February 2020 - CPWG - lists.icann.org

CPWG SubPro Single Issue Call on Geographic Names
by ICANN Policy Calendar Feb. 24, 2020

Feb. 24, 2020

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff ONLY at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number*** Dear All, Further to the Doodle poll, CPWG SubPro Single Issue Call on Geographic Names is scheduled for Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 18:00 UTC for 60 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/que955l The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/4xyJBw Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566 / Meeting ID: 765-717-566 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=…> At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

What's coming -- blockchain browser for Web 3.0 experience
by Justine Chew Feb. 24, 2020

Feb. 24, 2020

READ MORE: https://www.cryptopolitan.com/unstoppable-domains-blockchain-browser/ --- touching on blockchain+domain, IOT, user privacy; and Internet fragmentation? Justine -----

2 2

Re: [CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 24, 2020

Feb. 24, 2020

Evan, I know this is your opinion, but I do not fully share it. There is no doubt that many of the PICs from the 2012 round had minimal value and some even clearly said they could be changed or deleted. On the average, the PICs were not one of ICANN's greatest moments. But we should not ignore that not all PICs were "average"! There were other cases where the PICs were substantive and crucial to the TLD's operation. We are all aware of .bank that was applied for and delegated as a community TLD that committed to doing rigourous verification that the applicant was indeed a legitimate bank. Other applicants chose to not apply as a community TLD, but rather put their commitments to do verification or work with appropriate agencies in their PICs. To the best of my knowledge these TLDs are operational and meeting their commitments. I also not that PICs can be enforced via ICANN Contractual Compliance and enforcement is not limited to the PICDRP (which is applicable only in specific cases where parties are explicitly harmed). The ALAC fought hard to make sure that the DRP was not the only way to enforce PICs, so why are you ignoring that major win. Lastly, you make reference to "the last time ALAC launched a PIC challenge". Perhaps I am having a mental lapse, but I am not aware of the ALAC ever even contemplating using the PICDRP, and I suspect if we had, I would have been involved (either as ALAC Chair, or before that, as the Liaison to the GNSO. If you believe otherwise, please provide the details. Alan At 21/02/2020 07:59 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >PICs offer registries a purely-cosmetic means to >demonstrate care for the public interest, >knowing that the bar of proof and evidence >required to contest is so high as to be >impenetrable. On the challengers' side you have >a high bar of evidence that may require >substantial legal instincts but falls to >public-interest volunteers who lack the >necessary time or resources. On the other side >is fulltime registry legal staff whose paid task >is to do whatever is necessary to defend. By design it's horribly imbalanced. > >IIRC, the last time ALAC launched a PIC >challenge it was dismissed before we ever got to >argue substance because the PICDRP said that >ALAC did not have sufficient standing to intervene(!). Such are the rules. > >Yeah the theory behind PICs is wonderful but it >would need a ground-up rewrite -- with something >approaching a level playing field, and funding >for challengers -- to be useful. The work >necessary to "give teeth" to the PICs would need >to be done before the Ethos offer could be even >considered. Is there time for that? > >- Evan > > >On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 15:33, Greg Shatan ><<mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>greg(a)isoc-ny.org> wrote: >Iâd rather work on giving teeth to PICs than give up on PICs. > >On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:43 PM Jonathan Zuck ><<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: > >Well part of our interventions on SubPro is >improvements to that process, no? It seems as >though At-Large are still in favor of PICs if >they are enforceable. Is there a better mechanism? > >Â > >From: Evan Leibovitch <<mailto:evan@telly.org>evan(a)telly.org> >Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 10:32 AM >To: Jonathan Zuck ><<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> >Cc: CPWG <<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>cpwg(a)icann.org> >Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG > >Â > >Yecch. PICDRPs. I can't think of one instance in >which they've sided with interveners in previous >cases, and they're not exactly chosen because of >sensitivity to the public interest. > >Depending on that process is essentially a free pass for Ethos. > >Â > >- Evan > >Â > >Â > >On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 13:27, Jonathan Zuck ><<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: > >Agree Evan. Take a look at the document as it >says explicitly the âor elseâ can include >taking .ORG away from PIR and that the >stewardship council has veto power over policies >in those areas.Â Itâs not bad language in that respect. > >Â > >_______________________________________________ >CPWG mailing list ><mailto:CPWG@icann.org>CPWG(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > >_______________________________________________ >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://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) >and the website Terms of Service >(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>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. > >-- >*********************************** >Greg Shatan >President, ISOC-NY >âThe Internet is for Everyoneâ >_______________________________________________ >CPWG mailing list ><mailto:CPWG@icann.org>CPWG(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > >_______________________________________________ >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://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) >and the website Terms of Service >(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>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. > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch,Â Toronto Canada >@evanleibovitch orÂ @el56 >_______________________________________________ >CPWG mailing list >CPWG(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > >_______________________________________________ >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.

