Hi all, I also went through 3.1 - 3.3 with one substantive comment only regarding (3.2) the distinction between the two council voting cases. I think a quick bylaws compliance check from ICANN Legal could put us (at least myself) on the safe side. Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 06.10.2019 um 19:00 schrieb McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt:

Thanks Heather,

I have completed the First assignment regarding 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 – made some few minor editorial (non-substantive) comments.

Best wishes,

David

David McAuley

Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154

*From:* Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Thursday, October 03, 2019 8:19 PM *To:* gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-bylaws-dt] PLEASE READ: URGENT NEXT STEPS to finalising our work

Dear DT colleagues,

We have reached the end of our work plan! There are 2 things immediately left to do (we'll circle back to clean up the last item, the Joint Consultation Guidelines with ccNSO, once our looming deadline to Council is met). To meet Council's document deadline, both tasks must be done before Monday, 14 October:

*FIRST: FINALIZE 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 - TO COMPLETE BY THIS SUNDAY, 6 OCTOBER*in your time zone: Ariel has worked diligently to clean up these documents following our call, and I have reviewed her edits and tinkered a bit further. Please can all DT members review these, with particular attention to:

·3.2 - the revisions to 4.2.3 (*SO/AC Director Removal Petition Review and Certification of Completeness*): Ariel has tidied up, and you will see I have also further added the words 'Certification of Completeness' in the heading of this section and some plain-English introductory words in the introduction at the bottom of page 1 to more clearly distinguish between Certification of Completeness by Council leadership;  Acceptance of the Petition by Vote of Relevant House; and Approval of Petition by entire Council. The same language has been ported to 2.2/2.3, 3.1, and 3.3 as well.

·3.3 - the revisions to  4.2.4 (*GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition) *to address David's comment to specify the help from staff to compile, and if time permits, summarise, any comments received through Community Feedback. The same language has been ported to other relevant sections in 1.3/1.4, 2.2/2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 (as noted in Ariel’s response to David).

*SECOND: REVIEW OF FULL PACKAGE - TO COMPLETE BY NEXT FRIDAY, 11 OCTOBER* in your time zone: Ariel has added a table at the top of our work plan to set out each Guideline/Template we have developed. WORKPLAN found here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeydtqli8UWOrrvChIf9EMprGxo0pOr5lcadM-n0...). I have randomly nominated an active DT member to each Guideline. If you are completely dissatisfied with your allocated document, please convince another DT member to swap with you (bear with me please, as we don't have too much time to rock-paper-scissors over who gets what). I'm happy to take on 2 reviews to complete the list unless a DT member who was not allocated a doc wants to take on a review. Starting from next Monday morning, 7 October (please wait until Monday morning so Julie, Ariel and I can ensure that 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are ready and port any relevant changes across to the other docs) please review your allocated document next week. When your review is complete, indicate so in the workplan table by typing 'yes' or 'complete' into the relevant box in the chart. Ariel has diligently ported backwards to earlier documents our learnings and decisions from the more recent documents, but we're all more experienced now, and this final review may catch further things we didn't think about earlier in the year. If you find any issues of concern in your review, please raise them ASAP on the DT list, making very clear which document you're referring to and what the problem is.

Very best wishes to all,

Heather

_______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list 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) 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.

