Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs
Dear Cyrus Namazi : Having reviewed your draft document, for which I thank you, circulated to the PDP at Marrakech, I would wish to record the following comments, to which I referred, on—line, during the ICANN65 PDP meetings. In general, I find that your document heaves too closely to the idea that the next gTLD Rounds would mirror what your predecessors did in 2012. Whereas, from my point of view the whole point of the current PDP is to find better ways of doing things next time around. This should include greater attention to geographical balance, greater diversity, and ensuring as far as possible that newly delegated gTLDs will actually be used. Words (not 'strings') , in all languages and scripts, are meanings in the public domain, contributing to communications, culture and understanding of the general public, world—wide. Until very recently, there would have been no question of the monopolization of the uses of a word. But now with Generic TLDs, this has become a very real prospect, on-line. The ICANN community has contributed massively to this fact through the single, unique Internet Root. We support the single Root for many reasons, unrelated to the gTLD programme, but we must recognise that ultimately the monopolization of words as gTLDs will undermine global support for the single Root. Accordingly, I consider that the application, delegation and use of words as gTLDs has to be handled - indeed 'regulated' – by ICANN with utmost care, not only for today's users, but also for future users in the long term. Already, our society, politics and economics have given us codes, names and other words which are particularly recognisablel. These are not 'generic' in any meaningful sense; rather the contrary. Returning to your draft document, I would have the following more specific comments: 1. Assumptions: Your paper assumes that the next round will take the form of one large open round. There is no consensus in there PDP about moving in that direction. On the contrary, some of us have argued for several distinct, specific, windows based on pre-defined categories of TLDs. This option does not appear from your draft. That approach would facilitate encouraging applications from previously under-served categories of applicants and helpl to ensure that evaluators and eventual arbitrators are in fact well-versed in the issues affecting each group of applications. 2. Volumes: Your paper proposes an arbitrarily large volume of new applications, all at once in a single window. That is not a model that I would share. It would give no time for, and stretch available qualified resources for, qualitative analysis and evaluation of applications, including time for consultation and – should the need arise – for eventual opposition. On the contrary I would strongly recommend a Round that is phased, prioritised and transparent, notably to third partieds. Outsourcing: The paper is not quite consistent: on the one hand one has 'as little as possible will be outsourced' and on the other hand one has 'evaluation and objection processing' may be outsourced 'to expert firms'… But those are precisely the functions that are most important for the credibility and accountability of te whole process, bearing in mind that the characteristics of applications may become far more diverse in several respects, compared with 2012. See also point 1, above. 4, Costs and Application Support: The paper is silent on application support, whereas in the light of the meagre outcome in 2012 in this respect, the eyes of all are upon ICANN to effectively implement a workable and results oriented application support programme. This is a question of prioritization, in time and in the budget. Ploint 1, above, refers. There are other more detailed points arising from your paper which I would gladly discuss with you through the PDP or bilaterally. Meanwhile, I would be glad if your department would take on board the philosophy and key points that I have set out above. With many thanks to you and your colleagues, Regards Christopher Wilkinson
From: Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi@icann.org <mailto:cyrus.namazi@icann.org>> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 1:33 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> Cc: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org <mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>>; David Olive <david.olive@icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs
Dear Cheryl and Jeff; We understand that the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group expects to publish its final report with its recommendations by December 2019. As you likely know, these recommendations may lead to procedural changes for subsequent rounds of gTLD applications, which ICANN org must implement and manage. In the course of our preparatory work toward the planning and implementation of the new policy, ICANN org has compiled a number of fundamental operationally focused assumptions to help with the preliminary planning and operational readiness of the organization. I have shared these assumptions with the ICANN Board, and am now sharing them with all ICANN constituencies in the briefing document attached. If the PDP Working Group members are interested in further engagement and providing feedback and perspective on these assumptions please let me know and we will be happy to arrange a mutually convenient time for a discussion. Ideally, we could leverage the time in Marrakech for a face-to-face meeting. For your information, this information will also be included in the ICANN Community Digest which is planned to be issued later this week.
Sincerely,
Cyrus Namazi Senior Vice President | Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 801 17th St NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 USA
Office +1 202 249 7543 | Mobile +1 408 421 6894 Skype : cnamazi www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information seewww.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/><Pre-Engagement Comms Attachment_ Assumptions Paper 6.7.19 (1).pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> _______________________________________________ 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.
