Hello Evan, As one of the two people assigned to do an initial review of the .NET agreement, I welcome you to attend next Wednesday's CPWG call where Bill and I be providing a review of our initial findings and whether ALAC should move forward with a formal response. It is kind of a beefy document as I am only on page 3 of 72 of the redline I prepared referencing the .NET to the baseline gTLD registry document. My personal initial concern is that every other legacy operator has migrated toward the new baseline registry agreement, yet ICANN is permitting Verisign to mark up an old .NET agreement. It makes it very hard for the community to track changes in contracts that deviate from the baseline. Unfortunately, ICANN only provided a redline of the old .NET not a red line to the baseline. Look forward to having you participate in next Wednesday's call. The more eyes on deck the better. Best regards, Michael From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jonathan Zuck via CPWG Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 1:22 PM To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Something of actual importance to end-users Wait so we DO care about registrants?! ;) Seriously, we just assigned two people to read the agreement, yesterday, and report back to the CPWG. Jonathan Zuck Director, Future of Work Project Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org> ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 12:12:27 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: [CPWG] Something of actual importance to end-users https://freespeech.com/2023/04/19/red-alert-icann-and-verisign-proposal-woul... Let's briefly put aside the boasting about ALAC's incremental involvement in the trivial agendas set by ICANN's vested interests. Here's a real example of an issue that can negatively affect end-users. The aims of the proposed modification may be laudable, but there's too much room for arbitrariness and too much potential to curb political speech unwanted by a government. BTW ... Why was this not already flagged by ALAC as cause for concern? Why did I have to find out about this in the media rather than from the inside. Was ALAC intending to ignore it? This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. ALAC is obsessed with the trivial and the self-absorbed, but asleep during the issues that actually affect the constituency we're supposed to serve. Does ALAC have what it takes to fight for the public interest on something that actually matters? Is it capable of balancing the various intertwining issues? If the CPWG meets on this issue I'll be there. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56