Hello all, Thank you very much for David and Wolf-Ulrich’s diligent review of 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 over the weekend! I have incorporated their input and ported changes to applicable sections across the board. All three documents are now clean. The links to all guidelines remain unchanged, and are linked from the work plan table here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeydtqli8UWOrrvChIf9EMprGxo0pOr5lcadM-n0... For your convenience, I c/p the text about the second task in Heather’s previous email below. Thank you all for your time and hard work! Best Regards, Ariel == SECOND: REVIEW OF FULL PACKAGE - TO COMPLETE BY NEXT FRIDAY, 11 OCTOBER in your time zone: Ariel has added a table at the top of our work plan to set out each Guideline/Template we have developed. WORKPLAN found here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeydtqli8UWOrrvChIf9EMprGxo0pOr5lcadM-n0... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>). I have randomly nominated an active DT member to each Guideline. If you are completely dissatisfied with your allocated document, please convince another DT member to swap with you (bear with me please, as we don't have too much time to rock-paper-scissors over who gets what). I'm happy to take on 2 reviews to complete the list unless a DT member who was not allocated a doc wants to take on a review. Starting from next Monday morning, 7 October (please wait until Monday morning so Julie, Ariel and I can ensure that 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are ready and port any relevant changes across to the other docs) please review your allocated document next week. When your review is complete, indicate so in the workplan table by typing 'yes' or 'complete' into the relevant box in the chart. Ariel has diligently ported backwards to earlier documents our learnings and decisions from the more recent documents, but we're all more experienced now, and this final review may catch further things we didn't think about earlier in the year. If you find any issues of concern in your review, please raise them ASAP on the DT list, making very clear which document you're referring to and what the problem is. From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Date: Monday, October 7, 2019 at 5:45 AM To: "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] PLEASE READ: URGENT NEXT STEPS to finalising our work Thanks very much, David and Wolf-Ulrich. Very much appreciated! As Sunday has now drawn to a close in all of our respective time zones, I'll assume we've concluded on 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. Ariel, may we ask you to produce final versions of 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 for us and link to the work plan table of final review allocations, please? Wolf-Ulrich, we'll refer the question you have raised to Legal and forge ahead with final reviews in the meantime. Last week I sent a 'heads-up' message to the GNSO Council, and based on the response it's very likely that Council will take the weeks between October document deadline and the Montreal meeting to review the package. I'll forward that email and reply to the list so that our DT record is complete. We'll potentially need to help Council prepare for the ccNSO's Fundamental Bylaw amendment Community Forum taking place in Montreal, perhaps by explaining our relevant Guidelines/Templates for that process. We'll also need to get Council leadership prepped for Montreal and the finalisation of the Joint Consultation Guidelines with the ccNSO. But... one step at a time... final reviews of the docs is our only task this week! Thanks very much to everyone for their hard work. Best wishes, Heather On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 7:51 AM Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: Hi all, I also went through 3.1 - 3.3 with one substantive comment only regarding (3.2) the distinction between the two council voting cases. I think a quick bylaws compliance check from ICANN Legal could put us (at least myself) on the safe side. Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 06.10.2019 um 19:00 schrieb McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt: Thanks Heather, I have completed the First assignment regarding 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 – made some few minor editorial (non-substantive) comments. Best wishes, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2019 8:19 PM To: gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-bylaws-dt] PLEASE READ: URGENT NEXT STEPS to finalising our work Dear DT colleagues, We have reached the end of our work plan! There are 2 things immediately left to do (we'll circle back to clean up the last item, the Joint Consultation Guidelines with ccNSO, once our looming deadline to Council is met). To meet Council's document deadline, both tasks must be done before Monday, 14 October: FIRST: FINALIZE 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 - TO COMPLETE BY THIS SUNDAY, 6 OCTOBER in your time zone: Ariel has worked diligently to clean up these documents following our call, and I have reviewed her edits and tinkered a bit further. Please can all DT members review these, with particular attention to: • 3.2 - the revisions to 4.2.3 (SO/AC Director Removal Petition Review and Certification of Completeness): Ariel has tidied up, and you will see I have also further added the words 'Certification of Completeness' in the heading of this section and some plain-English introductory words in the introduction at the bottom of page 1 to more clearly distinguish between Certification of Completeness by Council leadership; Acceptance of the Petition by Vote of Relevant House; and Approval of Petition by entire Council. The same language has been ported to 2.2/2.3, 3.1, and 3.3 as well. • 3.3 - the revisions to 4.2.4 (GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition) to address David's comment to specify the help from staff to compile, and if time permits, summarise, any comments received through Community Feedback. The same language has been ported to other relevant sections in 1.3/1.4, 2.2/2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 (as noted in Ariel’s response to David). SECOND: REVIEW OF FULL PACKAGE - TO COMPLETE BY NEXT FRIDAY, 11 OCTOBER in your time zone: Ariel has added a table at the top of our work plan to set out each Guideline/Template we have developed. WORKPLAN found here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeydtqli8UWOrrvChIf9EMprGxo0pOr5lcadM-n0... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>). I have randomly nominated an active DT member to each Guideline. If you are completely dissatisfied with your allocated document, please convince another DT member to swap with you (bear with me please, as we don't have too much time to rock-paper-scissors over who gets what). I'm happy to take on 2 reviews to complete the list unless a DT member who was not allocated a doc wants to take on a review. Starting from next Monday morning, 7 October (please wait until Monday morning so Julie, Ariel and I can ensure that 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are ready and port any relevant changes across to the other docs) please review your allocated document next week. When your review is complete, indicate so in the workplan table by typing 'yes' or 'complete' into the relevant box in the chart. Ariel has diligently ported backwards to earlier documents our learnings and decisions from the more recent documents, but we're all more experienced now, and this final review may catch further things we didn't think about earlier in the year. If you find any issues of concern in your review, please raise them ASAP on the DT list, making very clear which document you're referring to and what the problem is. Very best wishes to all, Heather _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@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_p...>) 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_t...>). 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.

