- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement
by Brendler, Beau Jan. 10, 2009

Jan. 10, 2009

So, perhaps, create a sort of case-by-case evaluation basis for those gTLDs who have been in the race for a while, but at the same time, halt the overall procedure so that the cited concerns can be addressed? -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Sébastien Bachollet Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 1:56 PM To: gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: 'At-Large Staff'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement Thanks Beau for your push on that subject. I would like to add one idea: With less staff and less money Icann was able to introduce 7 and then 6 new gTLDs. Maybe a more pragmatic way could be explored. Thanks Sébastien Bachollet Président Isoc France sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr > -----Message d'origine----- > De : gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:gtld-wg- > bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Brendler, Beau Envoyé : > vendredi 9 janvier 2009 18:22 À : At-Large Worldwide; > gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc : Matthias; Heidi Ullrich; At-Large > Staff; NA Discuss Objet : [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement > > We need to make a statement of some sort -- it may already be too > late, though my guess is that the rather unenthusiastic reception > ICANN has received so far makes the concern less acute. That said, our > deadline has come and gone. > > May I ask for guidance from staff to coordinate? And as for process? > Are we to put the statement as written up for a vote? Or make it > simple and just send up a line of advice to the board (we can cite the > other documents as a backup rationale)? > > Something like this (adopting from some of the language I have seen in > reviewing recent notes, mostly from John): > > The ALAC recommends that the ICANN board delay the new gTLD > application and implementation process until the following steps are taken: > > * The economic impact study promised in 2006 has been released and > evaluated. > * ICANN develops and implements compliance processes to manage all > requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts. > * ICANN develops compliance processes for any new or different > requirements in new contracts. > * That IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs be delayed as well until similar > issues regarding contract compliance are clearly addressed and > disseminated to the user community. > * That ICANN evaluates user community concerns with specific details > contained in the new gTLD applicant guidebook, to be conveyed in a > separate communication to the ICANN board, and provides a timely > response to them. > > May I suggest to the ALAC ex com or whomever the appropriate authority > is, to put this statement up for a vote from the ALAC as soon as > possible? > > Beau Brendler > > -----Original Message----- > From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- > bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 9:37 AM > To: At-Large Worldwide > Subject: [At-Large] my submissions to new gTLD statement > > Re: "By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and > we play the game of the incumbents." > > Patrick, as you have been spearheading the launch of the .sport TLD, > your views are necessarily tainted with a conflict of interest. > > Yes, money is risked when processes are delayed. Stuart Lawley's .xxx > initiative risked millions, and many of us recall the folks at SITA > going up to the microphone session after session, year after year > while burning up money. > > But we are not in the business of protecting potential TLD operators; > we are in the business of acting in the public interest. > > The new gTLD process must be stopped dead in its tracks and must be > significantly re-worked to address the issues raised (and yes, this > could take years, many years). While there is a risk to potential new > registry operators, the risk to the public of the consequences of a > poorly designed and implemented launch cycle are substantially worse. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- > lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > *** > Scanned > > ** > This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) > named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any > attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not > the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute > or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all > or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in > error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and > permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer > system. > > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge- > lists.icann.org > > Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso- > liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

3 2

Re: [At-Large] my submissions to new gTLD statement
by Franck Martin Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

And your views are tainted by a desire of having ICANN to fail, so you too have a conflict of Interest, but I think it makes a good equilibrium on the list. on another note: we do not live in a perfect world. I think comes a time, when someone has to say, enough consultations and let's do it. The economist likes to publish rating of countries based on how easy it is to do business in these countries because how slow is the administration. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Friday, 9 January, 2009 2:36:44 AM (GMT+1200) Auto-Detected Subject: [At-Large] my submissions to new gTLD statement Re: "By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents." Patrick, as you have been spearheading the launch of the .sport TLD, your views are necessarily tainted with a conflict of interest. Yes, money is risked when processes are delayed. Stuart Lawley's .xxx initiative risked millions, and many of us recall the folks at SITA going up to the microphone session after session, year after year while burning up money. But we are not in the business of protecting potential TLD operators; we are in the business of acting in the public interest. The new gTLD process must be stopped dead in its tracks and must be significantly re-worked to address the issues raised (and yes, this could take years, many years). While there is a risk to potential new registry operators, the risk to the public of the consequences of a poorly designed and implemented launch cycle are substantially worse.

