- CPWG - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes, action items and outcomes of day 3 EPDP F2F
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Jan. 20, 2019

Jan. 20, 2019

FYI -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes, action items and outcomes of day 3 EPDP F2F Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 23:47:18 +0000 From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.org> To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached the notes, action items, and outcomes of Day 3 of the EPDP Team F2F meeting in Toronto. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

2 1

Sub. pro. WT5 - definition of geonames
by Marita Moll Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

*Request for feedback on proposal re: definitions either on list or in the google doc: * *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BQIg8Y2igjRmTDHbmBr-ahuovp7EXrOBwa6SArEB2K0/edit# * ** *Question e2* * The definition of the term “geographic name” could impact development of policy and implementation guidance, as well as program implementation details, such as guidance for the Geographic Names Panel in the New gTLD application process. In your view, how should the term “geographic name” be defined for the purposes of the New gTLD Program? Should there be any special requirements or implications for a term that is considered a “geographic name”? Is “geographic name” the appropriate term to use in this context, as opposed to, for example, “term with geographic meaning”? Why or why not *Proposed ALAC response: A clear definition of "geographic name" is certainly lacking in this discussion. Perhaps what is needed is to separate "man-made" places from natural features. In practice, most geographic names that the AGB covers, and that have been discussed in WT 5, refer to some sort of inhabited administrative units of any size that are clearly delimited in area and that are under one political authority. ( UNESCO regions are an exception). ALAC suggests that such administrative units should be Category 1 geographic names. So far, WT5 has only dealt with Category 1 names and all proposals so far could be taken to refer to Category 1 names only. Category 2 would be all the rest: mountains, rivers, seas, plains, moors, marches, etc., tentatively called "geographic features". Category 2 could be dealt with as special cases, according to guidelines yet to be drawn. Perhaps there should be panel competent to evaluate the historical and cultural values and sensitivities that are attached to such names. In case a name belongs to both, Category 1 takes precedence. It is proposed that WT5 continue to deal first with Category 1 names. *Thanks* *Marita and Justine*

1 0

Sub.pro. WT5 -- PR#12
by Marita Moll Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

Please can we have some more feedback on this item either *on the list or on the google.doc** * *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BQIg8Y2igjRmTDHbmBr-ahuovp7EXrOBwa6SArEB2K0/edit#* ** *Preliminary Recommendation 12* /Work Track 5 recommends continuing to consider the following category a geographic name requiring government support at the top level. Applications for these strings must be accompanied by documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities:/ // /● An application for any string that is an exact match of a sub-national place //name, such as a county, province, or state, listed in the ISO 3166-2 standard./ **** ** Our current draft response reads: The ALAC supports Preliminary Recommendation 12 for continuing the requirement that all applications for these strings be accompanied by documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities without exception and irrespective of any statements of intended use of the string. ** We have, on hand, one disagreement with this draft response. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BQIg8Y2igjRmTDHbmBr-ahuovp7EXrOBwa6SArE… Thanks Justine and Marita **

1 0

WT5 request for comments -- PR#11 - letters of support
by Marita Moll Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

Colleagues, despite the great discussion we had on the cpwg call on Wednesday, we ran out of time and we need more input on the following issue in the sub.pro. WT5 request for comments on geo-names: */Preliminary Recommendation 11/* */Work Track 5 recommends continuing to consider the following category a geographic name requiring government support at the top level. Applications for these strings must be accompanied by documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities if://**/* * /**/ /*An application for a city name, where the applicant declares that it intends to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city name. An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from *//*relevant governments or public authorities) if: (a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD *primarily *for purposes associated with the city name; and (b) The applied-for string is a city name as listed on official city documents*/ /**/ /**The suggestion is that we support PR #11– but because of uncertainty over “primarily” and enforcement of limitation (i.e. can be circumvented by not declaring intended use or declaring another intended use) requirement for support/non-objection letter should be the sole mechanism for city name applications**/ ** *** There was a deep split in the work track on this issue. One of our members is on record (see google doc) as opposing the suggestion that there be a requirement for a letter of support/non-objection in all cases. Please let us know where you stand. You can enter your comments directly into the google.doc or send them to the list and we will assemble. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BQIg8Y2igjRmTDHbmBr-ahuovp7EXrOBwa6SArE… Thanks Marita and Justine