Thanks for this email Christopher These are important issues for ALAC - issues we have expressed concern over before and should continue to do so. Jonathan, could we discuss these issues at the next CPWG Thanks Holly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Wilkinson" To:, Cc:"cpwg@icann.org" , "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" , "Jeff Neuman" Sent:Sat, 6 Jul 2019 19:25:53 +0200 Subject:Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs Dear Cyrus Namazi : Having reviewed your draft document, for which I thank you, circulated to the PDP at Marrakech, I would wish to record the following comments, to which I referred, on—line, during the ICANN65 PDP meetings. In general, I find that your document heaves too closely to the idea that the next gTLD Rounds would mirror what your predecessors did in 2012. Whereas, from my point of view the whole point of the current PDP is to find better ways of doing things next time around. This should include greater attention to geographical balance, greater diversity, and ensuring as far as possible that newly delegated gTLDs will actually be used. Words (not 'strings') , in all languages and scripts, are meanings in the public domain, contributing to communications, culture and understanding of the general public, world—wide. Until very recently, there would have been no question of the monopolization of the uses of a word. But now with Generic TLDs, this has become a very real prospect, on-line. The ICANN community has contributed massively to this fact through the single, unique Internet Root. We support the single Root for many reasons, unrelated to the gTLD programme, but we must recognise that ultimately the monopolization of words as gTLDs will undermine global support for the single Root. Accordingly, I consider that the application, delegation and use of words as gTLDs has to be handled - indeed 'regulated' – by ICANN with utmost care, not only for today's users, but also for future users in the long term. Already, our society, politics and economics have given us codes, names and other words which are particularly recognisablel. These are not 'generic' in any meaningful sense; rather the contrary. Returning to your draft document, I would have the following more specific comments: 1. ASSUMPTIONS: Your paper assumes that the next round will take the form of one large open round. There is no consensus in there PDP about moving in that direction. On the contrary, some of us have argued for several distinct, specific, windows based on pre-defined categories of TLDs. This option does not appear from your draft. That approach would facilitate encouraging applications from previously under-served categories of applicants and helpl to ensure that evaluators and eventual arbitrators are in fact well-versed in the issues affecting each group of applications. 2. VOLUMES: Your paper proposes an arbitrarily large volume of new applications, all at once in a single window. That is not a model that I would share. It would give no time for, and stretch available qualified resources for, qualitative analysis and evaluation of applications, including time for consultation and – should the need arise – for eventual opposition. On the contrary I would strongly recommend a Round that is phased, prioritised and transparent, notably to third partieds. * OUTSOURCING: The paper is not quite consistent: on the one hand one has 'as little as possible will be outsourced' and on the other hand one has 'evaluation and objection processing' may be outsourced 'to expert firms'… But those are precisely the functions that are most important for the credibility and accountability of te whole process, bearing in mind that the characteristics of applications may become far more diverse in several respects, compared with 2012. See also point 1, above. 4, COSTS AND APPLICATION SUPPORT: The paper is silent on application support, whereas in the light of the meagre outcome in 2012 in this respect, the eyes of all are upon ICANN to effectively implement a workable and results oriented application support programme. This is a question of prioritization, in time and in the budget. Ploint 1, above, refers. There are other more detailed points arising from your paper which I would gladly discuss with you through the PDP or bilaterally. Meanwhile, I would be glad if your department would take on board the philosophy and key points that I have set out above. With many thanks to you and your colleagues, Regards Christopher Wilkinson FROM: Cyrus Namazi SENT: Monday, June 17, 2019 1:33 PM TO: Jeff Neuman ; Cheryl Langdon-Orr CC: Trang Nguyen ; David Olive ; Steve Chan ; Marika Konings SUBJECT: ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs Dear Cheryl and Jeff; We understand that the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group expects to publish its final report with its recommendations by December 2019. As you likely know, these recommendations may lead to procedural changes for subsequent rounds of gTLD applications, which ICANN org must implement and manage. In the course of our preparatory work toward the planning and implementation of the new policy, ICANN org has compiled a number of fundamental operationally focused assumptions to help with the preliminary planning and operational readiness of the organization. I have shared these assumptions with the ICANN Board, and am now sharing them with all ICANN constituencies in the briefing document attached. If the PDP Working Group members are interested in further engagement and providing feedback and perspective on these assumptions please let me know and we will be happy to arrange a mutually convenient time for a discussion. Ideally, we could leverage the time in Marrakech for a face-to-face meeting. For your information, this information will also be included in the ICANN Community Digest which is planned to be issued later this week. Sincerely, Cyrus Namazi Senior Vice President | Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 801 17th St NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 USA Office +1 202 249 7543 | Mobile +1 408 421 6894 Skype : cnamazi www.icann.org [8] ------------------------- The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information seewww.comlaude.com [9]_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [10] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg [11] _______________________________________________ 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 [12]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [13]). 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. Links: ------ [1] mailto:cyrus.namazi@icann.org [2] mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaudecom [3] mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com [4] mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org [5] mailto:david.olive@icann.org [6] mailto:steve.chan@icann.org [7] mailto:marika.konings@icann.org [8] http://www.icann.org/ [9] https://comlaude.com/ [10] mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [11] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg [12] https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [13] https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 at 07:59, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
These are important issues for ALAC - issues we have expressed concern over before and should continue to do so.
