- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Closing the mailing lists
by Seun Ojedeji Oct. 24, 2016

Oct. 24, 2016

Oops! Nevermind, somehow I forgot the Co-Chairs have announced completion. Cheers! Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 24 Oct 2016 22:43, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: Thanks for the info Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 24 Oct 2016 22:33, "Yuko Green" <yuko.green(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > The main CWG-Stewardship mail list will be kept active for now but will be closed after ICANN 57. > > SO: I have no significant issue with closing down this group but is this because everything related to names proposal is done OR will be done with by ICANN 57?; Is the PTI for instance up and running as I thought this group expanded her mandate to cover overall implementation of names related part of the ICG proposal. Cheers > > Regards, > > > > Yuko Green > > Strategic Programs Manager > > Global Domains Division > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > > Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 > > Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 > > E-mail: yuko.green(a)icann.org > > www.icann.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >

1 0

Closing the mailing lists
by Yuko Green Oct. 24, 2016

Oct. 24, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, On behalf of the Co-Chairs, I'd like to inform you that all CWG related mailing lists except for the main list will be closed now. All lists are publically archived and available for your review should you wish to review past e-mails. For your record, here are the lists that will be closed: * Client Committee * RFP 1-2A-2B * RFP2C * RFP3 * RFP4 * RFP5 * Design Team DT-A * Design Team DT-B * Design Team DT-C * Design Team DT-D * Design Team DT-F * Design Team DT-L * Design Team DT-M Escalation * Design Team DT-N Periodic Review * Design Team DT-O Budget * Design Team IPR The main CWG-Stewardship mail list will be kept active for now but will be closed after ICANN 57. Regards, Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: yuko.green(a)icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

2 1

The work of CWG Stewardship has come to an end
by Lise Fuhr Oct. 7, 2016

Oct. 7, 2016

Dear CWG Colleagues, As you are aware by now, the agreement between the US Government (NTIA) and ICANN, regarding management of IANA functions, expired on 1st October 2016. This means that the IANA Stewardship Transition can now proceed as planned and as such, the CWG has fulfilled its purpose. It has been a long and, at times, very challenging journey for the group. We co-chairs would like to sincerely thank you all and ICANN staff for the hard work and stamina you have shown. You will recall that we had an initial attempt at a model and when this failed to get adequate support from the community, the CWG went back to work and produced a revised model. We did this by modifying the way we worked and we divided the group into design teams in order to have dedicated, focused groups. However, throughout the process, we always returned to the CWG as a whole to evaluate and approve the work. For us as co-chairs it has been very challenging at times, but we have learned a huge amount from all of you and the process itself. This has been an excellent example of how the multi-stakeholder model can work in practice. Not the easiest way to work, but ultimately thorough, inclusive and holistic. In addition to the primary task of producing the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on behalf of the Names Community, we also believe that the work of this group has made a significant contribution to the effective working methods of Cross Community Working Groups. Most recently, there were several political and other issues which threatened to delay or derail the process but the crisis which that would have potentially represented has been averted in the end. This is a very good start for the Stewardship Transition and we believe that the CWG has been the best team to facilitate this work. Our work is now complete and we will have no more meetings. Therefore we will now proceed to dissolve the CWG by writing to the Chartering Organisations in order to communicate that our work is now complete. Thank you for your recent good words on our mailing list, but we think it is critically important to once more thank you and acknowledge the work of the whole group and ICANN staff. We worked together on a historical journey and you have all contributed significantly to the IANA Transition plan, as well as evolving the multi-stakeholder model. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise

6 5

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Congratulations and Thank you
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 2016