1 0

Subsequent Procedures | Draft At-Large Position to Neustar's proposal for 3-phased New gTLD Application Model Consultation
by Justine Chew Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

Dear all, I have posted a draft position for this consultation on the wiki workspace: Consultation on Neustar's Proposal for 3-Phased New gTLD Application Model <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Con…> Would appreciate receiving any comments, concerns, suggested amendments or indications of support in the next few days. Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 22:18, Alexander Schubert <alexander(a)schubert.berlin> wrote: > > > Hi Tujani, > > > > Well, it still has its merits: “Brand applications” are fairly easy to > evaluate, and if they are based on “true BRANDS” (which mostly bear > non-generic terms like “YAHOO” or “BMW”) then in all likelihood there won’t > be a similar or identical geo or generic-term based application in the 3rd > phase! So by the start of the 3rd phase ICANN would already have > evaluated all 1st and 2nd phase applications, and save for very singular > events (or “fraudsters”) there won’t be any “overlap” (maybe between brand > and geo as many brands are feeding from the good standing that cities have > built over decades, centuries in some cases even millennia). So let ICANN > have all the phase 1 and 2 applications evaluated already – but there won’t > be ANY “contracting” yet: ONLY if there are no similar or identical > applications in the THIRD PHASE the contracting can start ASAP! > > Here btw another “fraud”-type of thing that would happen in the currently > proposed Neustar model (if we would NOT wait with contracting until ALL > applications are in, and potentially “late contentions sets” could emerge): > You probably remember that some “brands” thought it would be beneficial if > they would “get hold” of “their” industry vertical! Examples being > “.makeup” by L’Oréal or .cruise by Viking Cruises! .cruise is especially > bitter: > There was a nice stakeholder group supported (think “community” – but > “stakeholder”) application by “Cruise Lines International Association Inc.” > (cruising.org = “Established in 1975, Cruise Lines International > Association is the world’s largest cruise industry trade association”). I > think EVERY SINGLE INTERNET USER would agree, that a “.cruise” by that > association would have been PERFECT: a perfect match of the mission of > ICANN! Cruise organizers could have registered domains for their companies > and ships and cruises! Yet: Viking Cruises NEEDED to persist – and got the > TLD! It’s in the root since over 2 years now! And there are ZERO > registrations outside of the mandatory nic.cruise! > These guys applied in spring 2012. They had over 4.5 years of time in > planning how to launch their gTLD! Now it’s sitting there since over two > years – and no domains are available. Looks to me as they simply wanted to > claim land – but never use it; never wanted to make it available to the > cruise industry! > > Guess what will happen in 2020? “Consultants” will squirrel around and > call new media managers of multi-billion corporations and tell them: “Look: > there is only one .dairy but you have a number of high profile competitors: > stay industry leader and secure .dairy for a one-time lump sum price of $US > 500k including 10 years of maintenance. We do EVERYTHING for you, including > application, contracting, delegation, etc! Take it now: think LATER what > you do with it!”. > > > > Now if you have a phase 1 for “closed applications” (specification 13) for > “brands”: COOOOOOL! Nobody has ever DEFINED what a “brand” is. Likely you > do not have to proof the very existence of such “brand” – well: IF then a > simply US $200 trade mark application will do the trick! We reverted the > process: instead of having to proof that your brand is really “in use” we > said: “If somebody signs spec 13: that’s enough”. And if you want to take a > generic industry term “out of circulation”: Well, you just apply for it as > “brand” – and you have it. You can then offer domains to resellers, > friendly bloggers etc! Say you have the “.drone” and you are one of the big > drone manufacturers: You allow blogs and brand-forums that are writing > positively about you to use “.drone” domains, FOR FREE! If they do not > comply: you shut them down. Nice. Do we want that? > > “Brands” could get an early application window and through that an early > evaluation. But NO CONTRACTING before the very last phase 3 application is > in. IF there is a contention set: then it will have to be dealt with! > Contention may result from identical strings, or SIMILAR strings (string > similarity). > > What I do like about Neustar’s idea is: Brands do not apply by themselves. > They are triggered and consulted by 3rd party professionals. A brand > application is essentially a “copy paste job” – with a bit bolstering here > and there. Whereas if you go for a geo: Oh boy. Obviously the hardest are > non-profit, public-benefit, stakeholder group funded, owned, policied, > supported and marketed applications: It takes YEARS to bring them together. > I work on one since 2016 now already. So let the consultants go to the > brands and have them submitting applications already – and ICANN can > already evaluate them! That gives the others time to sort their > applications out – and apply later! It also “frees up” much needed > capacities for later evaluations. In that respect: A good idea! BUT: > contention sets have to have the chance to form – no contracting