1 0

REMINDER / IMPORTANT NEW DOODLE: CPWG SubPro Single Issue Call on Geographic Names
by Yesim Nazlar Feb. 23, 2020

Feb. 23, 2020

Dear All, Kind reminder for those who haven’t completed the doodle, yet. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yeşim Nazlar From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 11:45 PM To: "cpwg(a)icann.org" <cpwg(a)icann.org> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Subject: IMPORTANT NEW DOODLE: CPWG SubPro Single Issue Call on Geographic Names Dear All, Please complete the Doodle poll to schedule the CPWG SubPro Single Issue Call on Geographic Names for the week of 24 February 2020. Doodle: https://doodle.com/poll/mnizwx4rrpai9bd9 I have enabled time zone so that it can be changed to your zone. This doodle will close on Monday, 24 February 2020. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yeşim Nazlar

1 0

Fwd: [Internet Policy] Americans for Financial Reform Asks FTC To Scrutinize .ORG Deal
by Greg Shatan Feb. 22, 2020

Feb. 22, 2020

Here’s the latest salvo in the .org saga.... ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ayden Férdeline via InternetPolicy <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> Date: Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:11 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] Americans for Financial Reform Asks FTC To Scrutinize .ORG Deal To: internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org <InternetPolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> An extremely important new development in the sale of the Public Interest Registry: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-seeks-disclosure-secret-financing-de… <https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-seeks-disclosure-secret-financing-de…>The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) Education Fund today called on ICANN and private equity firm Ethos Capital to make public secret details—hidden costs, loan servicing fees, and inducements to insiders—about financing the $1.1 billion sale of the .ORG domain registry. EFF <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/we-need-save-org-arbitrary-censorship…> and AFR today also urged <https://www.eff.org/document/eff-afref-letter-ftc-about-sale-pir> the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review the leveraged buyout, which will have profound effects on millions of charities, public interest organizations, and nonprofits—and the consumers who rely on them—around the world. The deal would turn the .ORG registry—run for 17 years by the nonprofit Public Interest Registry (PIR) organization—into a for-profit enterprise controlled by a private equity firm that is partially funding the deal with a $360 million term loan. The proposed transaction would increase the likelihood that the new for-profit PIR LLC could unfairly exercise its monopoly power to disadvantage non-profit organization consumers by reducing service levels, imposing onerous terms of service, or otherwise interfering with their operations. EFF, AFR, and 824 nonprofits <https://savedotorg.org/>—including National Council of Nonprofits, Girl Scouts of America, and American Bible Society—oppose the deal, as do 24,000 individuals and six members of Congress <https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/lawmakers-urge-internet-gov…> . AFR <https://ourfinancialsecurity.org/2020/02/news-release-internet-federal-auth…> represents a coalition of over 200 civil rights, faith-based, consumer, and community groups and was formed after the 2008 financial crisis. In a letter <https://www.eff.org/document/eff-afref-letter-icann-about-sale-pir> to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN <https://www.eff.org/issues/icann>, which coordinates the operation and maintenance of the internet’s domain name system, EFF and AFR said the deal should be stopped <https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-icann-stop-org-domain-registry-sale-…> unless and until ICANN <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/01/icann-needs-ask-more-questions-about-…> can fully assess, and make public, critical financial details of the transaction. Ethos and other entities involved in the sale have provided few details about financing, including how PIR, which has average annual profits of just $35 million, will make interest payments on the massive loan it will be saddled with and still provide sufficient services to the nonprofits that use the .ORG domain to exist on the Internet. What is known about the interest payments is they are $24 million a year, about two-thirds of PIR’s annual profits. PIR will also be on the hook for the balance of the $360 million loan. The registry will have to come up with substantial additional money to keep up with these huge costs, forcing it to either raise fees charged to nonprofits for use of .ORG, reduce investments in technical upkeep, or take other steps to boost revenue. PIR said today that it would restrict price increases and form a “stewardship council” to address the concerns in the nonprofit world, but these steps don’t go nearly far enough and have limited enforceability. “Given the poor track record of private equity firms running vital services for the public, these authorities need to take a close look at Ethos Capital’s financial plans for .ORG, and the structure of the deal,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Mitch Stoltz. “Establishing an advisory council doesn't solve the problem, especially since PIR's new owners will appoint the council, control what information its members will see and its power is limited to only some non-financial considerations." “A private equity transaction poses unique risks to the .ORG non-profit community. The private equity firm seeking to acquire .ORG is using the classic leveraged buyout strategy of saddling the new company with a massive debt load,” said Patrick Woodall, senior researcher at Americans for Financial Reform. “This formula often leads to disaster for the company and can be especially corrosive for private equity takeovers of entities with a public mission as is the case with .ORG. The public needs far more information about the financial terms of this transaction before the relevant authorities make a decision on whether it should proceed.” “The changes announced today by Ethos do not provide the protections and security that the community has been asking for over the last three months,” said Amy Sample Ward, Chief Executive Officer of nonprofit advocacy group NTEN. “The pricing clause that offers a 10% annual increase on average and only for the first 8 years does not speak to the real concerns raised by nonprofits around the world about pricing protections for the long term.” For the letter to ICANN: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-afref-letter-icann-about-sale-pir For the letter to the FTC: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-afref-letter-ftc-about-sale-pir For more about SAVE.ORG: https://savedotorg.org/ _______________________________________________ To manage your Internet Society subscriptions or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login and go to the Interests tab within your profile. - View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ -- *********************************** Greg Shatan President, ISOC-NY “The Internet is for Everyone”

1 0

IMPORTANT NEW DOODLE: CPWG SubPro Single Issue Call on Geographic Names
by ICANN At-Large Staff Feb. 21, 2020

Feb. 21, 2020

Dear All, Please complete the Doodle poll to schedule the CPWG SubPro Single Issue Call on Geographic Names for the week of 24 February 2020. Doodle: https://doodle.com/poll/mnizwx4rrpai9bd9 I have enabled time zone so that it can be changed to your zone. This doodle will close on Monday, 24 February 2020. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yeşim Nazlar

1 0

My thoughts on the PIR sale and ISOC: Lessons Being Learned
by Greg Shatan Feb. 21, 2020