Dear DT colleagues, In completing my review today of Guideline 3.2, I came upon an idea to include the following explanatory text before the table in the introductory Background section of each of our Guidelines documents: The following table sets out the applicable Bylaws provision/s, the actions already completed by the GNSO in relation to those Bylaws provisions, and the additional proposed steps that were tasked to the GNSO DT. The remaining sections of these Guidelines are intended to address the Additional Proposed Steps. What do you think? Would this be helpful? I realised I was struggling, even with the headings in the table, to fully understand what had/hadn't been done in that table and how the table information related to the Guidelines in which it sits. If you're willing to consider this as you review your allocated Guidelines doc and insert it if you believe it is helpful, that would be very helpful. Staff and I can do a final sweep at the end to ensure consistency across all docs. Best wishes, happy reviewing, Heather On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:42 AM Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear DT colleagues,

An *update* and a *reminder* as we hit mid-week here in Australia (though still Tuesday in many DT members' time zones).

*UPDATE*: On commencing final review of the 18.12 Guidelines, David very sensibly flagged that this guideline is inherently tied to the accompanying Joint Consultation Guidelines still under development with the ccNSO. David suggests, and I fully support, parking final review of this Guideline until the ccNSO-GNSO Joint Consultation Guidelines are complete. As I had allocated myself two final reviews and David had already reviewed one of those this past weekend, I've suggested that he take over review of 2.2/2.3 instead. I have updated our workplan allocation accordingly: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeydtqli8UWOrrvChIf9EMprGxo0pOr5lcadM-n0...

*REMINDER*: Final reviews must be completed by this Friday in order to meet the Council document deadline. If at this point in the week you believe that you will be unable to complete your review on time, just let me know so that the document can be re-allocated in good time to finish.

Best wishes to all,

Heather

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:19 AM Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dear DT colleagues,

We have reached the end of our work plan! There are 2 things immediately left to do (we'll circle back to clean up the last item, the Joint Consultation Guidelines with ccNSO, once our looming deadline to Council is met). To meet Council's document deadline, both tasks must be done before Monday, 14 October:

*FIRST: FINALIZE 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 - TO COMPLETE BY THIS SUNDAY, 6 OCTOBER* in your time zone: Ariel has worked diligently to clean up these documents following our call, and I have reviewed her edits and tinkered a bit further. Please can all DT members review these, with particular attention to:

- 3.2 - the revisions to 4.2.3 (*SO/AC Director Removal Petition Review and Certification of Completeness*): Ariel has tidied up, and you will see I have also further added the words 'Certification of Completeness' in the heading of this section and some plain-English introductory words in the introduction at the bottom of page 1 to more clearly distinguish between Certification of Completeness by Council leadership; Acceptance of the Petition by Vote of Relevant House; and Approval of Petition by entire Council. The same language has been ported to 2.2/2.3, 3.1, and 3.3 as well. - 3.3 - the revisions to 4.2.4 (*GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition) *to address David's comment to specify the help from staff to compile, and if time permits, summarise, any comments received through Community Feedback. The same language has been ported to other relevant sections in 1.3/1.4, 2.2/2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 (as noted in Ariel’s response to David).

