PLEASE COMMENT: FAQ in ccTLDs
Dear Colleagues, As you remember, the GAC Under-served Regions Working Group asked for our input to the FAQ they are working on. In the attachment please find the first version of the document. I propose the following process: - Everyone reviews the document - propose the wording/other questions and answers: by 3 May - The Secretariat will consolidate your input and circulate via the Council mailing list agai: 5 May - Everyone reviews the document again: by 10 May - The Secretariat consolidates the changes and submits them to the GAC USR WG: by 12 May Kind regards, ]{atrina
Dear Katrina, Thanks for this. I support the content of the letter in general. If I may, I'd like to cast the following comment. The current draft goes : ... that scope of the effort determines the skills and expertic[s]e needed and, even more importantly, the expected time and other commitments of the volunteers/members. I think we should not express here that time and other commitments are more important than skills and expertise. So, I'd like to propose replacing "even more importantly" to "at the same level of importance", Hiro On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:50:24 +0300 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you remember, the GAC Under-served Regions Working Group asked for our input to the FAQ they are working on. In the attachment please find the first version of the document. I propose the following process:
- Everyone reviews the document - propose the wording/other questions and answers: by 3 May
- The Secretariat will consolidate your input and circulate via the Council mailing list agai: 5 May
- Everyone reviews the document again: by 10 May
- The Secretariat consolidates the changes and submits them to the GAC USR WG: by 12 May
Kind regards,
]{atrina
Dear all, Sorry, I made a terrible mistake. I replied to different mail from I intended. I will re-send the response to correct mail from Katrina in a separate mail. Hiro On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:03:24 +0900 HiroHOTTA <hotta@jprs.co.jp> wrote:
Dear Katrina,
Thanks for this.
I support the content of the letter in general.
If I may, I'd like to cast the following comment.
The current draft goes : ... that scope of the effort determines the skills and expertic[s]e needed and, even more importantly, the expected time and other commitments of the volunteers/members.
I think we should not express here that time and other commitments are more important than skills and expertise. So, I'd like to propose replacing "even more importantly" to "at the same level of importance",
Hiro
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:50:24 +0300 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you remember, the GAC Under-served Regions Working Group asked for our input to the FAQ they are working on. In the attachment please find the first version of the document. I propose the following process:
- Everyone reviews the document - propose the wording/other questions and answers: by 3 May
- The Secretariat will consolidate your input and circulate via the Council mailing list agai: 5 May
- Everyone reviews the document again: by 10 May
- The Secretariat consolidates the changes and submits them to the GAC USR WG: by 12 May
Kind regards,
]{atrina
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
I believe Hiro has a point here... /Stephen -----Original Message----- From: ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of HiroHOTTA Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 2:03 AM To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] PLEASE COMMENT: FAQ in ccTLDs Dear Katrina, Thanks for this. I support the content of the letter in general. If I may, I'd like to cast the following comment. The current draft goes : ... that scope of the effort determines the skills and expertic[s]e needed and, even more importantly, the expected time and other commitments of the volunteers/members. I think we should not express here that time and other commitments are more important than skills and expertise. So, I'd like to propose replacing "even more importantly" to "at the same level of importance", Hiro On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:50:24 +0300 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you remember, the GAC Under-served Regions Working Group asked for our input to the FAQ they are working on. In the attachment please find the first version of the document. I propose the following process:
- Everyone reviews the document - propose the wording/other questions and answers: by 3 May
- The Secretariat will consolidate your input and circulate via the Council mailing list agai: 5 May
- Everyone reviews the document again: by 10 May
- The Secretariat consolidates the changes and submits them to the GAC USR WG: by 12 May
Kind regards,
]{atrina
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