Are all these really important issues for ALAC? That is, are they important to non-registrant end users? Really? Before ALAC starts another iteration of fighting the battles of others (who are already well-spoken for within ICANN), it needs to do some important triage and focus its concern on the small number of issues that impact our (only) bylaw-mandated constituency. *1. Assumptions: Your paper assumes that the next round will take the form
of one large open round. There is no consensus in there PDP about moving in that direction.*
Why do end-users care about whether there is one large round or a bunch of smaller ones? Why would end-users care about various categories of TLDs unless there were some strict rules that engendered trust that the TLD string must be related to all of its subdomains? *2. Volumes: Your paper proposes an arbitrarily large volume of new
applications, all at once in a single window. That is not a model that I would share. *
There is a reasonable case to be made that too many TLDs, especially without any forced link between the TLD string and its subdomains, leads to consumer confusion and further diminishing trust. I would posit that this is the only issue on which ALAC has legitimate standing.
1.
*Outsourcing:* The paper is not quite consistent: on the one hand one has 'as little as possible will be outsourced' and on the other hand one has 'evaluation and objection processing' may be outsourced 'to expert firms'
*Why should end users care?* This issue might be of grave concern to registry applicants, but has absolutely no effect on end users at all. ALAC's meddling in issues that don't affect its constituency erode its already-weak authority within ICANN and offers legitimacy to those who questions its relevance to the overall decision-making processes. 4, *Costs and Application Support*: The paper is silent on application
support, whereas in the light of the meagre outcome in 2012 in this respect, the eyes of all are upon ICANN to effectively implement a workable and results oriented application support programme. This is a question of prioritization, in time and in the budget. Ploint 1, above, refers.
Yes, once upon a time ALAC cared a great deal about such issues that were only really relevant to a very small number of potential TLD applicants. But as we discovered through the last go-round, the effect on non-registrant end-users of the failure of the Applicant Support program was .... absolutely none at all. We must learn from that mistake. As for general costs, end-users have a stake in ensuring that registries are stable and secure once operating, but they have little interest in the prices or processes of actually delegating or procuring the strings. There were many teachable lessons in the last round .... both for ICANN and for ALAC. All eyes are on us too. If ALAC doesn't learn from its mistakes, and continues to get involved in ICANN issues that are irrelevant to end-users while doing disservice to issues that matter greatly, it will continue its slide into irrelevance. All other constituencies have voices elsewhere. But the end user has no other voice but us. Let's use that voice strategically and wisely. - Evan
Certainly. I think the key is to make sure that any operational prep doesn't itself replace policy. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of h.raiche@internode.on.net <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2019 7:58:20 AM To: Christopher Wilkinson; cyrus.namazi@icann.org; trang.nguen@icann.org Cc: cpwg@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jeff Neuman Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs Thanks for this email Christopher These are important issues for ALAC - issues we have expressed concern over before and should continue to do so. Jonathan, could we discuss these issues at the next CPWG Thanks Holly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Wilkinson" <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> To: <cyrus.namazi@icann.org>, <trang.nguen@icann.org> Cc: "cpwg@icann.org" <cpwg@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>, "Jeff Neuman" <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Sent: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 19:25:53 +0200 Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs Dear Cyrus Namazi : Having reviewed your draft document, for which I thank you, circulated to the PDP at Marrakech, I would wish to record the following comments, to which I referred, on—line, during the ICANN65 PDP meetings. In general, I find that your document heaves too closely to the idea that the next gTLD Rounds would mirror what your predecessors did in 2012. Whereas, from my point of view the whole point of the current PDP is to find better ways of doing things next time around. This should include greater attention to geographical balance, greater diversity, and ensuring as far as possible that newly delegated gTLDs will actually be used. Words (not 'strings') , in all languages and scripts, are meanings in the public domain, contributing to communications, culture and understanding of the general public, world—wide. Until very recently, there would have been no question of the monopolization of the uses of a word. But now with Generic TLDs, this has become