Dear Holly, dear Rosemary, I can’t but just echo my team mates in thanking you and your outstanding teams for your invaluable contribution to this process. If something has been rewarding from this process, that has been the opportunity to meet and work with professionals like you and your teams. The process is finished on this stage but the links between people will remain long after. Well done! Best regards, León > El 05/10/2016, a las 17:48, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei(a)adlercolvin.com> escribió: > > Holly speaks for me and the rest of the Adler team. I couldn't put it better. > > Rosemary > > > > > Sent from mobile > > Rosemary E. Fei > Adler & Colvin > 415/421-7555<tel:415/421-7555 <tel:415/421-7555>> (phone) > rfei(a)adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com><mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>> > www.adlercolvin.com <http://www.adlercolvin.com/><http://www.adlercolvin.com/ <http://www.adlercolvin.com/>> > _____________________________ > The information in this e-mail message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at rfei(a)adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com><mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments, if any. Thank you. > > On Oct 5, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Holly Gregory <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com><mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>>> wrote: > > Congratulations on achieving the important milestone of IANA transition! And thank you for the kind notes which I have shared with the Sidley team. I know I speak for the team when I say that we greatly appreciated the opportunity to contribute to the IANA transition and enhanced ICANN accountability and to work with the committed and energized CCWG-Accountability and CWG-IANA Transition teams on this cutting edge and important project. > > The heroes in this effort are the co-chairs, rapporteurs, members, and participants of CCWG and CWG who gave meaning to multi-stakeholder bottom-up consensus; the hard-working and dependable ICANN staff who provided the backbone support for these efforts, and ICANN legal and the Board who listened and pushed and always had the best interests of ICANN at heart. > > Personally it has been a great pleasure to work with you all -- and with the creative, smart, diligent colleagues that made up the Sidley and Adler teams. > > Holly > > > > HOLLY J. GREGORY > Partner and Co-Chair, Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice > > SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP > +1 212 839 5853 > holly.gregory(a)sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com><mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> > > From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>] > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 8:05 AM > To: Thomas Rickert; Rosemary E. Fei > Cc: Jordan Carter; Gregory, Holly; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Steve DelBianco; Becky Burr > Subject: RE: Thank you > > Dear Holly, Dear Rosemary, > > I join my colleagues in thanking you, and your teams ! Not only have you done miracles in answering the many requests and producing the bylaws in record times, but you also provided a couple of critical breakthroughs in the design of the proposal ! > > It’s been very instructive to learn all these concepts of California Law from such great experts, and enjoy your company in all these moments as well ! > > Best > Mathieu > > De : Thomas Rickert [mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>] > Envoyé : mercredi 5 octobre 2016 11:55 > À : Rosemary E. Fei > Cc : Jordan Carter; Holly Gregory; Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Steve DelBianco; Becky Burr > Objet : Re: Thank you > > Hi Rosemary, > Let me echo Jordan's words and apologize for not being the first to thank you and Holly and your teams for your support. Your commitment has been outstanding and the collaboration more than pleasant. > > All the best, > Thomas > > ... > rickert.net <http://rickert.net/><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=DQMFaQ&c=… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=DQMFaQ&c=…>> > > > Am 05.10.2016 um 11:15 schrieb Rosemary E. Fei <rfei(a)adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com><mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>>: > Jordan, thank you very much for your very kind words. We were honored to help, and developed great respect for the multistakeholder processes on which ICANN’s governance now relies. > > And personally it was a great pleasure to work with and get to know you, the other rapporteurs, and of course the co-chairs. > > Rosemary > > From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 1:28 AM > To: Holly Gregory; Rosemary E. Fei > Cc: Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Steve DelBianco; Becky Burr > Subject: Thank you > > Holly, Rosemary, > > I wanted to write you to say thank you. > > Thank you because I don't think the transition would have happened without the hard work of you and your teams. > > I'm not a co chair or a board member but I think the work you did was integral to this milestone. > > Thanks, > > Jordan > > -- > Jordan Carter > Chief Executive, InternetNZ > > +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz><mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> > > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us > immediately. > > ****************************************************************************************************

1 0

Special Thanks to our Co-Chairs
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 3, 2016

Oct. 3, 2016

I want to express special thanks to Jonathan & Lise for the incredible job and huge amount of time they spent leading this group. Chuck

13 12

Stewardship of IANA Functions Transitions to Global Internet Community as Contract with U.S. Government Ends
by Trang Nguyen Oct. 1, 2016

