<I am writing this a road journey> I think it will be good to mention that in the composition of the suggested "oversight council", the GAC is just one of the communities to worry about it's representation and role. Who represents the gtld, cctld and end users on the council. The other thing is will this council be external to ICANN or within ICANN community? Who empowers the "oversight council" i.e will this be a separate legitimate entity of some kind or there will be another legitimate body empowering them based on the agreement between that body and ICANN? It will he good as we think of this, we also think about it's practicality holistically; We don't want to have a separation of IANA functions in near future. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 28 Oct 2014 16:20, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
Thanks Elise, very helpful. I was thinking that the “oversight counsel” would focus on technical and operational issues as opposed to policy issues: Things like SLAs, how quickly name server changes are processed, etc. Where a government actually operates the ccTLD, it would be direct consumers of IANA services, like gTLDs and ccTLDs.
But policy for IANA would remain in existing ICANN processes. Could you help me understand which technical/operational IANA services might raise “public interest” concerns? I agree with you that having some GAC reps on a Oversight Counsel would not be inconsistent with the Strickling view, but I am curious about why GAC might want to participate in that kind of counsel.
J. Beckwith Burr
*Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
From: Legal <King>, Stacey King <stacek@amazon.com> Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, "Lindeberg, Elise" < elise.lindeberg@npt.no>, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Carolina Aguerre <carolina@lactld.org>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
Thanks, Elise.
It seems that one way around the concern is that we make sure that somewhere it specifically says that members of the GAC are on equal standing as any other member of the Oversight Council and, in addition, that the ICANN Bylaws provision allowing for GAC advice on any policy matter does not apply to IANA. Ie, that the GAC cannot exercise any additional authority over IANA functions through other means/routes.
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *James Gannon *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2014 3:38 AM *To:* Lindeberg, Elise; Donna Austin; Burr, Becky; Carolina Aguerre; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
Great initial response from the GAC Elise.
+1
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Lindeberg, Elise *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2014 3:28 AM *To:* Donna Austin; Burr, Becky; Carolina Aguerre; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
Dear Donna, all
I just wanted to inform you that I have sent an email to GAC members and Participant in the CWG regarding the role of the GAC/government representation in a model where there is established an “Oversight Council” on the IANA function and deliveries.
There is of course the fact that each and every GAC representatives only speak on behalf of their own government/administration, but I guess that’s also the case for the ccTLDs and gTLDs - they do not represent the whole of the ccNSO or the GNSO as such. The model in itself is very challenging, and we don’t have any conclusion on it.
I just want to underline that If a council were to be established with broad representation from the community, - I don’t see that GAC/Government representation in such a model in any way would be in contradiction with the requirements stated by the NTIA. Governments are one stakeholder in the Multistakeholder ECO system. Their role in a “Oversight Council” on equal basis with other stakeholders, looking after the public interest in the processes of IANA, could not be seen as a government-led or an inter-governmental organisation solution.
Best regards
Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg
Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative
Networks Department
Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority
e-mail: ekl@npt.no
Mobile: +47 90190947
As of January 1st 2015 NPT will be known as theNorwegian Communications Authority.
*Fra:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *På vegne av* Donna Austin *Sendt:* 27. oktober 2014 19:42 *Til:* Burr, Becky; Carolina Aguerre; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
Becky, all
Can someone explain to me how GAC participation/involvement in an Oversight Council is considered in the context of the NTIA provision that “… the NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organisation solution.”
I’m just trying to understand the distinction being made here. Is a solution that allows government participation on an equal basis as others, viable?
Thanks,
Donna
[image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA AUSTIN* Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
*ARI REGISTRY SERVICES* Melbourne*|*Los Angeles *P* +1 310 890 9655 *P* +61 3 9866 3710 *E* donna.austin@ariservices.com *W* www.ariservices.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ariservices.com_&d=A...>
*Follow us on **Twitter* <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ARIservices...>
*The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.*
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky *Sent:* Friday, 24 October 2014 7:20 AM *To:* Carolina Aguerre; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
Tracy,
First, the total number of completely unaffiliated ccTLDs is somewhere around 58, not 96. I suspect that a few of these aren’t actually delegated, so probably a bit less. But do we think that all gTLDs participate in the gNSO? That would really surprise me.
Second, why couldn’t those that are completely unaffiliated and prefer to remain that way participate directly (I.e., without the ccNSO or the regional organization as an intermediary?)
Finally, I don’t know why this creates the nexus for GAC in future arrangements? Some ccTLDs operate under government contracts (for example, .US). Our participation in a User’s Council might be affected by the contract, but I don’t think that means the Department of Commerce should (or would want to be) a member of the Council. In a relatively small number of cases, a government institution actually operates the ccTLD. In that case, the government would be a direct consumer of IANA services.
Don’t get me wrong, if the notion is that the GAC would have a seat on the Council, I suppose I wouldn’t object, but in my experience members of the GAC represent their OWN governments, not the GAC generally.
B
J. Beckwith Burr
*Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
*From: *Carolina Aguerre <carolina@lactld.org> *Date: *Friday, October 24, 2014 at 6:50 AM *To: *"cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
Hi Tracy,
Indeed the numbers raised by Peter are global, thus including the LAC region and LACTLD
Carolina
On 24/10/2014 05:03 a.m., Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote:
Thank you Peter ... extremely helpful. I assume you also have counted those in LACTLD?
So ... 96 ccTLDs could POTENTIALLY not recognize the ccNSO in any future organizational arrangement involving the ccNSO as is being suggested here.
That is not insubstantial.
I can also imagine that when you factor those that are Government affiliated within these 96 ccTLDs, the issues become quite complex as they relate to these discussions.
I wonder if this is the nexus for GAC involvement in future organizational arrangements ...
However that will still POTENTIALLY leave some ccTLDs out of the future arrangements being considered here, save for coercing them into joining either the ccNSO or the regional orgs.
Any thoughts?
/t
On Oct 24, 2014 3:20 AM, "Peter Van Roste" <peter@centr.org> wrote:
Thanks Tracy for raising this.
Becky is right, this process is open to all ccTLDs. The regional organisations are reaching out to those that are not in the ccNSO and to those that are unaffiliated in their respective regions.
However, it should be taken into account when discussing the future role the ccNSO could play, that some ccTLDs will not recognize the ccNSO as a representative of their interests.
Some stats:
Out of the 248 ccTLDs:
152 are members of the ccNSO. Most of those are also a member of their regional organisation (AfTLD, APTLD, CENTR and APTLD).
38 ccTLDs are members of their regional organisation but not of the ccNSO.
58 ccTLDs are unaffiliated.
Regards,
Peter Van Roste
General Manager, CENTR
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky *Sent:* donderdag 23 oktober 2014 23:37 *To:* Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google; Allan MacGillivray *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
Some of those who do not participate in the ccNSO do participate in regional organizations such as LACTLD and APTLD. We have also set up a global list to communicate with ccTLDs that don’t participate in either. Note that the ccNSO rules permit cc’s to participate fully without actually joining the ccNSO itself.
J. Beckwith Burr
*Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
*From: *"Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 5:31 PM *To: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca> *Cc: *Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Milton L Mueller < mueller@syr.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.edu&d=AAMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QpQAt_piuchJf9ejWDh3H_z119DN4HT2HzMk0YusRzw&s=MfTsSXzXbuHI0rFcHtnorPW-C4XKghU8vC-r39Erl4M&e=>>, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
What about the ccTLDs who are NOT part of the ccNSO ... has this been discussed/dealt with already?
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Allan MacGillivray < allan.macgillivray@cira.ca> wrote:
So let’s see if I have got this correct. The idea is that the registries would set up a corporation that could contract with IANA, either as a stand-alone entity or as a department of ICANN, for the performance of the IANA functions – let’s call it ‘RegistryCo’ for short. Would there not be liability concerns on the part of many registries to being directors of RegistryCo? Even if they could be convinced, would those ccTLDs that are governments be comfortable with such an approach? And it would need some money to get going. Incorporating does take little money, but negotiating the contract would be quite another issue.
*From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] *Sent:* October-23-14 4:20 PM *To:* Milton L Mueller; Guru Acharya *Cc:* Allan MacGillivray; Fouad Bajwa; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
Correct. In any case, it takes very little time or money to create a light weight legal entity.
J. Beckwith Burr
*Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
*From: *Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.e...>
*Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 3:41 PM *To: *Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com>, Becky Burr < becky.burr@neustar.biz> *Cc: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>, Fouad Bajwa < fouadbajwa@gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
No. Guru this is incorrect. Both the CCNSO and the GNSO are made up of mostly incorporated legal entities. Certainly the TLD registries in both entities are legally incorporated.
*From:* Guru Acharya [mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com <gurcharya@gmail.com>]
Even though NFL is an unincorporated association, the 32 independent teams that comprise the unincorporated association are legal entities. These 32 legal entities then collectively enter to into pooled-rights contract with any third party.
In comparison, CCNSO and GNSO are not legal entities; and they can not form an unincorporated association.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
The law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in the US, the question is whether there is an enforceable contract and not whether one of the contracting parties is a formal legal entity. I can assure you, the NFL enforces contracts all the time.
J. Beckwith Burr
*Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
*From: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca> *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 12:04 PM *To: *Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Milton L Mueller < mueller@syr.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.edu&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=INYMVpabyaFlLICPn_6grbXytRGxGNbwdxstS1N6kfU&s=xm679ts9ebwDNuRzz6N0a2u03BsoJV4iMSTlfNWBXKU&e=>>, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
Becky – you raise a very important point as to whether unincorporated entities can enter into enforceable contracts. If they can, it may simplify things considerably e.g. have ccNSO, GNSO, ALAC? 'take over’ the contact with ICANN. I had been labouring under the assumption that the ccNSO, GNSO would have to incorporate to do this. How can we get clarity on this?