1 0

my submissions to new gTLD statement
by Danny Younger Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

Re: "By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents." Patrick, as you have been spearheading the launch of the .sport TLD, your views are necessarily tainted with a conflict of interest. Yes, money is risked when processes are delayed. Stuart Lawley's .xxx initiative risked millions, and many of us recall the folks at SITA going up to the microphone session after session, year after year while burning up money. But we are not in the business of protecting potential TLD operators; we are in the business of acting in the public interest. The new gTLD process must be stopped dead in its tracks and must be significantly re-worked to address the issues raised (and yes, this could take years, many years). While there is a risk to potential new registry operators, the risk to the public of the consequences of a poorly designed and implemented launch cycle are substantially worse.

4 3

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

Total of 23 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 9 00:53:02 EST 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 8.70% | 2 | 39.29% | 97496 | brenbe at consumer.org 21.74% | 5 | 14.70% | 36476 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 13.04% | 3 | 6.54% | 16217 | icann-list at sorehands.com 8.70% | 2 | 6.41% | 15899 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 8.70% | 2 | 6.19% | 15362 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 4.35% | 1 | 4.37% | 10847 | vanda at uol.com.br 4.35% | 1 | 4.33% | 10752 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 4.35% | 1 | 3.62% | 8971 | fsylla at gmail.com 4.35% | 1 | 2.81% | 6977 | carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm 4.35% | 1 | 2.76% | 6860 | christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be 4.35% | 1 | 2.60% | 6449 | isolatedn at gmail.com 4.35% | 1 | 2.35% | 5837 | johnl at iecc.com 4.35% | 1 | 2.23% | 5545 | narten at us.ibm.com 4.35% | 1 | 1.79% | 4437 | staff at atlarge.icann.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 23 |100.00% | 248125 | Total

1 0

User concerns on practices in the Domain Name market
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

Hello At-Large, Dan Connolly <http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/> of the W3C posted a message that cites a blog post from the UK based gandi iwi (Gandi tribe) Here is what Gandi iwi <http://iwi.gandibar.net/post/2008/10/22/Why-domain-name-services-are-not-al…>has put together as "a list of a few things to watch out for in the tricky domain market." *1. Sneaky pricing* - Different pricing for register (buy now £0.99 per year!) and renewal (oops it costs more next year) - Different pricing for transfers out (oh, you want to leave, that'll be £xx) - The cost of a .co.ukat the registry is £2.50 per year. Companies selling below this have an ulterior motive! *2. Service restrictions* - Can't get full DNS control - pay more for additional services *3. Front running* - Using your domain search data to buy domains before you do, or selling your domain search data. More references.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_front_running> *4. Account lockins* - Locking your account for a period following changes, prevents transfer outs. More by Slashdot.<http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/04/08/0349253.shtml> *5. Domain ownership* - Not the owner of your domain, some companies buy it on your behalf and then rent it to you.<http://news.cnet.com/2010-1071-281311.html> *6. Privacy* - Selling your whois data/customer data Most of these are concerns of the users, so would at-Large please look into this? -- Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ISOC India Chennai ALS http://isocmadras.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/isocchennai <http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com>http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] my submissions to new gTLD statement
by Bill Silverstein Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

** Reply to note from Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:38:41 +0100 > > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:19:02 -0800 (PST), "Bill Silverstein" > <icann-list(a)sorehands.com> wrote: > >> > >> While I agree it would be best to suspend the process until the concerns > >> are addressed, I think we should keep in mind that several potential new > >> registries have already invested a lot of time, energy and money for a > >> long time in this saga. > > I was under the impression that application process for the new tlds have > > not been started. Maybe I am mistaken? > > As you may know, this whole new gTLD process started many years ago. There have > been tons of documents, meetings, etc to finally come up with this Applicant's > guide. Many potential new entrants participated in the whole process over the last > 3 years. This does have a cost. Suggesting that the process has not started because > the final RFP is not officially published is dismissing one of the most important > parts of the work, which is the preparation of the RFP. I did mean the actual acceptance of applications. The parties who became involved early did so at their own risk, as there was no guaranty as to the final start of the application acceptance or the exact terms of the application process. > >> By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play > >> the game of the incumbents. > > > > What about the the internet users, the public? Or do we protect the > > interests of a few people who jumped the gun on spending money for a > > process that has not been finalized? > > I think it is the best interest of the public to have alternatives to the incumbent > registry operators. I don't think it is, or at lease until until it is shown that ICANN has the will to enforce the rules that have been developed. And take quick decisive actions to prevent abuses and protect the public. This has not been shown. ------------------------------------------------------ Who is General Error and why is he reading my drive?