Oct. 1, 2016

Congratulations everyone :) Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-01-en<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> Stewardship of IANA Functions Transitions to Global Internet Community as Contract with U.S. Government Ends Today, 1 October 2016, the contract between the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the United States Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, has officially expired<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ntia.doc.gov_press-…>. This historic moment marks the transition of the coordination and management of the Internet's unique identifiers to the private-sector, a process that has been committed to and underway since 1998. "This transition was envisioned 18 years ago, yet it was the tireless work of the global Internet community, which drafted the final proposal, that made this a reality," said ICANN Board Chair Stephen D. Crocker. "This community validated the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. It has shown that a governance model defined by the inclusion of all voices, including business, academics, technical experts, civil society, governments and many others is the best way to assure that the Internet of tomorrow remains as free, open and accessible as the Internet of today." Internet users will see no change or difference in their experience online as a result of the stewardship transition. In managing the coordination of the Internet's unique identifiers, ICANN plays a small but significant role in the Internet's ecosystem. For more than 15 years, ICANN has worked in concert with other technical bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Regional Internet Registries, top-level domain registries and registrars, and many others. The final chapter of the privatization process began in 2014, when NTIA asked ICANN to convene the global multistakeholder community, which is made up of private-sector representatives, technical experts, academics, civil society, governments and individual Internet end users, to come together and formulate proposals to both replace NTIA's historic stewardship role and enhance ICANN's accountability mechanisms. The package of proposals developed by the global community met the strict criteria<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ntia.doc.gov_press-…> established by NTIAin its March 2014 announcement. Since their submission to NTIA, ICANN and its various stakeholder groups have worked tirelessly to ensure that all the necessary implementation tasks<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> have been completed, so the IANA functions contract could expire on 30 September 2016. The proposals reinforce ICANN's existing multistakeholder model and are also aimed at enhancingICANN's accountability. The improvements include empowering the global Internet community to have direct recourse if they disagree with decisions made by ICANN the organization or the Board. The IANA stewardship transition is a testament to the tireless work of the global community, and a validation of the multistakeholder model that frames that community. To learn more about the IANA Stewardship Transition, go here: https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_stewards…> Akram Atallah's blog: "Final Implementation Update<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…>" Stephen D. Crocker's blog: "Cheers to the Multistakeholder Community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…>"

3 2

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Representative Appointment Letters
by Greg Shatan Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

Lise and Jonathan, I have attached hereto my executed letter of appointment as a Names Community representative to the Community Coordination Group (CCG) and as a Co-Chair of the CCG. I look forward to serving the community in this capacity. Best regards, Greg Shatan On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> wrote: > Dear Maarten, Christopher and Greg, > > > > Following your nominations and subsequent CWG agreed appointments to the > role of CCG Representatives (and co-chair in the case of Greg Shatan), > please can you proceed to sign your respective appointment letters > (attached to this email) and return the signed appointment letters to the > CWG via this mailing list as soon as possible and, in any event, no later > than 23h59 UTC on 29 September 2016. > > > > Thank-you for making yourselves available. > > > > > Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson > > > > >

2 1

Another step closer....
by Greg Shatan Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

Here's my understanding of the current situation. The Continuing Resolution (funding the US government) was approved by the US Senate without language defunding the "relinquishment" of IANA. House still needs to pass the CR, but these are generally worked out between the houses beforehand, so any surprises are relatively unlikely, subject to some last-minute posturing. Greg

5 6

Letter of instruction from the CWG to ICANN regarding the IANA IPR Community Agreement.
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 27, 2016

Sept. 27, 2016

Dear Trang, Please can you accept the attached letter of instruction from the CWG to ICANN regarding the IANA IPR Community Agreement. Yours sincerely, Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson For and on behalf of the CWG IANA Stewardship Transition