*SECOND: REVIEW OF FULL PACKAGE - TO COMPLETE BY NEXT FRIDAY, 11 OCTOBER* in your time zone: Ariel has added a table at the top of our work plan to set out each Guideline/Template we have developed. WORKPLAN found here ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeydtqli8UWOrrvChIf9EMprGxo0pOr5lcadM-n0...). I have randomly nominated an active DT member to each Guideline. If you are completely dissatisfied with your allocated document, please convince another DT member to swap with you (bear with me please, as we don't have too much time to rock-paper-scissors over who gets what). I'm happy to take on 2 reviews to complete the list unless a DT member who was not allocated a doc wants to take on a review. Starting from next Monday morning, 7 October (please wait until Monday morning so Julie, Ariel and I can ensure that 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are ready and port any relevant changes across to the other docs) please review your allocated document next week. When your review is complete, indicate so in the workplan table by typing 'yes' or 'complete' into the relevant box in the chart. Ariel has diligently ported backwards to earlier documents our learnings and decisions from the more recent documents, but we're all more experienced now, and this final review may catch further things we didn't think about earlier in the year. If you find any issues of concern in your review, please raise them ASAP on the DT list, making very clear which document you're referring to and what the problem is.

Very best wishes to all,

Heather

Hello Heather, Tatiana, and all, Thank you very much for Heather’s and Tatiana’s very thorough review!! Update: Staff have cleaned up the documents based on Heather’s and Tatiana’s input, and in particular, “harmonized” the guidelines for 1.3/1.4, 2.2/2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 by porting changes in applicable sections. We also ported stylistic/formatting changes to 4.2/4.3 and 18.12. However, we noted one substantive point on the 1.3/1.4 Rejection Action guideline (please see pages 6-7): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jXc2TQCv4ArMo0LPzTrLncIG_JwSnuQqV05xvrAp... Is the eventual GNSO Council vote to support, object to, or abstain from the Approval Action a supermajority vote, or simple majority? Bylaws Section 11.3(j)(iv) reads: “Amendments to Fundamental Bylaws and Article Amendments as contemplated by Section 25.2 of the Bylaws, Asset Sales, as contemplated by Article 26 of the Bylaws, amendments to ICANN Articles of Incorporation: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.” In the original version of this guideline, it was noted that the decision shall be taken by a GNSO Council simple majority vote. We just made the correction in redline on pages 6-7. We would appreciate a sanity check from the Drafting Team on this point. Again, thank you for everyone for your final review, which continues till Friday, 11 October COB ☺ Best Regards, Ariel From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 6:09 AM To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] PLEASE READ: URGENT NEXT STEPS to finalising our work Hi Heather, Ariel and all, I (happily) reviewed my part. Made some corrections. Heather, I did go through your part's reviews before reviewing mine as I thought we better to harmonise the language on the matters of director's removals if there're any pieces of texts changed or added by you in your part. So if you see your additional language copy-pasted in mine - it's not mindless plagiarism, it's my appreciation of your efforts and full agreement with what you suggested in your part language-wise. AI did this only after checks whether it's needed in the part assigned to me, so it's not "harmonise for the sake of harmonisation" but rather some allingment. Big thanks! There are my corrections, too :-) Cheers, Tanya On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 06:11, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear DT colleagues, In completing my review today of Guideline 3.2, I came upon an idea to include the following explanatory text before the table in the introductory Background section of each of our Guidelines documents: The following table sets out the applicable Bylaws provision/s, the actions already completed by the GNSO in relation to those Bylaws provisions, and the additional proposed steps that were tasked to the GNSO DT. The remaining sections of these Guidelines are intended to address the Additional Proposed Steps. What do you think? Would this be helpful? I realised I was struggling, even with the headings in the table, to fully understand what had/hadn't been done in that table and how the table information related to the Guidelines in which it sits. If you're willing to consider this as you review your allocated Guidelines doc and insert it if you believe it is helpful, that would be very helpful. Staff and I can do a final sweep at the end to ensure