1 0

How did we get into this new gTLD mess?
by Danny Younger Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

It's a rare day that I decide to focus upon process, but process was the root cause of the GNSO's poor decision-making that led to the sorely deficient Applicant Guidebook. I recall the GNSO's Washington session chaired by Bruce Tonkin at which the position was taken that least-common-denominator agreement constituted consensus. This meant that if Business had a concern that wasn't shared by other parties, that concern was shoved to the sidelines in pursuit of those areas upon which all other parties had sufficient agreement. Similarly, if Intellectual Property concerns were raised that weren't shared by all in the room, then these too were set aside. This approach was a fundamental deviation from the consensus standard that has guided ICANN since its inception. In the article "Why Consensus Matters", Susan Crawford defined the nature of consensus as follows: "The consensus standard calls on all parties to suggest changes that, while not perhaps optimal, will persuade others not to oppose. It is a standard based on the ideal of cooperation (looking for the high ground, not the lowest common denominator that can marshal a majority) on which the net was built." We are in a mess with the new gTLD plans precisely because we failed to act in keeping with consensus principles. The basic premise is simple: if intense opposition is absent or irrational or limited to those who do not bear the impact of the policy in question, then a policy may go forward on a consensus basis, otherwise, legitimate opposition and concerns must be taken into account -- they cannot be trampled upon in the pursuit of a least-common-denominator approach. In view of the public comments tendered, we should have the GNSO go back to the drawing board and begin anew with a process that respects our consensus traditions.

1 0

my submissions to new gTLD statement
by Brendler, Beau Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

greetings... attached are two draft statements for the ALAC response to the new gTLD workbook and process. I have given up trying to upload these to the wiki, thought I knew how but I guess I don't. I will be leaving town for a few days' vacation returning the evening of Weds. Jan. 7. I could possibly answer questions then but will not really be available between now and then. Unless I am mistaken,though, there have been no submissions on new gTLDs since the last phone conference). Attached are two documents: some suggested overview statements that ALAC might want to make, and then a line-by-line specific document, which generally though not completely follows the guide that was sent around. In it I addres modules 2, 3 and 4 only, with "consumer issues" only. These were written in conjunction with or in mind of some of the NCUC's statements and the two U.S. government letters to ICANN in December. Some of the elements really need some discussion! Like auctions and so forth. I'm not sure everyone on ALAC will be comfortable with some of these statements but here they are from my perspective as a member of NA RALO. I hope also that we have taken note of the fairly big controversy the new gTLD application has created, though this was perhaps not a surprise. Beau Brendler ________________________________________ From: Brendler, Beau Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 10:55 AM To: gtld-wg-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Cc: Atlarge Staff Subject: Guide to creating response to new gTLD workbook Greetings. Several people worked on this since Cairo, so rather than holding on to it any longer I wanted to send it out to a broad group. It's a sort of guide to creating a draft document response to the new gTLD workbook. Only a guide! It's meant to be read in conjunction with the document itself to suggest areas in which the user community might want to elaborate (or not). For it to be most useful you still need the workbook document handy. For instance, there are things we've since discussed on various lists that aren't in this guide, for instance, from Danny: "Working one's way through module 2 (the Applicant Information Form section), there is one question that is glaringly missing: "Indicate whether (i) the applicant or any of its (ii) officers, (iii) directors, or (iv) managers: a. within the past ten years, has been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor related to financial activities, or has been judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or has been the subject of a judicial determination that is similar or related to any of these; b. within the past ten years, has been disciplined by the government of its, her, or his domicile for conduct involving dishonesty or misuse of funds of others; c. is currently involved in any judicial or regulatory proceeding that could result in a conviction, judgment, determination, or discipline of the type specified in (a) or (b); or d. is the subject of a disqualification imposed by ICANN and in effect at the time of this application. So, for instance, we should decide where we want to put that in. In addition to some of the NCUC comments I have sent out over the last 24 hours or so, here are some URLs of others' perspectives on new gTLDs. International Olympic Committee: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/pdf2Skbh839Jy.pdf Registry Constituency: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/docnZV8Xn1mmo.doc IDN Comment: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00055.html Robin Gross: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00034.html Wendy Chan: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00043.html Unicode Technical Committee: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00021.html Ron Andruff: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-string/msg00001.html After the call on Friday, I would like to propose a time for the working group to meet and discuss its responses to the attached document, to the discussion on the lists, and other matters, so that we can work up a statement by the deadline, which I believe has now been extended to Jan. 7 (we will clarify this in Friday's meeting). Staff, may I ask that you translate this message into French and Spanish and distribute it so that we can get maximum community involvement. Thanks Beau Brendler ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

9 11

Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] Result of the vote on the updated ALAC Response
by Danny Younger Jan. 7, 2009