17 30

Call
by Arasteh Sept. 26, 2016

Sept. 26, 2016

Pls kindly Advise to call me as I can not open Adobe Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 25 Sep 2016, at 21:38, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Replies below. > >> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> 1. While ICANN agreed to sign "on behalf" I don't think they have agreed to sign "on behalf" as per the text in the letter. However it seem Greg is now confirming that ICANN has indeed agreed to the terms for signing "on behalf" which is good to know. >> > It's my understanding that the text of the letter is acceptable to ICANN. It's up to ICANN to confirm that, not me. >> 2. There is really nothing wrong with raising observations and all that we should do is provide clarification. It doesn't have to degenerate to imply incompetence of the person asking/raising an opinion. >> > I never said there was anything wrong with raising observations, and I spent a significant amount of time providing clarification. I don't think I implied anything about a person's incompetence; I'm sure there are times for all of us when we failed to keep up with a part of our work -- that doesn't make us all incompetent. It does make it more challenging to rejoin participation in that part of the work -- both for the participant and for the rest of the group. >> 3. I earlier raised an observation about the inclusion of the following "...hereafter affirm in writing..." and I suggested that section wasn't necessary. Since it is included, I hope a letter/note has also been sent to the CO to provide their affirmation in writing. >> > It's my understanding that that sending such a request is the intent of the CWG, but I'm not sure if it has happened yet. I would look to our co-chairs to confirm the status of that piece. >> 4. I don't know how this letter is binding on anyone especially as it's been signed by CWG and not by COs who are in turn members of EC. However, i would only just hope that since/if ICANN agree then both sides will keep to terms. >> > Within the internal processes of ICANN, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on whether a communication from an ICANN structure to ICANN corporate is "binding" in the same sense as would apply to an agreement between unrelated third parties. It can scarcely be argued that either ICANN or the Names Community is free to walk away from the letter, merely because the Names Community is not a legal entity. >> For avoidance of doubt, None of the above implies delaying this process by any means. >> > That's a relief. >> Regards >> Sent from my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >> >> On 25 Sep 2016 7:02 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Avri, >> >> It's certainly my understanding that all has been completed on the letter and that ICANN can sign it. >> >> There is nothing missing. There is one non-substantive change suggested by Chuck Gomes that could be made, which would slightly improve the readability of the letter (spelling out "Community Coordination Group" the first time it is used, instead of saying "CCG"). Whether or not this is done, the letter is ready to be signed. >> >> I don't think any significant confusion came out of the meeting itself. After the meeting, one participant (who appears not to have kept up with the CWG's work) started an exchange on this thread raising a number of 12th hour objections. This exchange may have created an appearance of more general confusion. The confusion is actually quite isolated, as far as I can tell. Andrew Sullivan and I both responded with explanations, which I thought cleared up any confusion on the very minor subject of this "letter of instruction." The high-level explanation is this: >> >> The "Names Community" is a party to the Community Agreement (relating to the IANA IPR). The Names Community needs a legal entity to sign the Agreement on its behalf, because there is no existing legal entity that encompasses the Names Community. ICANN was asked if it could perform the limited function of signing on behalf of the Names Community. ICANN said that it could. The "Letter of Instruction" formally instructs ICANN to sign on behalf of the Names Community and sets out the parameters of ICANN's limited role as signatory. This is needed because signing the Agreement without any explanation makes it look like ICANN has full authority and discretion to act as the Names Community under the Agreement. >> >> The rest of the discussion turned to the effects (if any) of this confusion, both on implementing our work and on the composition of the CCG. In my view, this confusion has absolutely no effect on implementing our work. If working group results could be undone after the fact by a single confused participant, ICANN probably would not even exist. >> >> Greg >> >>> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:22 PM, avri doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have gotten lost in this discussion. >>> >>> Has all been completed on the letter? Can ICANN sign if the transition >>> is freed to