before the > last application is in. If a brand is called “VEED” but somebody applies > for “.weed” (and I can guarantee you: there are applicant for .weed): looks > like string similarity – they will have to form a contention set. > > Thanks, > > > > Alexander.berlin > > > > > > > > *From:* Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 09, 2019 10:23 AM > *To:* alexander(a)schubert.berlin > *Cc:* cpwg(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent > Procedures | Request for feedback on Neustar's proposal for 3-phased New > gTLD Application Model > > > > Good point Alexander. Thank you. > > Now, I change my position regarding the phased application round: I don’t > find it fair nor relevant anymore. > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) > > Phone: +216 98 330 114 > > +216 52 385 114 > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Le 9 janv. 2019 à 01:04, Alexander Schubert <alexander(a)schubert.berlin> a > écrit : > > > > Hi all, > > > > In general there might be a value to the multi-tier application process. > But I see a fatal problem: abuse of phase 1 or 2 to snag away generic > terms! Abuse of phase 1 to snag away geo terms! > > The paper references to the last round and claimed there was no “abuse” > regarding brand applications. Well, how could there have been “abuse”? > However: if labeling an application “brand” will put me in the pole > position in 2019; you will see abuse a lot. Examples: > > - .coin (blockchain based currencies) > > - .ico (Initial Coin Offering: if you do not know what this is > then you are born before 1990) > > - .weed (this is worth 8 figures in U.S. Dollares: getting it > at application fee would be the ultimate scoup) > > > > If I knew that I could get any of these WITHOUT ANY COMPETITION – wow: > having to run them as “closed gTLD” would be a small price to pay. Look how > well “.us.com” (“.de.com”, etc.) sell: www.us.com, SEVERAL TIMES MORE > EXPENSIVE THAN .com!! These are also kind of “closed gTLDs” (on third > level). I would simply “lease” the “.coin” domain-usage to third parties – > but I remain the owner! > > > > Or “geo applications”? Same problem! If I want “.weed” – there are SEVERAL > places “Weed” in the world! I don’t even need their consent (letter of > non-objection) as they aren’t “cities”! GREAT! The same for “.coin”! And > “.ico”! Look for yourselves at www.geonames.org – all place names that do > NOT need letters of non-objection! > > In other words: We would INVITE “fraudsters” to take generic and geo > names in the 1st phase, or to steal generic names in the geo names > phase! You find a “place” for almost EVERY generic term! > > Here however why the overall Neustar plan might work (with a caveat): > ICANN could start to EVALUATE applications based on this tiered > application plan! But no single gTLD can be designated until the last > application from stage 3 is in! We MUST allow contention sets to form. In > other words: If by Jan 12 2021 nobody else has applied for a certain string > that has been applied for in the “brand phase”: they can contract ASAP as > they have been evaluated a long time ago; freeing up capacities for phase 3 > applications! Which would be good for them as that is an IMMENSE “fast > track”. However: IF somebody would apply for the same string in phase 2 or > 3: a contention set would form! > > > > So the plan is GREAT – just nothing would be contracted before the end of > the 3rd phase (and ONLY if there is no contention). The same is true for > “string similarity”. If a smallish brand applies for “.shangai” and would > be granted the application before the phase 2 starts, then Shanghai and > it’s 24 Million constituents could NOT apply, if SHANGAI and SHANGHAI would > be too similar (if this example doesn’t work, there will be others). Again: > We need contentions sets and string similarities to form and fight it out! > > > > Regarding the 3rd round: while it is part of the Neustar plan – that’s > wholly independent. Right now we are planning the 2ndround. The 3rd round > is completely independent from the 2nd round. > > Thanks, > > > > Alexander.berlin > > > > > > > > *From:* GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org > <gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marita Moll > *Sent:* Saturday, January 05, 2019 4:51 PM > *To:* Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn>; Sebastien Bachollet < > sebicann(a)bachollet.fr> > *Cc:* cpwg(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Subsequent Procedures | Request for > feedback on Neustar's proposal for 3-phased New gTLD Application Model > > > > I agree with the suggestions that there is an appearance of conflict of > interest and that there is an apparent "pushing" of the dates fast forward. > I believe, in our submission, we expressed caution about entering into a > new round. Although the slides suggest a pent-up demand in the .brand > category -- is there actually evidence for this? > > That said, when a new round happens, this isn't a bad strategy. I like > Tijani's reorganization of the phases though. > > Marita > > On 1/5/2019 6:37 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > > Justine, thanks again; This is another excellent piece of work. > > > > I tend to agree with Olivier regarding the conflict of interest of Jeff. I > attended the SubPro WG meeting in Barcelona, and Jeff said they are > preparing fpr the new application process even before the whole > consultation process finishes and before the final approval of the Board. I > asked why the rush…. I find the