments from Chuck Gomes & Verisign about the proposed Registry Agreement and ICANN's lack of good faith in the negotiation process:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-29apr13/msg00002.html
It would seem things aren't as cheery and ready to close on RA as
ICANN
said.
Best, Robin _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
participants (4)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
JJS -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim