July 2019 - Gnso-bylaws-dt - lists.icann.org

REMINDER Re: Joint GRC/DT Meeting re: ccNSO GRC questions re: consulting on Special IFRs
by Julie Hedlund July 10, 2019

July 10, 2019

Dear DT members, In preparation for the meeting with the ccNSO GRC next Monday, 15 July at 12:00 UTC, just a reminder of the questions below that were raised in the GRC meeting on 17 June as provided previously by David McCauley. In addition, to assist with questions 1 and 2, please see the attached draft suggested timeline developed by staff for your consideration. Kind regards, Julie Here are the questions/comments the GRC noted during the June 17th meeting: 1. We envision the creation of a GNSO-ccNSO Special IFR Initiation Coordination Team (SICT) – see paragraph 5.2. We say that as soon as the CSC informs the ccNSO and GNSO Councils about a performance issue as defined in the CSC Remedial Action Procedure, the two Councils shall as soon as possible each appoint three (3) members including the Chairs to the SICT. Well, these CSC procedures involve going first to the PTI Board, then the ICANN CEO, and then to the ICANN Board. The GRC wonders when specifically should the SICT be established and they suggest that it not be until the ICANN Board is engaged in the matter. (Note – The CSC will inform the Councils of every escalation step in the RAP.) * Question: Do we agree? What do we think? 1. In reading through paragraph 5.3, the GRC was not quite sure whether the respective Councils would have to make one joint statement or two – and how the interplay takes place between posting input on the various websites and jointly releasing a statement through the SICT. * Question: Can we clarify how this process works? * Related question: Can we two groups jointly map out the timeline of the SICT to test its viability? (For instance, we allow up to 30 days for input from SOs and ACs (see last sentence of paragraph 4.4) and then perhaps allow for the time needed for public comment – will these time periods work?) 1. For the work and deliberations involved in paragraphs 5.4 through 5.6 (this is a considerable amount of work) the document places most of the onus on the SICT. THE GRC wonders if this is too much to load onto the SICT and whether some of this should be shifted to the respective Councils – and what that balance would look like in a bit more detail. Moreover, given the ramifications of the decisions involved which decision should be on the plate of the full Councils and which on the plate of the coordination team? * Question: What do we think? 1. With respect to considerations of a Special IFR itself, the GRC noted that other avenues exist through which to address PTI issues – for instance (1) possible removal of director(s) and (2) the ability to bring an IRP relating to PTI service complaints and/or ICANN’s failure to enforce its rights under the IANA Naming Functions Contract – and mediation is also available. * Question: Should this document note the fact that Councils will possibly be looking at alternative courses of action and thus we should be careful to check on that possibility to factor it into our calculations? 1. Finally, the document should perhaps make reference to ongoing steps by CSC to resolve the issue. What happens if the PTI/IANA issue is resolved along the way – should we address closing down the SIFR and SICT. (Note – once the CSC informs the Councils at the end of the RAP the role of the CSC is very limited – see the RAP process [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>.) From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, July 8, 2019 at 9:12 AM To: "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Cc: "ccnso-grc(a)icann.org" <ccnso-grc(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] [Ext] Re: Joint GRC/DT Meeting re: ccNSO GRC questions re: consulting on Special IFRs Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all, The meeting has been scheduled for Monday, 15 July at 12:00 UTC and I have separately sent the invite to the DT list. However, Please also see the details below. Kind regards, Julie Topic: Guidelines Review Committee Time: July 15, 2019 12:00 PM Universal Time UTC Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/vKejBg (recording and background material will be posted here as it becomes available) Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/796938969 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_j_796938…> Meeting ID: 796-938-969 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aAAP6aGAx [zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__zoom.us_u_aAAP6aGAx&d=…> From: "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de> Date: Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 11:14 AM To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org>, "ccnso-grc(a)icann.org" <ccnso-grc(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Joint GRC/DT Meeting re: ccNSO GRC questions re: consulting on Special IFRs I could make it - but please fix it asap. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 03.07.2019 um 04:00 schrieb Heather Forrest: Thanks very much to all. Monday 15 July will be Tuesday 16th my time - it's a busy morning for me, but I'll do whatever I can to make it work. Best wishes, Heather On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 5:24 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear David and all, After a staff discussion with Katrina and Heather at ICANN65 it is suggested that the joint GRC/DT meeting could be held on Monday, 15 July. Staff will confirm the time and will send an invitation. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 10:46 AM To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com><mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>, "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Cc: "ccnso-grc(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-grc@icann.org>" <ccnso-grc(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-grc@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] ccNSO GRC questions re: consulting on Special IFRs Dear David, Thank you very much for passing on these very helpful comments and questions from the GRC. Staff will take the action to schedule a joint GRC/DT meeting as soon as possible following ICANN65, noting that we do not schedule meetings the week immediately following an ICANN meeting, so the soonest would be the week of 07 July. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com><mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com> Date: Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 8:07 AM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Cc: "ccnso-grc(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-grc@icann.org>" <ccnso-grc(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-grc@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] ccNSO GRC questions re: consulting on Special IFRs Dear Heather and fellow members of the GNSO Drafting Team: At the ccNSO Guideline Review Committee (GRC) meeting on Monday, June 17, some questions/comments came up with respect to the draft Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR document [bit.ly]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_2KXUOMr&d=DwMFAg…> we have been discussing. (FYI, I am a participant in the GRC as well as in this GNSO team.) I will summarize those questions/comments here to help us discuss. In addition, I told the GRC that we believe another joint meeting of GRC and this team will help us close work on this document. We should think about scheduling that – and it is my hope that this summary will help us focus on the GRC concerns so that we may be able to address these with the GRC in fairly short order when we meet. Here are the questions/comments the GRC noted during the June 17th meeting: 1. We envision the creation of a GNSO-ccNSO Special IFR Initiation Coordination Team (SICT) – see paragraph 5.2. We say that as soon as the CSC informs the ccNSO and GNSO Councils about a performance issue as defined in the CSC Remedial Action Procedure, the two Councils shall as soon as possible each appoint three (3) members including the Chairs to the SICT. Well, these CSC procedures involve going first to the PTI Board, then the ICANN CEO, and then to the ICANN Board. The GRC wonders when specifically should the SICT be established and they suggest that it not be until the ICANN Board is engaged in the matter. (Note – The CSC will inform the Councils of every escalation step in the RAP.) * Question: Do we agree? What do we think? 1. In reading through paragraph 5.3, the GRC was not quite sure whether the respective Councils would have to make one joint statement or two – and how the interplay takes place between posting input on the various websites and jointly releasing a statement through the SICT. * Question: Can we clarify how this process works? * Related question: Can we two groups jointly map out the timeline of the SICT to test its viability? (For instance, we allow up to 30 days for input from SOs and ACs (see last sentence of paragraph 4.4) and then perhaps allow for the time needed for public comment – will these time periods work?) 1. For the work and deliberations involved in paragraphs 5.4 through 5.6 (this is a considerable amount of work) the document places most of the onus on the SICT. THE GRC wonders if this is too much to load onto the SICT and whether some of this should be shifted to the respective Councils – and what that balance would look like in a bit more detail. Moreover, given the ramifications of the decisions involved which decision should be on the plate of the full Councils and which on the plate of the coordination team? * Question: What do we think? 1. With respect to considerations of a Special IFR itself, the GRC noted that other avenues exist through which to address PTI issues – for instance (1) possible removal of director(s) and (2) the ability to bring an IRP relating to PTI service complaints and/or ICANN’s failure to enforce its rights under the IANA Naming Functions Contract – and mediation is also available. * Question: Should this document note the fact that Councils will possibly be looking at alternative courses of action and thus we should be careful to check on that possibility to factor it into our calculations? 1. Finally, the document should perhaps make reference to ongoing steps by CSC to resolve the issue. What happens if the PTI/IANA issue is resolved along the way – should we address closing down the SIFR and SICT. (Note – once the CSC informs the Councils at the end of the RAP the role of the CSC is very limited – see the RAP process [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>.) Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). 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.

1 0

Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 10 July at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 9, 2019

July 9, 2019

Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting Wednesday, 10 July at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines. Draft Proposed Agenda 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest 2. Section 18.12 Special IFRs -- Brief Update re: 15 July joint GRC/DT meeting on Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Consultation on Initiating a Special IFR: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ol8461abkOqzXSahZKkuLL-7GxDWklmA0wnK1CK… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 1. Discussion/Edits re: Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tR6YeATOl-_6ig7XKKluR3jwY8cLPYKoLCB-t6G… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 2. AOB Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Joint GRC/DT Meeting re: ccNSO GRC questions re: consulting on Special IFRs
by Julie Hedlund July 9, 2019

July 9, 2019

Dear David and all, After a staff discussion with Katrina and Heather at ICANN65 it is suggested that the joint GRC/DT meeting could be held on Monday, 15 July. Staff will confirm the time and will send an invitation. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 10:46 AM To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com>, "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Cc: "ccnso-grc(a)icann.org" <ccnso-grc(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] ccNSO GRC questions re: consulting on Special IFRs Dear David, Thank you very much for passing on these very helpful comments and questions from the GRC. Staff will take the action to schedule a joint GRC/DT meeting as soon as possible following ICANN65, noting that we do not schedule meetings the week immediately following an ICANN meeting, so the soonest would be the week of 07 July. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com> Date: Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 8:07 AM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Cc: "ccnso-grc(a)icann.org" <ccnso-grc(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] ccNSO GRC questions re: consulting on Special IFRs Dear Heather and fellow members of the GNSO Drafting Team: At the ccNSO Guideline Review Committee (GRC) meeting on Monday, June 17, some questions/comments came up with respect to the draft Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR document [bit.ly]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_2KXUOMr&d=DwMFAg…> we have been discussing. (FYI, I am a participant in the GRC as well as in this GNSO team.) I will summarize those questions/comments here to help us discuss. In addition, I told the GRC that we believe another joint meeting of GRC and this team will help us close work on this document. We should think about scheduling that – and it is my hope that this summary will help us focus on the GRC concerns so that we may be able to address these with the GRC in fairly short order when we meet. Here are the questions/comments the GRC noted during the June 17th meeting: 1. We envision the creation of a GNSO-ccNSO Special IFR Initiation Coordination Team (SICT) – see paragraph 5.2. We say that as soon as the CSC informs the ccNSO and GNSO Councils about a performance issue as defined in the CSC Remedial Action Procedure, the two Councils shall as soon as possible each appoint three (3) members including the Chairs to the SICT. Well, these CSC procedures involve going first to the PTI Board, then the ICANN CEO, and then to the ICANN Board. The GRC wonders when specifically should the SICT be established and they suggest that it not be until the ICANN Board is engaged in the matter. (Note – The CSC will inform the Councils of every escalation step in the RAP.) * Question: Do we agree? What do we think? 1. In reading through paragraph 5.3, the GRC was not quite sure whether the respective Councils would have to make one joint statement or two – and how the interplay takes place between posting input on the various websites and jointly releasing a statement through the SICT. * Question: Can we clarify how this process works? * Related question: Can we two groups jointly map out the timeline of the SICT to test its viability? (For instance, we allow up to 30 days for input from SOs and ACs (see last sentence of paragraph 4.4) and then perhaps allow for the time needed for public comment – will these time periods work?) 1. For the work and deliberations involved in paragraphs 5.4 through 5.6 (this is a considerable amount of work) the document places most of the onus on the SICT. THE GRC wonders if this is too much to load onto the SICT and whether some of this should be shifted to the respective Councils – and what that balance would look like in a bit more detail. Moreover, given the ramifications of the decisions involved which decision should be on the plate of the full Councils and which on the plate of the coordination team? * Question: What do we think? 1. With respect to considerations of a Special IFR itself, the GRC noted that other avenues exist through which to address PTI issues – for instance (1) possible removal of director(s) and (2) the ability to bring an IRP relating to PTI service complaints and/or ICANN’s failure to enforce its rights under the IANA Naming Functions Contract – and mediation is also available. * Question: Should this document note the fact that Councils will possibly be looking at alternative courses of action and thus we should be careful to check on that possibility to factor it into our calculations? 1. Finally, the document should perhaps make reference to ongoing steps by CSC to resolve the issue. What happens if the PTI/IANA issue is resolved along the way – should we address closing down the SIFR and SICT. (Note – once the CSC informs the Councils at the end of the RAP the role of the CSC is very limited – see the RAP process [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>.) Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154

3 4

REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum Draft 17 May 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 8, 2019

July 8, 2019

Dear DT members, Per action item 2 below from the meeting on 12 June, please review the GUIDELINES & MOTION TEMPLATE: SECTION 1.3 APPROVAL ACTION COMMUNITY FORUM DRAFT 17 May 2019 at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tR6YeATOl-_6ig7XKKluR3jwY8cLPYKoLCB-t6G… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. The document will be on the agenda for the next meeting on Wednesday, 10 July at 21:00 UTC. In the meantime, DT members are encouraged to make suggested edits and comments in the Google document. Thank you very much for your consideration. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, June 14, 2019 at 3:39 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 12 June 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 12 June 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=111380736. Please note that all versions of the guidelines may be found on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines+Deposito…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions: 1. Section 18.12 Special IFRs: a. Staff will produce a FINAL clean version of the Section 4.0 Guidelines for Using the GNSO Input Process for a Special IFR and send it to the DT list for reference. b. Staff will produce a redlined version of the GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR and: 1) Send it with a request to David McCauley and Bart Boswinkel to schedule a meeting with the ccNSO’s GRC with the DT. (DONE) 2) Send it to the DT for reference. 2. Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: DT members will review for the next meeting on 10 July. See the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tR6YeATOl-_6ig7XKKluR3jwY8cLPYKoLCB-t6G… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>.

2 3

FW: [cctldcommunity] Rejection Action: Five-Year Strategic Plan FY21-25 approved by the Board
by McAuley, David July 3, 2019

July 3, 2019

Dear Heather and fellow Drafting-Team members: As you know, I also participate in the ccNSO. It seems useful to forward a ccNSO email-notice (below) relative to an open period for possible rejection action. This may help inform our discussions. Best regards to all, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: cctldcommunity <cctldcommunity-bounces(a)lists.nic.cz> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2019 4:35 AM To: 'ccNSO Members' <ccnso-members(a)icann.org>; ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org; cctldworld(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [cctldcommunity] Rejection Action: Five-Year Strategic Plan FY21-25 approved by the Board Dear ccTLD Community, On 23 June 2019, the ICANN Board of Directors approved the Five-Year Strategic Plan for FY21-25 (see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-06-23-en#2.a) On 2 July 2019, the ccNSO as a Decisional Participant received a notice from the ICANN Secretary pursuant to Section 22.5(b)(v) of the ICANN Bylaws. The approved Strategic Plan (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/strategic-plan-2021-2025-23jun1…) is subject to Rejection Action Petitions from the community. If you are interested in submitting a Rejection Action Petition to the ccNSO Council, please consult Section 2 of Annex D for the requirements, which must be met (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexD) Please be advised that per Annex D Section 2.2(a)(i)(A) the Rejection Action Petition must be: "...based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in ICANN's Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN's stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community." Please see also our internal Guideline: ccNSO Procedure for the Exercise of the Empowered Community's rights to Reject Specified Actions at https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/guideline-reject… According to the Guideline, the ccNSO will consider a Rejection Action Petition from the following constituents: - ccTLD managers, - individual(s) directly related to a ccTLD manager, - ccNSO working groups or committees mandated to submit such a petition, - Regional ccTLD organisations (as defined in section 10.5 of the ICANN Bylaws), - the ccNSO Council. The deadline for submission of Rejection Action Petition(s) to the ccNSO role account ccnso-petitions(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-petitions@icann.org> is 16 July 2019, 23.59 UTC. All relevant information will be published at https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/Rejection+actions Kindest regards, Katrina Sataki Chair of the ccNSO Council

1 0