consistency across all docs. Best wishes, happy reviewing, Heather On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:42 AM Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear DT colleagues, An update and a reminder as we hit mid-week here in Australia (though still Tuesday in many DT members' time zones). UPDATE: On commencing final review of the 18.12 Guidelines, David very sensibly flagged that this guideline is inherently tied to the accompanying Joint Consultation Guidelines still under development with the ccNSO. David suggests, and I fully support, parking final review of this Guideline until the ccNSO-GNSO Joint Consultation Guidelines are complete. As I had allocated myself two final reviews and David had already reviewed one of those this past weekend, I've suggested that he take over review of 2.2/2.3 instead. I have updated our workplan allocation accordingly: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeydtqli8UWOrrvChIf9EMprGxo0pOr5lcadM-n0... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> REMINDER: Final reviews must be completed by this Friday in order to meet the Council document deadline. If at this point in the week you believe that you will be unable to complete your review on time, just let me know so that the document can be re-allocated in good time to finish. Best wishes to all, Heather On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:19 AM Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear DT colleagues, We have reached the end of our work plan! There are 2 things immediately left to do (we'll circle back to clean up the last item, the Joint Consultation Guidelines with ccNSO, once our looming deadline to Council is met). To meet Council's document deadline, both tasks must be done before Monday, 14 October: FIRST: FINALIZE 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 - TO COMPLETE BY THIS SUNDAY, 6 OCTOBER in your time zone: Ariel has worked diligently to clean up these documents following our call, and I have reviewed her edits and tinkered a bit further. Please can all DT members review these, with particular attention to: · 3.2 - the revisions to 4.2.3 (SO/AC Director Removal Petition Review and Certification of Completeness): Ariel has tidied up, and you will see I have also further added the words 'Certification of Completeness' in the heading of this section and some plain-English introductory words in the introduction at the bottom of page 1 to more clearly distinguish between Certification of Completeness by Council leadership; Acceptance of the Petition by Vote of Relevant House; and Approval of Petition by entire Council. The same language has been ported to 2.2/2.3, 3.1, and 3.3 as well. · 3.3 - the revisions to 4.2.4 (GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition) to address David's comment to specify the help from staff to compile, and if time permits, summarise, any comments received through Community Feedback. The same language has been ported to other relevant sections in 1.3/1.4, 2.2/2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 (as noted in Ariel’s response to David). SECOND: REVIEW OF FULL PACKAGE - TO COMPLETE BY NEXT FRIDAY, 11 OCTOBER in your time zone: Ariel has added a table at the top of our work plan to set out each Guideline/Template we have developed. WORKPLAN found here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeydtqli8UWOrrvChIf9EMprGxo0pOr5lcadM-n0... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>). I have randomly nominated an active DT member to each Guideline. If you are completely dissatisfied with your allocated document, please convince another DT member to swap with you (bear with me please, as we don't have too much time to rock-paper-scissors over who gets what). I'm happy to take on 2 reviews to complete the list unless a DT member who was not allocated a doc wants to take on a review. Starting from next Monday morning, 7 October (please wait until Monday morning so Julie, Ariel and I can ensure that 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are ready and port any relevant changes across to the other docs) please review your allocated document next week. When your review is complete, indicate so in the workplan table by typing 'yes' or 'complete' into the relevant box in the chart. Ariel has diligently ported backwards to earlier documents our learnings and decisions from the more recent documents, but we're all more experienced now, and this final review may catch further things we didn't think about earlier in the year. If you find any issues of concern in your review, please raise them ASAP on the DT list, making very clear which document you're referring to and what the problem is. Very best wishes to all, Heather _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@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_p...>) 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_t...>). 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.