Allan
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky *Sent:* October-23-14 11:43 AM *To:* Milton L Mueller; Fouad Bajwa *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
Rather than starting with legal constructs, let’s begin by talking about what we need to accomplish requisite accountability. To me, we need some independent committee, council, unincorporated association, or representative group to have a contract with ICANN/IANA for performing IANA functions consistent with SLA’s to be negotiated and documented. We need this entity, presumably representative of IANA service consumers, to have recourse if the SLA’s are not met.
If this is correct, then we can look at what kind of legal entity we need for the “SLA Council.” Seems to me that the core of this group would be registry operators, perhaps with representation from other stakeholders like registstrars, registrants, etc. Could be stand alone or perhaps housed in ISOC or the IETF? I am pretty sure that unincorporated associations can enter into enforceable contracts, etc. (For example, the National Football League in the US is actually an unincorporated association).
Second, we need a mechanism that ensure recourse and redress for a registry that is wrongfully revoked, delegated, etc. That mechanism can be provided to all through the ICANN bylaws, e.g., as an independent review.
J. Beckwith Burr
*Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
*From: *Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.e...>
*Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 11:17 AM *To: *Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
Fouad:
By the “technical community proposals” I assume you mean the protocols community.
What your argument misses is that IANA _*is*_ a separate organizational entity for both the numbers and protocols communities.
The protocol community has an MoU with ICANN that authorizes ICANN to perform the IANA functions for them. That MoU can be revoked, and IETF can decide to use someone else. That is the perfect accountability mechanism. Now, tell me how the names community achieves that same wonderful state? There are two ways to do it: pull the IANA out of ICANN, or set up a new contracting authority to replace the NTIA, which could periodically award the contract to ICANN or to anyone else qualified.
No one wants “the IANA technical and policy functions [might] fall into the hands and whims of governments.” That in fact is a requirement imposed on the transition by the NTIA. But we do need to make significant organizational changes if we are to meet the requirement of accountability. I think scare talk about take overs can divert our attention from needed reforms and I would resist that kind of talk.
I don't think that IANA should be evolved as a separate entity at all and create new opportunities for bureaucracies for governments and industry control.
The technical community proposals are highly reasonable to not make such a big fuss out of it and help IANA transition under a body that is somewhat messed up but can be improved in the long run however, ICANN would need some changes.
The technical community has also shown its concern that it doesn't want the IANA technical and policy function to fall into the hands of the whims of governments because it functions to the technical community's needs adequately in its present environment and role.
Your challenge and for the ICG is to propose that most transparent and accountable way forward that ensures an open and inclusive relationship with the Internet community treating stakeholders in their respective roles but not giving preference to one group over another another. I don't have to go through the Internet Governance ideals over and over again here.
First ICANN Board control as the final word for IANA affairs would have to be reviewed and should be taken into a broader community review process. I do not trust the ICANN Board to be able to manage both ICANN and IANA in a transparent and accountable way, their progress over the years has had its own set of troubles already.
The proposals are interesting but not the final word. The final word will remain with NTIA and thats my concern from a developing country member citizen perspective. I am going through a great deal of suggestions and proposals and all show a similar aspect, don't disturb the IANA technical function and the policies for IANA developed by the community have work so far but require more transparency, accountability and functional relationships with the community ensuring open and inclusive participation in its policy development processes.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 Option 2 is preferred from my end also. However i also added Option 4 as a second preference just incase things get delayed with the accountability process.
Cheers!
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Hello all,
you might wish to see an expanded set of "Options", in a Google Doc which has been shared.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4RiR... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
So far, I note that the majority of our participants on the At-Large IANA Issues WG appears to prefer Option 2.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 15/10/2014 22:55, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
FYI
-------- Forwarded Message --------
*Subject: *
[CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities
*Date: *
Thu, 16 Oct 2014 02:40:47 +0530
*From: *
Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com> <gurcharya@gmail.com>
*To: *
cwg-stewardship@icann.org
How the names community approach will differ from the approach adopted by the numbers community and protocols community?
Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its proposal. According to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. It proposes to replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and Affirmation of Commitment (AOC) between NRO and ICANN.
www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.slideshare.net_fulls...>
Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that no structural changes are required as a result of the transition. The MOU between ICANN and the IETF community will continue to govern the existing relationship. Again, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draf...>
Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol community appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS Oversight Entity to replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely contracts between existing entities will be updated to replace NTIA oversight.
Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO be expected to replace NTIA oversight?
Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names community because the names community resides within ICANN, which is also the IANA operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are essentially subsets of ICANN, and therefore a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO can not be expected to replace NTIA oversight.
Therefore, it is essential to either
Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a contractual oversight relationship with ICANN. This would be similar to http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetgovernance.o...>
Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate
Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO and GNSO that is structurally independent of ICANN and require that new entity to enter into a contractual oversight agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) with ICANN.
From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not acceptable because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced accountability process.
I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the CCNSO and GNSO are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural separation of these two communities from ICANN will be in-feasible.
Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7 can be discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will continue to reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals of the protocols and numbers community.
Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available with the names community.
Regards,
Acharya
_______________________________________________
Iana-issues mailing list
Iana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gih.com_ocl.html&d=A...>
_______________________________________________ Iana-issues mailing list Iana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
...
