- CPWG - lists.icann.org

WT5 Geonames initial report -- slides to check out
by Marita Moll Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

Dear members of CPWG: Justine, Yrjo and I have been working on potential responses to the call for comments re: WT5 on Geonames Supplemental Initial Report. Justine has again come through with her superior slide making skills and the issues in this complex work stream have been organized and explained to the best of her (and our) ability. We have penciled in responses to the questions posed -- but, as always, they are there for you to consider and respond to. It is always easier to start with something than to be faced with a blank. So, please, give us your reactions. We are especially appealing to the many of you (27 in total) who have actually been monitoring and/or participating in these discussions. Let us know if we are on the right track. The bright red stars and red lettering are there to indicate items we perceive to be controversial. We would also draw your attention particularly to slides 18 and 19 which are asking for our ideas on the definition of terms such as "geographic names". In some of these, we have not yet entered suggestions -- waiting for your ideas. Slide deck posted as a comment on wiki page https://community.icann.org/x/kAP_BQ <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FkAP_BQ…> Go directly to pdf of slides: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=100533136 Please try to take a look at this information in preparation for our first round of discussions on this at Wednesday's CPWG meeting, or if you can't make the meeting, send your suggestions to the list, to any of us personally or put it on the wiki. Marita, Justine, Yrjo

1 0

Link - FY20 Planning Overview of Documents for Public Comment Webinar
by Evin Erdogdu Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

Dear CPWG Members, As per the AI from the last CPWG call<https://community.icann.org/x/fwj_BQ> of 2018, please see the “FY20 Planning Overview of Documents for Public Comment Webinar” recording link posted here: https://community.icann.org/display/projfinadhocws/FY20+Planning+Overview+o… Thank you, Evin

1 0

Meeting Invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 09 January 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 09 January 2019 at 21:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yb9w9y4v The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/y4oWBg AC Room: https://participate.icann.org/cpwg/ ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 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

EPDP Answer omissions?
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 6, 2019

Jan. 6, 2019

There have been questions asked as to why we omitted replying to certain questions in the EPDP response (in particular Recs 13, 14 and 21). This was not an error, but intentional. The Recs were in relation to Data Processing roles and responsibilities, the classification of who is the "controller" under GDPR, and what formal agreements need to be in place between the various contracted parties and ICANN. The answer is that we did not think that these issues had specific relevancy to Individual users nor did we have the legal expertise to contribute strong arguments. Alan

4 4

Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Feedback on EPDP Form Community Questions
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 6, 2019

Jan. 6, 2019

I'm not sure the issue is that important, but for the record, looking at the GoogleDoc reporting matrix (where you might go to verify your own replies), or even looking at entries in the traditional PC mailing list archive is one or more orders of magnitude easier than pro-actively seeking out our mailing lists and wiki sites. Alan At 22/12/2018 06:34 PM, Jonathan Zuck wrote: I must confess I don't find this compelling. Our wiki is not private. If Google wanted they could be scraping that. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2018 2:37:13 PM To: Christopher Wilkinson Cc: cpwg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Feedback on EPDP Form Community Questions +1 Christopher On 19.12.2018, at 17:49, cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Dar Evin, Dear Friends and Colleagues: Thankyou, Noted. However, this does not really address the issue. I am not concerned about Google having access to ‘my' personal comments and posting (which I understand I could protect from Google’s prying eyes by using the Word or .pdf forms.) The issue is that Goggle would have precocious and privileged access to (most of) the ensemble of community comments. Google is one of a a few major platforms which are interested parties. (a) how can one protect the independence of ICANN’s decisions if one of the major interested parties has prior knowledge of the community’s debates and (b) if Google can have that information only by virtue of offering a ’google forms’ service; what is to prevent the information being shared with Google’s competitors? > Google … automatically sorts and organises answers to questions… … which tacitly confirms that significant political and administrative power over EPDP is being transferred to a non-neutral platform. Regards CW On 19 Dec 2018, at 16:12, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org<mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org> > wrote: Dear All, Further to the AI from today’s CPWG call, please see below feedback on EPDP form community questions. Thanks to all for productive feedback regarding the form. * Community concern about the Google Form “harvesting all the information” submitted via the form. It was noted ICANN org and community use forms already, but this would be first time for public comment process. The comments are also public, but the concern was Google retention of the data. Any ALAC members concerned with Google’s retention of data may submit comments by filling out the word version of the form and sending it to At-Large Staffstaff<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> @atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> or policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. * Alternatives to the form. It was noted that for some in the world (i.e. in China), Google products are not available. Is there an official alternative submission method? One could use a Word Doc or PDF of the form. In general, the community wanted to know rationale for using Google forms for the whole process, as opposed to a fillable PDF, or Word doc template for comments? To facilitate offline work, or for those who may not have access to the form, you may download an offline version of the form here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-public-c… . Please submit completed forms to At-Large Staff staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> or policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. EPDP Leadership chose to utilize Google Forms because Google automatically sorts and organizes answers to questions, which will expedite the process of compiling comments received. For more information, anyone interested may refer to the EPDP Leadership webinar<https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/2018-11-29+EPDP+Initial+Report…>, during which the rationale for and explanation of the Google Form is described. * Public visibility of draft mode. It was noted you may save progress on the Google Form, then submit later, but that the saved work was public. This was seen as undesirable by many in the community. Is there a way to not have the draft/saved form public; only have the final submission public? Commenters have the option of using the word version to work offline and then can complete the Google form when finished. We are not aware of a way to save progress privately on Google Forms. * Concerns with mistakes in the form submission process. The suggested alternative to the above was working from a Word doc, then copying + pasting over. The concern was the potential for mistakes. If mistakes are made on the submission, as is currently done, would it be possible to remove or revise the submission to public comment? Yes. Commenters are able to edit their previous submission by following prompts in the email they will receive from Google. If the commenter would like to delete a submission, please notify policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>, and EPDP Staff Support can assist. Kind Regards, Evin _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@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 _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

