Dear All,

Please find attached for your review, the updated examples document. Note that you can find the comments received to date here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQ66hCxrboAJPKeuU6nHwzHQwmU6g_3kS0JUSSC_tSk/edit. Unfortunately, the transfer to a Word document did not work well with the table and comments so the attached version only includes the proposed CCWG conclusions. As discussed, highlighted in yellow are those examples where responses were mixed. Instead of discussing which draft conclusion applies (consistent or inconsistent with ICANN’s mission) it may be more productive to focus on rewriting the highlighted examples in such a way that they are either clearly consistent or clearly inconsistent with ICANN’s mission? Also note that following the last review, a couple of additional examples have been added (#19-22) that have not benefitted yet from WG input. Note that #22 may not be appropriate for inclusion here as the issue is being dealt with separately?

Please review the document and the newly added examples and share your thoughts re. proposed CCWG conclusions ahead of Thursday’s meeting.

Thanks,

Marika

Marika Konings

Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

Email: marika.konings@icann.org

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.