Attached, I started from easier part. Hiro On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:50:24 +0300 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you remember, the GAC Under-served Regions Working Group asked for our input to the FAQ they are working on. In the attachment please find the first version of the document. I propose the following process:
- Everyone reviews the document - propose the wording/other questions and answers: by 3 May
- The Secretariat will consolidate your input and circulate via the Council mailing list agai: 5 May
- Everyone reviews the document again: by 10 May
- The Secretariat consolidates the changes and submits them to the GAC USR WG: by 12 May
Kind regards,
]{atrina
Good work. I'd want to rephrase any references to sponsoring organisation to deal with the long standing controversy over the unilateral imposition of that term by ICANN . . . On 01/05/17 13:00, HiroHOTTA wrote:
Attached, I started from easier part. Hiro
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:50:24 +0300 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you remember, the GAC Under-served Regions Working Group asked for our input to the FAQ they are working on. In the attachment please find the first version of the document. I propose the following process:
- Everyone reviews the document - propose the wording/other questions and answers: by 3 May
- The Secretariat will consolidate your input and circulate via the Council mailing list agai: 5 May
- Everyone reviews the document again: by 10 May
- The Secretariat consolidates the changes and submits them to the GAC USR WG: by 12 May
Kind regards,
]{atrina
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
A few suggestions enclosed. Not sure how much detail they are expecting. Cheers Debbie
On 2/05/2017, at 00:00, HiroHOTTA <hotta@jprs.co.jp> wrote:
Attached, I started from easier part. Hiro
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:50:24 +0300 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you remember, the GAC Under-served Regions Working Group asked for our input to the FAQ they are working on. In the attachment please find the first version of the document. I propose the following process:
- Everyone reviews the document - propose the wording/other questions and answers: by 3 May
- The Secretariat will consolidate your input and circulate via the Council mailing list agai: 5 May
- Everyone reviews the document again: by 10 May
- The Secretariat consolidates the changes and submits them to the GAC USR WG: by 12 May
Kind regards,
]{atrina
<hiro-version 1 FAQonDelegationandRedelegation-12April2017 ccNSO COuncil versi....docx>_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
These are all good additions, but I didn't realise that we were drafting something collectively? I would hope that current and former members of the FoI WG could be pressed to assist here. Governments use words as tools, and occasionaly as weapons. So we need to be careful in our answers, since this document could be used as if it were binding policy as it's a formal response to their questions. We should be explicit about its status and the application of the subsidiarity rule as to the circumstances when our answers bind ccTLD managers. The ccNSO, the ccTLD constituency and (during the ccTLD disengagement) the wwTLD have all objected to the term "sponsoring organisation". I continue to object to its use. ICANN introduced this term unilaterally (it does not appear in policy) and have resisted our complaints about using it over an extended period (a decade and a half). Despite the Board's formal acceptance of ccNSO policy staff are still using it in places . . . perhaps because we are not standing up for our own policy development outcomes? Whilst I can appreciate the proposed use of the term "historically" to soften the potential impact of this, I fail to see why we should, ourselves, be using this (for a number of members) controversial term. I have suggestions for this document as well, but, given the (small but significant) potential for future misunderstandings, given the intended audience, and potential harm to interests of some ccNSO members our answers need to be diplomatic, and carefully aligned with the Framework of interpretation. The FoI also provides guidance on the use of "redelegation" as a term which I think we need to be careful about the use of, and I also note that we seem to be referring to ICANN's assessment of how to perform (possibly contested) redelegation applications almost as if that website (which is again just written by staff). Yet we don't refer to the policy foundations on which this is based. I think document this needs some additional careful thought, particularly given that it's likely to be used as a vademecum for GAC members in dealings with their ccTLD managers and an explaination regarding the status of our answers and when they are binding on ccTLD managers. On 02/05/17 03:44, Debbie Monahan wrote:
A few suggestions enclosed. Not sure how much detail they are expecting.