7 6

Fwd: Read the SubPro PDP Newsletter - January 2019 Edition
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Jan. 5, 2019

Jan. 5, 2019

FYI -- for anyone who is interested, I really recommend subscribing to the SubPro PDP Newsletter. Best Wishes for 2019! Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Read the SubPro PDP Newsletter - January 2019 Edition Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 15:43:50 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Reply-To: emily.barabas(a)icann.org To: ocl(a)gih.com The latest edition is now available. New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP January 2019 Newsletter CURRENT STATUS Full Working Group and Sub Groups A, B, and C Three Sub Groups continue to meet on a regular basis to review public comments <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>received on the Working Group’s Initial Report <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>. The full Working Group continues to meet regularly to address issues that the Sub Groups have referred to the full Working Group for additional consideration. Following an extension, the public comment <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>period on the Working Group’s supplemental Initial Report <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>closed on 21 December. The supplemental Initial Report covers topics that were not included in the Initial Report and that the Working Group determined required additional consideration. The full Working Group held one regular meeting in December: 18 December <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>: * Went over the status of Sub Groups A, B, and C and Work Track 5 * Continued to discuss topics <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>raised in public comment that the Sub Groups referred to the full Working Group for additional consideration and recommendations contained in the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team Final Report targeting the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group Sub Groups held the following meetings to make progress on the Working Group’s review of public comments on the Initial Report: Sub Group A * 6 December <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>: Review of comments on Predictability <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>and Clarity of the Application Process <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…> * 13 December <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>: Review of comments on Clarity of the Application Process <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>and Applications Assessed in Rounds <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…> * 20 December <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>: Review of comments on Applications Assessed in Rounds <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…> Sub Group B * 4 December <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>: Review of comments on Application Fees <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>and Variable Fees <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…> * 11 December <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>: Review of comments on Variable Fees <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>and Application Submission Period <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…> * 18 December <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>: Review of comments on Application Submission Period <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>and Terms and Conditions <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…> Sub Group C * 6 December <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>: Review of comments on Objections <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…> * 13 December <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>: Review of comments on Objections <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…> * 20 December <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>: Review of comments on Objections <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…> A summary of meetings held in January will be covered in the next edition of the newsletter. Work Track 5 The public comment period <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>for the Work Track 5 supplemental Initial Report <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>remains open until 22 January. This report focuses exclusively on the issue of geographic names at the top level. Work Track 5 did not hold meetings in December in order to encourage members to focus on drafting comments on the Initial Report. NEXT STEPS Full Working Group and Sub Groups A, B, and C The full Working Group has meetings scheduled for 7 January and 22 January to continue its discussion of items referred from the Sub Groups. Each of the Sub Groups will continue to meet weekly in January. With the closure of the public comment period for the supplemental Initial Report, staff will produce a Report of Public Comments summarizing the input received. Work Track 5 The Work Track 5 Co-Leaders will hold a webinar for the community on Wednesday 9 January at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. The purpose of the webinar is to provide an overview of the Work Track 5 supplemental Initial Report and answer questions from community members about the report. The webinar will notinclude debate on substantive issues contained in the report. All are welcome to attend the webinar. If you would like to participate, please register here <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT? In June 2014, the GNSO Council established a Discussion Group that was intended to evaluate the experiences of the 2012 round gTLD Program and to identify possible areas for future GNSO policy development. The Discussion Group’s deliverables <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>served as the basis for the GNSO Council request for a Preliminary Issue Report in June of 2015. Following the publication of the Final Issue Report <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>, the GNSO Council adopted the charter <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…>for the PDP Working Group, which began its work in February 2016. The Working Group initially concentrated on a set of overarching issues. It later conducted deliberations on additional topics in its charter using five separate Work Tracks: Work Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach, Work Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory, Work Track 3: String Contention/Objections & Disputes, Work Track 4: Internationalized Domain Names/Technical & Operations, Work Track 5: Geographic Names at the Top Level. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? The Discussion Group identified a number of subjects that may require further analysis and possible formulation of policy language. There are existing policy recommendations adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board, which will remain in place unless the PDP WG determines that changes are needed. More Information * Workspace Wiki <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…> * Charter <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…> * Active Project Page <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…> * GNSO Website <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…> To join this effort, please email the GNSO Secretariat: gnso-secs(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. All are welcome! Follow the GNSO on Twitter Twitter ‌ <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iTaPb599Oe2dF3krMDKHNeTpTiwrYsb2nJ3A_9LS_5Po…> ICANN| 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 sent by emily.barabas(a)icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> in collaboration with Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today. <http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=nge> Try it free today <http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=nge>

