ICANN84 - GAC Communiqué Response
Dear Councillors, Please find attached the Council’s response to the ICANN84 GAC Communiqué as prepared by the Small Team for your review and approval during our December Council Meeting. You will find the original Google Doc here : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R_XZHgGS52IIaiUyPKfIFjoHyiYWr3GR/edit?us... Please see the motion prepared by Peter below: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oZx1fvKLJ-CxSnWCsLrIPI_PhJyh9mCO/edit?us... Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [cid:image001.png@01D81E10.09821660] +49 172 690 8418 Germany sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>
Thank you Seb. In relation to the IGO/INGO response, I think there is a lot of substance from the Motion that was passed that is missing in this response and not reflective of the careful work done by Council on this issue. Examples of language from the Motion which should be included are pasted below but in fact, it might be best to simply link the language of the entire Motion so that the substantive work is not lost. In any case, at least the following three points from the Motion should be included in the response: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. In addition, the existing draft language does not quote the Motion correctly in that it says the GAC and relevant protected organizations will be notified of "the applied-for strings" and does not say that they will be notified of the "relevant" applied for strings. Bottom line - the best approach for Council in this response is to state that the Council has supplied the requested interpretation of the policy intent and has also confirmed its agreement to additional notification procedures as suggested by the Board as reflected in the Motion that passed (LINK MOTION) in the Council's November meeting. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 2:16 AM Sebastien--- via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
Please find attached the Council’s response to the ICANN84 GAC Communiqué as prepared by the Small Team for your review and approval during our December Council Meeting.
You will find the original Google Doc here : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R_XZHgGS52IIaiUyPKfIFjoHyiYWr3GR/edit?us...
Please see the motion prepared by Peter below:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oZx1fvKLJ-CxSnWCsLrIPI_PhJyh9mCO/edit?us...
Kindly,
*Sebastien Ducos*
GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
+49 172 690 8418 Germany
*sebastien@registry.godaddy <sebastien@registry.godaddy>*
_______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Anne, Thank you for the feedback on this portion of the GAC Communique Response. I’m replying since I drafted the text to respond to the IGO Protections topic. To your point, I did consider how much detail from the motion and discussion should be included in the GNSO response. I ultimately concluded that, especially given the format of the response, it would be best to keep the text high-level and provide a link to the full motion. You should see that link in the pdf version of the response that Seb circulated. I think this is the best and cleanest way to convey all the nuance that went into the final version of the motion – that way all the detail is in one place. The other members of the drafting team also expressed support for that approach and I think this aligns nicely with the suggestion at the end of your email. I would be fine with adding “relevant” to the phrase “applied-for strings” as you suggest. Thanks for the input, Sam From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 at 9:11 AM To: "Sebastien@registry.godaddy" <Sebastien@registry.godaddy> Cc: "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: ICANN84 - GAC Communiqué Response Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you Seb. In relation to the IGO/INGO response, I think there is a lot of substance from the Motion that was passed that is missing in this response and not reflective of the careful work done by Council on this issue. Examples of language from the Motion which should be included are pasted below but in fact, it might be best to simply link the language of the entire Motion so that the substantive work is not lost. In any case, at least the following three points from the Motion should be included in the response: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. In addition, the existing draft language does not quote the Motion correctly in that it says the GAC and relevant protected organizations will be notified of "the applied-for strings" and does not say that they will be notified of the "relevant" applied for strings. Bottom line - the best approach for Council in this response is to state that the Council has supplied the requested interpretation of the policy intent and has also confirmed its agreement to additional notification procedures as suggested by the Board as reflected in the Motion that passed (LINK MOTION) in the Council's November meeting. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 2:16 AM Sebastien--- via council <council@icann.org> wrote: Dear Councillors, Please find attached the Council’s response to the ICANN84 GAC Communiqué as prepared by the Small Team for your review and approval during our December Council Meeting. You will find the original Google Doc here : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R_XZHgGS52IIaiUyPKfIFjoHyiYWr3GR/edit?us... Please see the motion prepared by Peter below: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oZx1fvKLJ-CxSnWCsLrIPI_PhJyh9mCO/edit?us... Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager +49 172 690 8418 Germany sebastien@registry.godaddy _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks Sam. I just added in the word "relevant" in the document per our discussion below. Thank you for pointing me to the link to the actual Motion passed by Council! Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 7:26 AM Demetriou, Samantha <sdemetriou@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Anne,
Thank you for the feedback on this portion of the GAC Communique Response. I’m replying since I drafted the text to respond to the IGO Protections topic.