Feb. 21, 2020

CPWG folks, I wrote the following on another list and thought it might be of interest here. (Apologies for cross-posting.) Best regards, Greg ========================== *Greg Shatan* greg(a)isoc-ny.org *President, ISOC-NY* *"The Internet is for everyone"* ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Greg Shatan <greg(a)isoc-ny.org> Date: Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 7:15 PM Subject: ISOC & the PIR Sale: Lessons Being Learned To: ISOC Internet Policy <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> I started replying to a couple of threads on this list, and ended up mulling it over at some length (too much?) and decided it would be better as a free-standing email. The PIR/.ORG transaction is a watershed moment for ISOC. What had once seemed (at least to ISOC and its Board) to be ISOC’s chance to transform its finances now seems to many to be a threat to ISOC’s essence, and even its very existence. >From the ISOC-NY perspective, this entire affair points out the paucity of community-involved multistakeholder participation in ISOC’s critical decision-making processes (and other processes, too). Navigating the very different worlds of non-profits, ICANN and billion-dollar private equity transactions has been a huge challenge for ISOC. This has exposed cracks in ISOC’s processes and in its sense of self at every point where decisions had to be weighed and made. ISOC’s claim to be even moderately multistakeholder in governance has been found wanting. A fair amount of the (most visible) opposition to the sale is alarmist, ill-informed and rife with self-dealing. But that doesn't make the sale a Good Thing. It also doesn’t make all of their criticisms wrong or unfounded (even if they are overblown). Frustratingly, this fervent opposition tends to obscure a number of the more thoughtful and analytical critics and criticisms of the sale, coming from a variety of different angles. Those who are not taking a hard line in opposing the sale are not supporters of the sale (though some of the hardliners want to say they are or convert them to their cause). This is the skeptical but undecided “middle” portion of the community, trying to think this through and avoiding rushed judgments, even if they feel a bit queasy. The ultimate positions of these swing groups is important, maybe even more important than those of the entrenched opposition. In one version of reality, these folks would have swung toward supporting the deal, their concerns addressed, their voices counted. We are not in that version of reality. For better or worse, I think these "swing groups" are now swinging toward opposition, or at least putting on the brakes until significant concerns can be addressed. The demise of the summit meeting being planned for the weekend of February 22, shows how troubled this whole steaming stew has become. Speculating wildly, it sounds to me like some of the hardliners pulled out (or were never in) the meeting, because they have a plan, something up their sleeves, perhaps even a counterattack in mind. This left the more moderate but concerned contingent in the lurch. Apparently, this in turn caused one of the deal participants to shrink the meeting to irrelevancy, perhaps because the participants wanted to deal with the noisy hardliners, rather than the more low-profile opponents that were left on the agenda. This move further alienated those in the moderate camp. This is a negative outcome for those who want the deal to go forward, and for all those involved in the deal regardless of outcome. The moderates were at least fact-checking the hardliners while still demanding facts and changes from the deal team. Potentially, at least some of this group could have been brought around to support the sale, with some significant safeguards and adjustments. Without some serious support from within this group, the deal participants, their advisors, and the few active proponents of the deal look pretty isolated. The traditional playbook of M&A dealmakers at this point would likely be to “Get The Deal Done,” by any means necessary. The Proskauer letter is solidly within the tradition. The traditional “Get The Deal Done” playbook would focus efforts on those with the clear, formal power to stop the deal (ICANN, government regulators, AGs), convincing, mollifying, co-opting