a very real prospect, on-line. The ICANN community has contributed massively to this fact through the single, unique Internet Root. We support the single Root for many reasons, unrelated to the gTLD programme, but we must recognise that ultimately the monopolization of words as gTLDs will undermine global support for the single Root. Accordingly, I consider that the application, delegation and use of words as gTLDs has to be handled - indeed 'regulated' – by ICANN with utmost care, not only for today's users, but also for future users in the long term. Already, our society, politics and economics have given us codes, names and other words which are particularly recognisablel. These are not 'generic' in any meaningful sense; rather the contrary. Returning to your draft document, I would have the following more specific comments: 1. Assumptions: Your paper assumes that the next round will take the form of one large open round. There is no consensus in there PDP about moving in that direction. On the contrary, some of us have argued for several distinct, specific, windows based on pre-defined categories of TLDs. This option does not appear from your draft. That approach would facilitate encouraging applications from previously under-served categories of applicants and helpl to ensure that evaluators and eventual arbitrators are in fact well-versed in the issues affecting each group of applications. 2. Volumes: Your paper proposes an arbitrarily large volume of new applications, all at once in a single window. That is not a model that I would share. It would give no time for, and stretch available qualified resources for, qualitative analysis and evaluation of applications, including time for consultation and – should the need arise – for eventual opposition. On the contrary I would strongly recommend a Round that is phased, prioritised and transparent, notably to third partieds. 1. Outsourcing: The paper is not quite consistent: on the one hand one has 'as little as possible will be outsourced' and on the other hand one has 'evaluation and objection processing' may be outsourced 'to expert firms'… But those are precisely the functions that are most important for the credibility and accountability of te whole process, bearing in mind that the characteristics of applications may become far more diverse in several respects, compared with 2012. See also point 1, above. 4, Costs and Application Support: The paper is silent on application support, whereas in the light of the meagre outcome in 2012 in this respect, the eyes of all are upon ICANN to effectively implement a workable and results oriented application support programme. This is a question of prioritization, in time and in the budget. Ploint 1, above, refers. There are other more detailed points arising from your paper which I would gladly discuss with you through the PDP or bilaterally. Meanwhile, I would be glad if your department would take on board the philosophy and key points that I have set out above. With many thanks to you and your colleagues, Regards Christopher Wilkinson From: Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi@icann.org<mailto:cyrus.namazi@icann.org>> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 1:33 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeffneuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> Cc: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>>; David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs Dear Cheryl and Jeff; We understand that the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group expects to publish its final report with its recommendations by December 2019. As you likely know, these recommendations may lead to procedural changes for subsequent rounds of gTLD applications, which ICANN org must implement and manage. In the course of our preparatory work toward the planning and implementation of the new policy, ICANN org has compiled a number of fundamental operationally focused assumptions to help with the preliminary planning and operational readiness of the organization. I have shared these assumptions with the ICANN Board, and am now sharing them with all ICANN constituencies in the briefing document attached. If the PDP Working Group members are interested in further engagement and providing feedback and perspective on these assumptions please let me know and we will be happy to arrange a mutually convenient time for a discussion Ideally, we could leverage the time in Marrakech for a face-to-face meeting. For your information, this information will also be included in the ICANN Community Digest which is planned to be issued later this week. Sincerely, Cyrus Namazi Senior Vice President | Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 801 17th St NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 USA Office +1 202 249 7543 | Mobile +1 408 421 6894 Skype : cnamazi www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information seewww.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/><Pre-Engagement Comms Attachment_ Assumptions Paper 6.7.19 (1).pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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.
participants (4)
-
Christopher Wilkinson -
Evan Leibovitch -
h.raiche＠internode.on.net -
Jonathan Zuck