To your point, I did consider how much detail from the motion and discussion should be included in the GNSO response. I ultimately concluded that, especially given the format of the response, it would be best to keep the text high-level and provide a link to the full motion. You should see that link in the pdf version of the response that Seb circulated. I think this is the best and cleanest way to convey all the nuance that went into the final version of the motion – that way all the detail is in one place. The other members of the drafting team also expressed support for that approach and I think this aligns nicely with the suggestion at the end of your email.
I would be fine with adding “relevant” to the phrase “applied-for strings” as you suggest.
Thanks for the input,
Sam
*From: *Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, December 2, 2025 at 9:11 AM *To: *"Sebastien@registry.godaddy" <Sebastien@registry.godaddy> *Cc: *"council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs < gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] [council] Re: ICANN84 - GAC Communiqué Response
*Caution:* This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you Seb. In relation to the IGO/INGO response, I think there is a lot of substance from the Motion that was passed that is missing in this response and not reflective of the careful work done by Council on this issue. Examples of language from the Motion which should be included are pasted below but in fact, it might be best to simply link the language of the entire Motion so that the substantive work is not lost. In any case, at least the following three points from the Motion should be included in the response:
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string.
b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC.
c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate.
In addition, the existing draft language does not quote the Motion correctly in that it says the GAC and relevant protected organizations will be notified of "the applied-for strings" and does not say that they will be notified of the "relevant" applied for strings.
Bottom line - the best approach for Council in this response is to state that the Council has supplied the requested interpretation of the policy intent and has also confirmed its agreement to additional notification procedures as suggested by the Board as reflected in the Motion that passed (LINK MOTION) in the Council's November meeting.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 2:16 AM Sebastien--- via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
Please find attached the Council’s response to the ICANN84 GAC Communiqué as prepared by the Small Team for your review and approval during our December Council Meeting.
You will find the original Google Doc here : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R_XZHgGS52IIaiUyPKfIFjoHyiYWr3GR/edit?us... <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1-yUxY5NxCTzvFGKI304XRV7GUly_LCds8lS3f9FRBXdfCk...>
Please see the motion prepared by Peter below:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oZx1fvKLJ-CxSnWCsLrIPI_PhJyh9mCO/edit?us... <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1EaU3HAo8NZftasBzliIQSuP9-g-Enh8qj9SUaYpwusXygo...>
Kindly,
*Sebastien Ducos*
GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
+49 172 690 8418 Germany
*sebastien@registry.godaddy <sebastien@registry.godaddy>*
_______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1s7vM5vKFIWnOqwEaE4kb1_WkdSaczx-vgoh2Lfhj7U-c1-...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1x-ymzG3If60aJwtKiwrr2UwHvfy9Th1Rb4DlE02HeJO7ln...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi, I don't know where to raise this. But as the council we asked GAC a question on human rights. They provided a response in writing which I think we should discuss in AOB and put their response on our wiki. Best regards, Farzaneh On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 2:44 PM Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks Sam. I just added in the word "relevant" in the document per our discussion below. Thank you for pointing me to the link to the actual Motion passed by Council! Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 7:26 AM Demetriou, Samantha < sdemetriou@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Anne,
Thank you for the feedback on this portion of the GAC Communique Response. I’m replying since I drafted the text to respond to the IGO Protections topic.
To your point, I did consider how much detail from the motion and discussion should be included in the GNSO response. I ultimately concluded that, especially given the format of the response, it would be best to keep the text high-level and provide a link to the full motion. You should see that link in the pdf version of the response that Seb circulated. I think this is the best and cleanest way to convey all the nuance that went into the final version of the motion – that way all the detail is in one place. The other members of the drafting team also expressed support for that approach and I think this aligns nicely with the suggestion at the end of your email.