Neustar proposal premature since it’s not > yet decided if there will be successive rounds or a single open round. > Their proposal of a phased round followed immediately by an open round gave > me the impression that decisions are already made. > > > > As for phased round, it might be a good thing, but I disagree with the > order of the phases and their nature: > > - The community applications shouldn’t be combined with the generic > ones > - I agree that the first phase can be for the dot brand TLDs that are > not geo names > - The second phase should be for the community TLDs and applications > supported by the ASP since we proposed that these applications should have > the priority in case of string contention. > - 3rd phase for the geo TLDs > - 4th phase for the generic TLDs > > > > But as I said, all this is premature and will depend on the content of the > WG final report approved by the board (priority policy for community and > supported applications, kind of application rounds, etc.). > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) > > Phone: +216 98 330 114 > > +216 52 385 114 > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Le 5 janv. 2019 à 10:47, Sebastien Bachollet <sebicann(a)bachollet.fr> a > écrit : > > > > Hello, > > Thanks > > I support in large part the comments of OCL > > But it will be easier if we get the slide deck (I didn’t know why I didn’t > get it - yet?) > > All the best > > SeB > > > > > Le 5 janv. 2019 à 09:49, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> a écrit : > > > > Dear Justine, > > thank you very much for putting together slides with Neustar's proposals. > I must admit that these slides made me feel particularly uneasy about the > whole process of subsequent procedures. Without prejudice, here we have the > Chair of the working group, main driver of the working group moving > forward, ex-Neustar and currently working for Valideus, a company that > stands to capitalise significantly in the creation of brand TLDs, pushing a > calendar that is suggested by his ex-firm, favouring his current firm. I > cannot stop seeing a flashing sign telling me "conflict of interest" here. > > > At ICANN Studienkreis and elsewhere, Cherine Chalaby has been asking the > community about the need for a fast next round, and the majority of people > around the table, whether end users, businesses, registrars and established > registries said they were not eager for an immediate next round. It is only > companies that stand to benefit directly from new gTLDs, such as the > service providers that have flourished to help with TLD applications (and > independent consultants), or register brands, or apply a city TLD business > model that they have already applied elsewhere, who are pushing for a next > round. > > I am not against a next round, but when I see an illustration on page 4 > saying "brand TLDs" with an application window 1st Oct 2919 to 12 Jan 2020 > (even though there is an asterisk saying proposed dates are illustrative > only), this worries me as a way to circulate potential dates for next > round. That is, again, putting the carriage before the horses. > > That said, on the actual concept of three phase model, and irrespective of > the above, I am not against the concept of phases, but I do not agree with > the proposed phases themselves. Phase 1, brands, sound okay, except for > those brands that are geographic names. I would argue that Community TLDs > should not be batched with generic TLDs and should be prioritised before > GeoTLDs. So Community TLDs should go to phase 2 and Geo TLDs could go to > phase 3. I would also say that I have seen significant pushback on generic > TLDs that are based on generic words, so I really wonder how that is going > to pan out. > > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 05/01/2019 09:08, Justine Chew wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > Greetings for the New Year 2019. > > During one of the SubPro PDP Sub-Group's review of community submissions > received for the Public Comment on the Initial Report on the New gTLD > Subsequent Procedures PDP (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4) (which > concluded on 26 Sep 2018), that WG's Co-Chair, Jeff Neuman, requested that > SO/AC liaisons obtain from their stakeholder groups *feedback on a > proposal by Neustar for the (next) New gTLD Program applications to be > conducted in three phases followed by an open round*. > > *Details of Neustar's proposal are contained in the attached slide deck. * > > I invite you to provide feedback on the same by:- > > 1) Replying to this email (or to me privately, if you prefer); > 2) Starting a separate email thread to cpwg(a)icann.org if you wish to > discuss a specific aspect of the said proposal; and/or > 3) Joining the next CPWG call (tentatively on 9 Jan 2019, please look out > for a notice from At-Large staff for this call) > > > Thank you. > > Justine Chew > ----- > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CPWG mailing list > > CPWG(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > > > > > -- > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > Working Group direct URL: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs > > > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CPWG mailing list > > CPWG(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > _______________________________________________ > registration-issues-wg mailing list > registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg > > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg >

2 2

Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 3 hours
by Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

To those who would like to follow the EPDP meetings below are the links for the audio and the view only Adobe connect room Best Hadia ________________________________ Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP call taking place on Tuesdays and Thursdays via the audio cast or view only Adobe Connect room. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Team AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. Note that the audio cast stream will also remain available for now for those that prefer to use that option to listen live to the EPDP Team meeting. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-epdp-observers Meeting Audio Cast (for alternates and observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9JUWBg Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes, action items and outcomes of day 2
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

FYI - here is day 2. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes, action items and outcomes of day 2 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 00:13:08 +0000 From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.org> To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached the notes, action items and outcomes of Day 2 of the EPDP Team F2F meeting in Toronto. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

1 0

Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes, action items and outcomes of day 1
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Jan. 17, 2019

Jan. 17, 2019

Hello all, forwarded here since both Alan and Hadia are in Toronto and given the length of this set of notes, it looks like they have had no time whatsoever in a very very busy day. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes, action items and outcomes of day 1 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 23:39:56 +0000 From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached the notes, action items and outcomes of day 1 of the EPDP Team F2F meeting in Toronto. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika */Marika Konings/* /Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) / /Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> / / / /Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/ /Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>. /

2 1

Meeting Invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 23 January 2019 at 19:30 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 17, 2019

Jan. 17, 2019

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 23 January 2019 at 19:30 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yd6geoea The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/EpUWBg AC Room: https://participate.icann.org/cpwg/ ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 3535 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann 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

Public Comment on IANA Function Agreement Amendment
by Greg Shatan Jan. 16, 2019

Jan. 16, 2019

All, I have attached a PowerPoint (also in PDF) to facilitate discussion of whether to file public comment in connection with the amendment of the IANA Function Agreement. Best regards, Greg Greg Shatan greg(a)isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*

2 1