move ahead? >>> >>> If not, what is missing? I unfortunately missed the last meeting, but >>> am amazed at the confusion that came out of that meeting. >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 25-Sep-16 01:58, Greg Shatan wrote: >>> > Milton, >>> > >>> > I don't think any one person can be in a position to hold up this >>> > process. This is the end result of an exhaustive (and exhausting) >>> > multistakeholder process. We put in months (really, years) of >>> > thorough and well-considered work on the IPR issues alone. This >>> > involved a significant group of stakeholders (in this case, across the >>> > names, protocol parameters and numbers communities). The result of >>> > this work has been put through the public comment process, and fully >>> > agreed and brought to conclusion with the broad support of diverse >>> > stakeholders. >>> > >>> > It would make a mockery of the multistakeholder process to allow any >>> > one person to hold up implementation at this point, when the work is >>> > done. >>> > >>> > In working groups, we do try to be open to questions and opinions from >>> > all angles, sometimes to a fault. This is especially true early on, >>> > when it's important to consider all viewpoints. But we are far, far >>> > past that point. Our decisions have been made. Our commitments are >>> > clear. It's time to get it done. >>> > >>> > Greg >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu >>> > <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: >>> > >>> > I am not sure I understand why someone who clearly does not >>> > understand what is going on in the IPR transition process, and who >>> > actually never seemed to understand what IANA is, should be in a >>> > position to hold up this process. >>> > >>> > Milton L Mueller >>> > Professor, School of Public Policy >>> > Georgia Institute of Technology >>> > >>> > > On Sep 24, 2016, at 18:45, Andrew Sullivan >>> > <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Dear colleagues, >>> > > >>> > > As usual, I note that I am a trustee of the IETF Trust, and I do not >>> > > wish anyone to understand that I am promoting any IETF or Trust >>> > > interest here. But I am concerned that we not delay the >>> > transition by >>> > > organizational mmisunderstanding. In particular, >>> > > >>> > >> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:03:43AM +0200, Christopher Wilkinson >>> > wrote: >>> > >> 2. I understand that the CCG has been 'created' to regulate >>> > the relationships between the Naming Community and the IETF Trust, >>> > thus the interest in IPR. >>> > > >>> > > I think it would be better to say that the CCG is being created to >>> > > ensure that each operational community's interests are properly >>> > > represented to the Trust, which will own the IPR. The Trust is >>> > > undertaking to manage this IPR according to the needs and wishes of >>> > > the various communities, consistent with the Trust's >>> > responsibilities >>> > > in respect of the IPR. >>> > > >>> > >> 3. The leap from the IETF Trust to directing ICANN - as >>> > indicated in the draft Letter of Instruction - has not been >>> > explained. As far as I can see, the small number of delegates to >>> > the CCG (Representatives and Co-Chairs, including apparently >>> > ourselves) have no mandate to direct ICANN about anything. What is >>> > the eventual scope of these instructions? >>> > > >>> > > The scope -- which I believe is already completely outlined in the >>> > > relevant documents for the IPR issues -- is to advise and direct the >>> > > Trust about the appropriate use of the IPR for a given community's >>> > > needs. In the case of the names community, this necessarily >>> > involves >>> > > instructing both ICANN and PTI about specific uses of the IANA >>> > > trademarks and the iana.org <http://iana.org> domain name (and >>> > maybe some others, but >>> > > iana.org <http://iana.org> is the bit one). >>> > > >>> > >> 4. I would agree to your suggestion that some tutorials >>> > might be in order. If so, these should take place well before >>> > anything is finalised, and after public consultation (see 1. above) >>> > >> Thus it is perhaps premature to demand that ICANN accept the >>> > draft Letter of Instructions. >>> > > >>> > > In my opinion, claiming that this is "premature" suggests that the >>> > > issues have not been completely vented in the CWG. Given the amount >>> > > of time that's already been spent on this issue, I am a little >>> > worried >>> > > (not to say alarmed) at the suggestion that more time is >>> > needed. The >>> > > IPR transfer and the resulting arrangements for each community >>> > need in >>> > > fact to be in place in a week, assuming the transition is to >>> > happen on >>> > > schedule. I don't really understand why there could be any >>> > confusion >>> > > about this. >>> > > >>> > > Best regards, >>> > > >>> > > A >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Andrew Sullivan >>> > > ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> > > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

1 1