1 0

EPDP Submission
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 4, 2019

Jan. 4, 2019

The draft submission has been updated at https://community.icann.org/x/1wLuBQ, largely in response to the comments submitted. A The most significant changes are for questions 29, 30, 44, 45, 145, 147. I don't think that any of the changes will change the comfort level of those who have been active in our discussions within At-Large. The document is largely frozen subject to final editing and will be submitted on Friday. Alan

4 4

Call for Comments by 04 Jan 14:00 UTC: Application for New Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Dispute-Resolution Service Provider
by Evin Erdogdu Jan. 3, 2019

Jan. 3, 2019

Dear All, Please provide feedback on the draft statement by 14:00 UTC tomorrow, Friday, 04 January, to provide time for revisions before submission deadline. Thank you, Evin From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 8:02 PM To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann(a)gmail.com> Subject: Call for Comments by 04 Jan 14:00 UTC: Application for New Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Dispute-Resolution Service Provider Dear All, Please note the first draft ALAC statement on Application for New Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Dispute-Resolution Service Provider<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+App…> is ready for your review. The draft, as well as pertinent resources that provide background to this statement, can be found in its wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/vArVBQ. All At-Large members are welcome to comment on this draft by 04 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC. Please take a moment to review this draft and if you have input, please submit it in the wiki workspace using the comment function. You will need to log in to the wiki to use the comment function. If you don’t have a login or have other issue using the wiki, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. Kind Regards, 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

REMINDER: Announcement: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group’s Work Track 5 on geographic names at the top level webinar
by Evin Erdogdu Jan. 3, 2019

Jan. 3, 2019

Dear CPWG Members, Please see below forwarded message regarding the upcoming webinar on WT5. Please note the related public comment is Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top Level - Supplemental Initial Report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=100533136>, closing 22 January 2019. Best, Evin * * * Dear all, The Co-Leaders of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group’s Work Track 5 on geographic names at the top level will be holding a community information webinar on Wednesday 9 January 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. The purpose of the webinar is to provide an overview of Work Track 5’s Supplemental Initial Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/subsequen…>, for which a public comment period<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-names-wt5-initial-2018-12-05-en> is currently open. The public comment period is scheduled to close on 22 January 2019. The goal of this webinar is not to debate substantive issues contained in the report but rather to ensure that there is an understanding of the structure and content of the document and answer questions. All are welcome to attend the webinar. If you would like to participate, please fill out this form: https://goo.gl/forms/cGZVV86qjaqJt56v2 You will receive call details by email. The webinar will be recorded for those who are unable to attend. We look forward to your participation. Kind Regards, 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

ICANN's response to Afilias inre .web kerfuffle
by Carlton Samuels Dec. 27, 2018

Dec. 27, 2018

... they argue against 'emergency relief' and the IRP, which, on the balance of facts and logic, is both rational and reasonable. But they really should stop trumpeting 'diversity and creativity' as measures of success for the ngTLD program though. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-afilias-icann-opp-emergency… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0