Cheers Debbie
On 2/05/2017, at 00:00, HiroHOTTA <hotta@jprs.co.jp> wrote:
Attached, I started from easier part. Hiro
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:50:24 +0300 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you remember, the GAC Under-served Regions Working Group asked for our input to the FAQ they are working on. In the attachment please find the first version of the document. I propose the following process:
- Everyone reviews the document - propose the wording/other questions and answers: by 3 May
- The Secretariat will consolidate your input and circulate via the Council mailing list agai: 5 May
- Everyone reviews the document again: by 10 May
- The Secretariat consolidates the changes and submits them to the GAC USR WG: by 12 May
Kind regards,
]{atrina
<hiro-version 1 FAQonDelegationandRedelegation-12April2017 ccNSO COuncil versi....docx>_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
I share Nigel's objection to the continued use of the term "Sponsoring Organisation". The continuing reluctance of ICANN/IANA to abandon its continued use, despite it being contrary to policy, does frankly make me question their motives. They seem very resistant to return to the use of the term "Registrant"... Further, I agree with Nigel that we ought to be very, very careful how we word the replies in the FAQ. I am especially concerned that simple citations to https://www.iana.org/domains/root/tld-change-template.txt might lead Governments to conclude "Hey, all we have to do is fill out this form and send it back to IANA and they will give us the delegation!". There is a lot more to the process than that, and I firmly believe that we must do our best to provide responses that reflect actual ccNSO/ICANN policy (and not ad-hoc IANA staff "policy"), and to do that, we need to interleave the FoI into the responses. /Stephen -----Original Message----- From: ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:32 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] PLEASE COMMENT: FAQ in ccTLDs These are all good additions, but I didn't realise that we were drafting something collectively? I would hope that current and former members of the FoI WG could be pressed to assist here. Governments use words as tools, and occasionaly as weapons. So we need to be careful in our answers, since this document could be used as if it were binding policy as it's a formal response to their questions. We should be explicit about its status and the application of the subsidiarity rule as to the circumstances when our answers bind ccTLD managers. The ccNSO, the ccTLD constituency and (during the ccTLD disengagement) the wwTLD have all objected to the term "sponsoring organisation". I continue to object to its use. ICANN introduced this term unilaterally (it does not appear in policy) and have resisted our complaints about using it over an extended period (a decade and a half). Despite the Board's formal acceptance of ccNSO policy staff are still using it in places . . . perhaps because we are not standing up for our own policy development outcomes? Whilst I can appreciate the proposed use of the term "historically" to soften the potential impact of this, I fail to see why we should, ourselves, be using this (for a number of members) controversial term. I have suggestions for this document as well, but, given the (small but significant) potential for future misunderstandings, given the intended audience, and potential harm to interests of some ccNSO members our answers need to be diplomatic, and carefully aligned with the Framework of interpretation. The FoI also provides guidance on the use of "redelegation" as a term which I think we need to be careful about the use of, and I also note that we seem to be referring to ICANN's assessment of how to perform (possibly contested) redelegation applications almost as if that website (which is again just written by staff). Yet we don't refer to the policy foundations on which this is based. I think document this needs some additional careful thought, particularly given that it's likely to be used as a vademecum for GAC members in dealings with their ccTLD managers and an explaination regarding the status of our answers and when they are binding on ccTLD managers. On 02/05/17 03:44, Debbie Monahan wrote:
A few suggestions enclosed. Not sure how much detail they are expecting.
Cheers Debbie
On 2/05/2017, at 00:00, HiroHOTTA <hotta@jprs.co.jp> wrote:
Attached, I started from easier part. Hiro
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:50:24 +0300 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you remember, the GAC Under-served Regions Working Group asked for our input to the FAQ they are working on. In the attachment please find the first version of the document. I propose the following process:
- Everyone reviews the document - propose the wording/other questions and answers: by 3 May
- The Secretariat will consolidate your input and circulate via the Council mailing list agai: 5 May
- Everyone reviews the document again: by 10 May
- The Secretariat consolidates the changes and submits them to the GAC USR WG: by 12 May
Kind regards,
]{atrina
<hiro-version 1 FAQonDelegationandRedelegation-12April2017 ccNSO COuncil versi....docx>_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
Dear Hiro, Debbie, Nigel, All, Thank you very much for your proposals, Debbie, Hiro and Nigel! As to the comments, although they are valuable, I would like to ask the councillors who provided them to convert them into more tangible results, i.e., to propose draft language we could add to the document. As to the questions: more comments/responses/suggestions below -
These are all good additions, but I didn't realise that we were drafting something collectively?
Yes, as agreed, we do.
I would hope that current and former members of the FoI WG could be pressed to assist here.
I assumed that you, Stephen and others on the ccNSO Council do have insight in the FOI as former members. I expect that on later stages we will have more time to read the draft document, invite more comments and edit it. At this point we need to provide initial input by 10 May!
Governments use words as tools, and occasionaly as weapons.
Who doesn't...
So we need to be careful in our answers, since this document could be used as if it were binding policy as it's a formal response to their questions. We should be explicit about its status and the application of the subsidiarity rule as to the circumstances when our answers bind ccTLD managers.
I think we should propose a Disclaimer. In addition it is not only our concern but also a concern for PTI. But I think all understand that a FAQ document cannot convey all the nuances and depth of a policy, including the FOI. Nigel, may I ask you to draft a Disclaimer?