I would be fine with adding “relevant” to the phrase “applied-for strings” as you suggest.
Thanks for the input,
Sam
*From: *Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, December 2, 2025 at 9:11 AM *To: *"Sebastien@registry.godaddy" <Sebastien@registry.godaddy> *Cc: *"council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs < gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] [council] Re: ICANN84 - GAC Communiqué Response
*Caution:* This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you Seb. In relation to the IGO/INGO response, I think there is a lot of substance from the Motion that was passed that is missing in this response and not reflective of the careful work done by Council on this issue. Examples of language from the Motion which should be included are pasted below but in fact, it might be best to simply link the language of the entire Motion so that the substantive work is not lost. In any case, at least the following three points from the Motion should be included in the response:
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string.
b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC.
c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate.
In addition, the existing draft language does not quote the Motion correctly in that it says the GAC and relevant protected organizations will be notified of "the applied-for strings" and does not say that they will be notified of the "relevant" applied for strings.
Bottom line - the best approach for Council in this response is to state that the Council has supplied the requested interpretation of the policy intent and has also confirmed its agreement to additional notification procedures as suggested by the Board as reflected in the Motion that passed (LINK MOTION) in the Council's November meeting.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 2:16 AM Sebastien--- via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
Please find attached the Council’s response to the ICANN84 GAC Communiqué as prepared by the Small Team for your review and approval during our December Council Meeting.
You will find the original Google Doc here : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R_XZHgGS52IIaiUyPKfIFjoHyiYWr3GR/edit?us... <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1-yUxY5NxCTzvFGKI304XRV7GUly_LCds8lS3f9FRBXdfCk...>
Please see the motion prepared by Peter below:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oZx1fvKLJ-CxSnWCsLrIPI_PhJyh9mCO/edit?us... <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1EaU3HAo8NZftasBzliIQSuP9-g-Enh8qj9SUaYpwusXygo...>
Kindly,
*Sebastien Ducos*
GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
+49 172 690 8418 Germany
*sebastien@registry.godaddy <sebastien@registry.godaddy>*
_______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1s7vM5vKFIWnOqwEaE4kb1_WkdSaczx-vgoh2Lfhj7U-c1-...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1x-ymzG3If60aJwtKiwrr2UwHvfy9Th1Rb4DlE02HeJO7ln...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear All, My Liaison peers on the GAC-side and I had our monthly call last week. In the lead to the Council motion we discussed the prepared responses to the GAC Communiqué and interactions between our groups going further. To Farzaneh’s point: The GAC’s response was transmitted directly to me to be forwarded on the mailing list. Unless it has already been added to the Wiki, it has currently no visibility beyond the mailing list. In our discussion about our groups’ relations, Manal, Rida and I continue agreeing that the more interaction we can have intersessionally between topic groups, the more up to date the questions will be and the richer the conversation during the bilateral meeting. There is work to be done here, but we all agree it is worth the effort. I would welcome a dedicated section on the GNSO wiki, as suggested by Farzaneh, to keep track of these interactions: written exchanges, intercessional meetings (if and when they happen), prepared questions, etc. I believe it will help show we are building these interactions in our work, as opposed to waiting for an ICANN meeting to report on our progress. I would of course be more than happy to help our Staff colleagues putting this together. Please note that our next Liaison meeting is scheduled for the week before the Council SPS. A following meeting will be held early-February, in the lead up to ICANN in Mumbai. I continue being available to bring your ideas and questions to these calls. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [cid:image001.png@01D81E10.09821660] +49 172 690 8418 Germany sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> Date: Monday, 8 December 2025 at 5:25 am To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: Demetriou, Samantha <sdemetriou@verisign.com>, Sebastien Ducos <Sebastien@registry.godaddy>, council@icann.org <council@icann.org>, gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: ICANN84 - GAC Communiqué Response This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Hi, I don't know where to raise this. But as the council we asked GAC a question on human rights. They provided a response in writing which I think we should discuss in AOB and put their response on our wiki. Best regards, Farzaneh On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 2:44 PM Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks Sam. I just added in the word "relevant" in the document per our discussion below. Thank you for pointing me to the link to the actual Motion passed by Council! Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 7:26 AM Demetriou, Samantha <sdemetriou@verisign.com<mailto:sdemetriou@verisign.com>> wrote: Hi Anne, Thank you for the feedback on this portion of the GAC Communique Response. I’m replying since I drafted the text to respond to the IGO Protections topic. To your point, I did consider how much detail from the motion and discussion should be included in the GNSO response. I ultimately concluded that, especially given the format of the response, it would be best to keep the text high-level and provide a link to the full motion. You should see that link in the pdf version of the response that Seb circulated. I think this is the best and cleanest way to convey all the nuance that went into the final version of the motion – that way all the detail is in one place. The other members of the drafting team also expressed support for that approach and I think this aligns nicely with the suggestion at the end of your email. I would be fine with adding “relevant” to the phrase “applied-for strings” as you suggest. Thanks for the input, Sam From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 at 9:11 AM To: "Sebastien@registry.godaddy" <Sebastien@registry.godaddy> Cc: "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: ICANN84 - GAC Communiqué Response Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you Seb. In relation to the IGO/INGO response, I think there is a lot of substance from the Motion that was passed that is missing in this response and not reflective of the careful work done by Council on this issue. Examples of language from the Motion which should be included are pasted below but in fact, it might be best to simply link the language of the entire Motion so that the substantive work is not lost. In any case, at least the following three points from the Motion should be included in the response: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. In addition, the existing draft language does not quote the Motion correctly in that it says the GAC and relevant protected organizations will be notified of "the applied-for strings" and does not say that they will be notified of the "relevant" applied for strings. Bottom line - the best approach for Council in this response is to state that the Council has supplied the requested interpretation of the policy intent and has also confirmed its agreement to additional notification procedures as suggested by the Board as reflected in the Motion that passed (LINK MOTION) in the Council's November meeting. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 2:16 AM Sebastien--- via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councillors, Please find attached the Council’s response to the ICANN84 GAC Communiqué as prepared by the Small Team for your review and approval during our December Council Meeting. You will find the original Google Doc here : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R_XZHgGS52IIaiUyPKfIFjoHyiYWr3GR/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115002119020327708482&rtpof=true&sd=true<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://secure-web.cisco.com/1-yUxY5NxCTzvFGKI304XRV7GUly_LCds8lS3f9FRBXdfCkhfxdpl9z_rKD43cGPSRTzLaw3HiVAinJLuR-MWQ_0t55fqWiP7gs9PeSBtCXEWjETaDVGux3qCk_szwx1RGFIy1ca00BqEPTwJKbG2_tP8qdRR1yyBfyC5tv3eEKJXn79o6P88uJdnmWsCUq96oXXbAsr0mD-kHXNwjB5bCnyShjuj-Qf0bSYy_gjZcX-keOxwo7Adwx2yRhdBdrx7Rl36uWQzICdz4SFLFPOimqSp_YiVtpQYGSrsTco8xpA/https*3A*2F*2Fdocs.google.com*2Fdocument*2Fd*2F1R_XZHgGS52IIaiUyPKfIFjoHyiYWr3GR*2Fedit*3Fusp*3Dsharing*26ouid*3D115002119020327708482*26rtpof*3Dtrue*26sd*3Dtrue__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!omZQ06NfDcrGY3VjSU0xmqwNInVbYbsfVY2Lv777Ypl3Q8Qe9ysbE5dKGOAeDOlb3vVVwsZE1OrhMDVnXjlxSg1kALzGC9Tt$> Please see the motion prepared by Peter below: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oZx1fvKLJ-CxSnWCsLrIPI_PhJyh9mCO/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115002119020327708482&rtpof=true&sd=true<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://secure-web.cisco.com/1EaU3HAo8NZftasBzliIQSuP9-g-Enh8qj9SUaYpwusXygoa1itKDF9P5jgTsKjySeSnQKVnQ-spdshJ6oEfchTVietKtVjKexnBewGqkaehZeZtmWCO_JMwJlmbdmT_I90pa0SbJ9mcNKR9gynumqs5rVq1HDx4Lhb9zrffru7MxmAQdEbPdRrmNL9Ogt-PJlZkoZ2QswhYu0crcDuT5pdXP9ZY2bDQnOqyZrBHDYjB6uqFgMQWrsf0jBsLQaaArB4-cyqI97dRc-puRJ0VZDetu83KLsKD0wge-B0EF76I/https*3A*2F*2Fdocs.google.com*2Fdocument*2Fd*2F1oZx1fvKLJ-CxSnWCsLrIPI_PhJyh9mCO*2Fedit*3Fusp*3Dsharing*26ouid*3D115002119020327708482*26rtpof*3Dtrue*26sd*3Dtrue__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!omZQ06NfDcrGY3VjSU0xmqwNInVbYbsfVY2Lv777Ypl3Q8Qe9ysbE5dKGOAeDOlb3vVVwsZE1OrhMDVnXjlxSg1kAMvSno2E$> Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [cid:ii_19ae5bcf69e4cff311] +49 172 690 8418 Germany sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org<mailto:council-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://secure-web.cisco.com/1s7vM5vKFIWnOqwEaE4kb1_WkdSaczx-vgoh2Lfhj7U-c1-Kp3GoxTCYbH74OSLA3xVBuOghP4XYIpQrkv8ZqdJTIciFQ2VMvNncSpACf3mW1zeq34Spoq6doSsqDFSdbSYyzmE7bKoZcsiw90OgOgFcr4xcCHZIwb99309CShJuyrrkpEhC1iFKYMGvr5vOCCt9RQ_DWGc-IFBa--Lr9I9O4MmM3mvWwY9dNJFKrlmQqz6ln_6-JI7_qv-4i---2J386tXFM7WKZXMEGd7AlNuBTce508-SVWXTt40wLFY8/https*3A*2F*2Fwww.icann.org*2Fprivacy*2Fpolicy__;JSUlJSU!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!omZQ06NfDcrGY3VjSU0xmqwNInVbYbsfVY2Lv777Ypl3Q8Qe9ysbE5dKGOAeDOlb3vVVwsZE1OrhMDVnXjlxSg1kAPdOoqD4$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://secure-web.cisco.com/1x-ymzG3If60aJwtKiwrr2UwHvfy9Th1Rb4DlE02HeJO7ln_9-nBmQY9ouTfDBGkY1NEGscPNKuxtq0GJGUQRtsdDuPkIgKczFgxRUcgglS3xH1NMDWuYExPuTr0XutMQ3lR4wZ22raJcIvYpGSlG6lAxsb63oSVm2TCMQe9R-O3i_gzxBxYViGBQ5QjEMRUkaFqxDj0dXBSmStrHrUGDauSY1y49mLAxPkubOksnOuG7U6QXJj9SmkZf1PDBjpw6NNs8rg4Ad-rXDHNCB4yBVlx-duJoNR4Uw7EXDxJR-us/https*3A*2F*2Fwww.icann.org*2Fprivacy*2Ftos__;JSUlJSU!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!omZQ06NfDcrGY3VjSU0xmqwNInVbYbsfVY2Lv777Ypl3Q8Qe9ysbE5dKGOAeDOlb3vVVwsZE1OrhMDVnXjlxSg1kALKnv8Gp$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org<mailto:council-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!omZQ06NfDcrGY3VjSU0xmqwNInVbYbsfVY2Lv777Ypl3Q8Qe9ysbE5dKGOAeDOlb3vVVwsZE1OrhMDVnXjlxSg1kAOs0gfdB$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!omZQ06NfDcrGY3VjSU0xmqwNInVbYbsfVY2Lv777Ypl3Q8Qe9ysbE5dKGOAeDOlb3vVVwsZE1OrhMDVnXjlxSg1kAPer9Kny$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (4)
-
Anne ICANN -
Demetriou, Samantha -
farzaneh badii -
Sebastien＠registry.godaddy