Jan. 7, 2009

Adam, The proper thing to do is to advise the Board Governance Committee that the ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report on ALAC Review was improperly sent to them, had not been ratified by the membership at the time of its release, and still hasn't been ratified even after a second vote. At the very least, the ALAC should be honest about its ongoing inability to reach a quorate vote -- this is not the first time that this has happened, and this is a consideration that the BGC should be aware of as it moves forward with its review (as it points, once again, to the current dysfunctional state of the ALAC). Danny [At-Large] Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] Result of the vote on the updated ALAC Response Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jan 7 06:33:32 EST 2009 I think we should consider how to call the vote again. We should not leave this important issue as failed for lack of quorum. Do our procedures allow for another (3rd) attempt? Is a new motion required? If we can vote again I would like it added to the agenda of the Jan 13th ALAC call <https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_january_2009>. For clarification, if we are to consider a new vote I suggest it should be yes or no on: "Do you endorse the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report on the ALAC Review as an official ALAC Statement?" Thanks, Adam > > <mailto:alac-announce-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=subscribe> >Sender: alac-announce-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org > >Dear all, > >Seven out of 15 ALAC Members have voted in the recent vote on the updated >ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report, therefore the >quorum was not reached. > >Number of voters: 7· Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 46.67% > >³Would you like to endorse the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint >consultation report on the ALAC Review as an official ALAC Statement?² > >Yes (85.71%) (Adam Peake, Patrick Vande Walle, Sébastien Bachollet, >Beau Brendler, Robert Guerra, Cheryl Landon-Orr) > >No (14.29%) (Carlos Aguirre) > >Abstain (0.00%) > >You may verify the results independently under: >https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=eTuRkbjiyZCk2DRJXXAU > >When announcing the results of voting, we have been requested by the Chair >to provide a listing of those who have not voted. Accordingly, we can >confirm that the following ALAC member did not participate in the balloting: > >Alan Greenberg >Vanda Scartezini >Fatimata Seye Sylla >Hawa Diakite >Mohamed El Bashir >Jose Ovidio Salgueiro >Vivek Vivekandan >Thu Hue Nguyen > >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich >ICANN At-Large Staff >email: staff at atlarge.icann.org > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Announce mailing list >ALAC-Announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] Result of the vote on the updated ALAC Response
by Adam Peake Jan. 7, 2009

Jan. 7, 2009

I think we should consider how to call the vote again. We should not leave this important issue as failed for lack of quorum. Do our procedures allow for another (3rd) attempt? Is a new motion required? If we can vote again I would like it added to the agenda of the Jan 13th ALAC call <https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_january_2009>. For clarification, if we are to consider a new vote I suggest it should be yes or no on: "Do you endorse the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report on the ALAC Review as an official ALAC Statement?" Thanks, Adam >Delivered-To: ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp >Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:09:33 +0100 >From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Thread-Topic: Result of the vote on the updated ALAC Response >Thread-Index: AclwuGsbv46fUSS1y0WCzsiFRO9smA== >X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.11.cp3 >Subject: [ALAC-Announce] Result of the vote on the updated ALAC Response >X-BeenThere: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >List-Id: ALAC Announcement list > <alac-announce_atlarge-lists.icann.org.atlarge-lists.icann.org> >List-Unsubscribe: ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/options/alac-announce_atlarge-lists.…>, > > <mailto:alac-announce-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=unsubscribe> >List-Archive: ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac-announce_atlarge-lists.icann.…> >List-Post: <mailto:alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >List-Help: <mailto:alac-announce-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=help> >List-Subscribe: ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists…>, > > <mailto:alac-announce-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=subscribe> >Sender: alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >Dear all, > >Seven out of 15 ALAC Members have voted in the recent vote on the updated >ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report, therefore the >quorum was not reached. > >Number of voters: 7· Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 46.67% > >³Would you like to endorse the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint >consultation report on the ALAC Review as an official ALAC Statement?² > >Yes (85.71%) (Adam Peake, Patrick Vande Walle, Sébastien Bachollet, >Beau Brendler, Robert Guerra, Cheryl Landon-Orr) > >No (14.29%) (Carlos Aguirre) > >Abstain (0.00%) > >You may verify the results independently under: >https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=eTuRkbjiyZCk2DRJXXAU > >When announcing the results of voting, we have been requested by the Chair >to provide a listing of those who have not voted. Accordingly, we can >confirm that the following ALAC member did not participate in the balloting: > >Alan Greenberg >Vanda Scartezini >Fatimata Seye Sylla >Hawa Diakite >Mohamed El Bashir >Jose Ovidio Salgueiro >Vivek Vivekandan >Thu Hue Nguyen > >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich >ICANN At-Large Staff >email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Announce mailing list >ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0