Despite the Board's formal acceptance of ccNSO policy staff are still using it in places . . . perhaps because we are not standing up for our own policy development outcomes? Interesting you call it policy development outcomes.
Or perhaps we are not asking to set deadlines when PTI presents their progress on FoI implementation during ccNSO meeting days. In Copenhagen PTI gave us a presentation: https://ccnso.icann.org/meetings/copenhagen58/presentation-iana-names-functi on-15mar17-en.pdf I think we will have an additional opportunity to ask PTI to inform us about the timeline proposed or we could ask our IANA pokepersons (if I may call them so) Stephen and Keith to ask PTI about the timeline and whether the ccTLD community needs to do anything.
I have suggestions for this document as well, but, given the (small but significant) potential for future misunderstandings, given the intended audience, and potential harm to interests of some ccNSO members our answers need to be diplomatic, and carefully aligned with the Framework of interpretation.
And RFC 1591 I hope. Please provide your drafts by 10 May! Thank you! Kind regards, ]{atrina -----Original Message----- From: ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 6:32 AM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] PLEASE COMMENT: FAQ in ccTLDs These are all good additions, but I didn't realise that we were drafting something collectively? I would hope that current and former members of the FoI WG could be pressed to assist here. Governments use words as tools, and occasionaly as weapons. So we need to be careful in our answers, since this document could be used as if it were binding policy as it's a formal response to their questions. We should be explicit about its status and the application of the subsidiarity rule as to the circumstances when our answers bind ccTLD managers. The ccNSO, the ccTLD constituency and (during the ccTLD disengagement) the wwTLD have all objected to the term "sponsoring organisation". I continue to object to its use. ICANN introduced this term unilaterally (it does not appear in policy) and have resisted our complaints about using it over an extended period (a decade and a half). Despite the Board's formal acceptance of ccNSO policy staff are still using it in places . . . perhaps because we are not standing up for our own policy development outcomes? Whilst I can appreciate the proposed use of the term "historically" to soften the potential impact of this, I fail to see why we should, ourselves, be using this (for a number of members) controversial term. I have suggestions for this document as well, but, given the (small but significant) potential for future misunderstandings, given the intended audience, and potential harm to interests of some ccNSO members our answers need to be diplomatic, and carefully aligned with the Framework of interpretation. The FoI also provides guidance on the use of "redelegation" as a term which I think we need to be careful about the use of, and I also note that we seem to be referring to ICANN's assessment of how to perform (possibly contested) redelegation applications almost as if that website (which is again just written by staff). Yet we don't refer to the policy foundations on which this is based. I think document this needs some additional careful thought, particularly given that it's likely to be used as a vademecum for GAC members in dealings with their ccTLD managers and an explaination regarding the status of our answers and when they are binding on ccTLD managers. On 02/05/17 03:44, Debbie Monahan wrote:
A few suggestions enclosed. Not sure how much detail they are expecting.
Cheers Debbie
On 2/05/2017, at 00:00, HiroHOTTA <hotta@jprs.co.jp> wrote:
Attached, I started from easier part. Hiro
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:50:24 +0300 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you remember, the GAC Under-served Regions Working Group asked for our input to the FAQ they are working on. In the attachment please find the first version of the document. I propose the following process:
- Everyone reviews the document - propose the wording/other questions and answers: by 3 May
- The Secretariat will consolidate your input and circulate via the Council mailing list agai: 5 May
- Everyone reviews the document again: by 10 May
- The Secretariat consolidates the changes and submits them to the GAC USR WG: by 12 May
Kind regards,
]{atrina
<hiro-version 1 FAQonDelegationandRedelegation-12April2017 ccNSO COuncil versi....docx>_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
You got me! ;-) :-) On 03/05/17 11:38, Katrina Sataki wrote:
Dear Hiro, Debbie, Nigel, All,
Thank you very much for your proposals, Debbie, Hiro and Nigel!
As to the comments, although they are valuable, I would like to ask the councillors who provided them to convert them into more tangible results, i.e., to propose draft language we could add to the document.
As to the questions: more comments/responses/suggestions below -
These are all good additions, but I didn't realise that we were drafting something collectively?
Yes, as agreed, we do.
I would hope that current and former members of the FoI WG could be pressed to assist here.
I assumed that you, Stephen and others on the ccNSO Council do have insight in the FOI as former members. I expect that on later stages we will have more time to read the draft document, invite more comments and edit it. At this point we need to provide initial input by 10 May!