neutralizing or defeating them. Meanwhile, the noise of the rabble would be more or less ignored (and guess what? We’re all rabble). The deal participants would be limited to carefully-crafted statements and sound bites and carefully orchestrated situations. No matter how many words, ultimately they would say very little. The traditional playbook has certainly informed the buyer's decisions. It has seemed to inform much of PIR and ISOC's thinking as well. The traditional playbook has been a disaster at every turn. If the deal participants keep following this playbook, there's still a possibility the deal will get through and close, while leaving scorched earth in every direction and a persistent stench wafting over the land. More likely every day, taking the traditional approach will continue to harden and grow the opposition to the deal and spawn more significant, powerful and effective opponents and methods of killing the deal. The private equity veterans, investment bankers and lawyers involved in the deal have likely been very persuasive in convincing the other deal participants to "stay the course." Sadly, these experts had little or no idea what they were getting themselves into. The world of investment banks, private investment firms, Big Law, big finance and private equity could not be more different than the world of domain names, ICANN, non-profits, domain investors, social activists and Internet pioneers. This is a culture clash. As someone with experience in both worlds, it's been frustrating to watch this slow motion train wreck. At every major inflection point, I’ve thought I should tell ISOC that "this is going to get worse before it gets better." And I hoped for the best. At this point, the message feels like "this is going to get worse and it may not get better.” Unfortunately, this is almost as much a product of the way the deal has been handled as it is a product of the fundamentals of the deal. To my mind, the only way this deal gets done in a satisfactory way (and maybe if at all) is if there is a radical restructuring of the deal, of the buyer, of the post-ISOC shape of PIR combined with an embrace of radical transparency, the adoption of genuine accountability, and a true multistakeholder stake and meaningful voice in PIR. No matter what the outcome, ISOC will come through this facing some real challenges. It is dented and scuffed. It didn't help that PIR and Ethos have adopted a low public profile (at least in person), leaving ISOC (and particularly Andrew Sullivan) swinging in the wind while trying to explain and defend the transaction, including parts that have nothing to do with ISOC. This has been unfair to ISOC (and particularly Andrew Sullivan). Though worse for wear, ISOC is still structurally sound. It is not a given that ISOC will remain so as things move forward. How ISOC handles matters, how it defines itself, how it makes decisions and how it communicates from this moment on (both during and after the denouement of this entire affair), will speak volumes about its long-term identity and even viability. ISOC needs to figure this moment out, and who it wants to be. I, for one, want ISOC to come through this better and stronger than before, more multistakeholder, more meaningful and more engaged. A noisy few want quite the opposite (and quite a number of them want something for themselves). Many others opposing the sale know little about ISOC, and may not have heard of it at all just a few months ago. Most of what these people have heard is so negative (some of it true, some slanted and some "fake news") that ISOC is merely a cartoon villain to them. This increases both the difficulty and the stakes for ISOC "getting it right" from now on. The rest of this month (and beyond) will be a true test for all involved. Innovative, inclusive, empathic thinking will likely be rewarded. Accepting outcomes that are not any one party’s ideal solution will be required, if there are going to be real winners. (Not surprisingly, this is often the successful result of the bottom-up consensus-driven multistakeholder process.) If the various participants choose to battle it out instead, it seems likely there will be no real winners – only survivors. Greg ========================== *Greg Shatan* greg(a)isoc-ny.org *President, ISOC-NY* *"The Internet is for everyone"*

