Dear Mike

Though I agree this is quite important move to guarantee transparency and accountability, I believe that person names do not add much value to this letter. Special from ones from outside US when addressing to the NTIA.

My suggestion would be ALAC, GAC, Registrar, BC ..to sign in the name of their members who represent some of the multi-stakeholders in the ICANN model.

Kisses

Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados

São Paulo, Brazil

vanda@scartezini.org

Mobile: + 55 11 98181-1464

From: mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, 13 August 2024 at 14:22
To: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org>
Subject: [CPWG] Potential Topic of Discussion - NTIA & Verisign Cooperative Agreement

Hello All,

While not seeking to rehash previous discussions about what is and what is not within the scope of ALAC, I wanted to bring to everyone’s attention recent communications between NTIA and Verisign involving .COM and the Cooperative Agreement, see https://www.ntia.gov/other-publication/2024/ntia-letter-verisign

As many may recall, as part of the .NET public comment consultation process last year, I advocated for the inclusion of a standard contractual provision that would require Verisign to participate in any ICANN economic studies.  Sadly, ICANN and Verisign opted not to include that provision in the finalized .NET RA.

Attached is a draft letter, which I will submit to NTIA shortly. If there are any parties interested in being co-signatories, please contact me off the list.  

Best regards,

Michael