Governments use words as tools, and occasionaly as weapons.
Who doesn't...
So we need to be careful in our answers, since this document could be used as if it were binding policy as it's a formal response to their questions. We should be explicit about its status and the application of the subsidiarity rule as to the circumstances when our answers bind ccTLD managers.
I think we should propose a Disclaimer. In addition it is not only our concern but also a concern for PTI. But I think all understand that a FAQ document cannot convey all the nuances and depth of a policy, including the FOI. Nigel, may I ask you to draft a Disclaimer?
Despite the Board's formal acceptance of ccNSO policy staff are still using it in places . . . perhaps because we are not standing up for our own policy development outcomes? Interesting you call it policy development outcomes.
Or perhaps we are not asking to set deadlines when PTI presents their progress on FoI implementation during ccNSO meeting days. In Copenhagen PTI gave us a presentation: https://ccnso.icann.org/meetings/copenhagen58/presentation-iana-names-functi on-15mar17-en.pdf I think we will have an additional opportunity to ask PTI to inform us about the timeline proposed or we could ask our IANA pokepersons (if I may call them so) Stephen and Keith to ask PTI about the timeline and whether the ccTLD community needs to do anything.
I have suggestions for this document as well, but, given the (small but significant) potential for future misunderstandings, given the intended audience, and potential harm to interests of some ccNSO members our answers need to be diplomatic, and carefully aligned with the Framework of interpretation.
And RFC 1591 I hope.
Please provide your drafts by 10 May!
Thank you!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
-----Original Message----- From: ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 6:32 AM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] PLEASE COMMENT: FAQ in ccTLDs
These are all good additions, but I didn't realise that we were drafting something collectively?
I would hope that current and former members of the FoI WG could be pressed to assist here.
Governments use words as tools, and occasionaly as weapons. So we need to be careful in our answers, since this document could be used as if it were binding policy as it's a formal response to their questions. We should be explicit about its status and the application of the subsidiarity rule as to the circumstances when our answers bind ccTLD managers.
The ccNSO, the ccTLD constituency and (during the ccTLD disengagement) the wwTLD have all objected to the term "sponsoring organisation".
I continue to object to its use.
ICANN introduced this term unilaterally (it does not appear in policy) and have resisted our complaints about using it over an extended period (a decade and a half).
Despite the Board's formal acceptance of ccNSO policy staff are still using it in places . . . perhaps because we are not standing up for our own policy development outcomes?
Whilst I can appreciate the proposed use of the term "historically" to soften the potential impact of this, I fail to see why we should, ourselves, be using this (for a number of members) controversial term.
I have suggestions for this document as well, but, given the (small but significant) potential for future misunderstandings, given the intended audience, and potential harm to interests of some ccNSO members our answers need to be diplomatic, and carefully aligned with the Framework of interpretation.
The FoI also provides guidance on the use of "redelegation" as a term which I think we need to be careful about the use of, and I also note that we seem to be referring to ICANN's assessment of how to perform (possibly contested) redelegation applications almost as if that website (which is again just written by staff). Yet we don't refer to the policy foundations on which this is based.
I think document this needs some additional careful thought, particularly given that it's likely to be used as a vademecum for GAC members in dealings with their ccTLD managers and an explaination regarding the status of our answers and when they are binding on ccTLD managers.
On 02/05/17 03:44, Debbie Monahan wrote:
A few suggestions enclosed. Not sure how much detail they are expecting.
Cheers Debbie
On 2/05/2017, at 00:00, HiroHOTTA <hotta@jprs.co.jp> wrote:
Attached, I started from easier part. Hiro
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:50:24 +0300 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you remember, the GAC Under-served Regions Working Group asked for our input to the FAQ they are working on. In the attachment please find the first version of the document. I propose the following process:
- Everyone reviews the document - propose the wording/other questions and answers: by 3 May
- The Secretariat will consolidate your input and circulate via the Council mailing list agai: 5 May
- Everyone reviews the document again: by 10 May
- The Secretariat consolidates the changes and submits them to the GAC USR WG: by 12 May
Kind regards,
]{atrina
<hiro-version 1 FAQonDelegationandRedelegation-12April2017 ccNSO COuncil versi....docx>_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
participants (5)
-
Debbie Monahan -
HiroHOTTA -
Katrina Sataki -
Nigel Roberts -
Stephen Deerhake