3 2

REMINDER / Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 13:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/tg7v3ss The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/6BeJBw Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566 / Meeting ID: 765-717-566 – Please note, the zoom room link and Meeting ID will remain the same for each weekly meeting. Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net] [streamtext.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.streamtext.net_pla…> ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=…> At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge.icann.org_&d=D…> Facebook: facebook.com/icann [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icann…>atlarge [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icann…> Twitter: @ [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLar…>ICANNAtLarge [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLar…>

6 6

At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG)
by ICANN Policy Calendar Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 26 February 2020 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ryf6kre The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/bxuJBw Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566 / Meeting ID: 765-717-566 - Please note, the zoom room link and Meeting ID will remain the same for each weekly meeting. Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net] [streamtext.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.streamtext.net_pla…> ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=…> At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge.icann.org_&d=D…> Facebook: facebook.com/icann [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icann…>atlarge [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icann…> Twitter: @ [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLar…>ICANNAtLarge [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLar…>

1 0

Comment by Sunday, 23 Feb 23:59 UTC - ALAC Statement on Draft FY21-25 Operating & Financial Plan and Draft FY21 Operating Plan & Budget
by Evin Erdogdu Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

Dear All, The ALAC Statement on the Draft FY21-25 Operating & Financial Plan and Draft FY21 Operating Plan & Budget<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=124848145> is ready for your review. Note that a separate response to Appendix C, relating to the Evolution of the Multistakeholder Model, follows the statement. Please comment by Sunday, 23 February at 23:59 UTC:? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cf95Lk8trIqIC_QFFNV1zMwDkJ4rRP21mUmXhBf… Thank you, Evin

1 0