Hi Anne,

 

I believe the LD PDP is currently applying this in their processes and we can learn from their experience – not saying that each and every HRIA will look the same for all future PDPs, and indeed each PDP/EPDP has the opportunity to call in outside experts as circumstances warrant. I have also reached out to staff on LD PDP and they have affirmed the same. I agree that this is a good discussion to have, and I’ve mentioned, as you also have at the end of your email, this is very much a full Council discussion if we want to shift the language in the Human Rights paragraph.

 

The current charter language matches the LD PDP charter language in the same paragraph, and Council could benefit from a shared understanding of the basis of how this came to be as well.

 

Finally, apologies that our emails crossed earlier, but the next steps I believe remain the same. We can allot some time during this agenda item to have the larger discussion on shifting the HR language in the PDP charter “default template”/the finer points on the understanding of “proportionality and legitimacy”.

 

Best,

Jen

 

 

From: Anne ICANN via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2026 10:38 AM
To: jen@dot.asia
Cc: gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam] Re: Happy New Year - closing out/resolving some open comments on the Charter

 

Thanks Jen.  I would like to reiterate that I have never been opposed to an HRIA.  I think the question for the PDP becomes whether this requires an outside expert assessment report as suggested by Farzi.  My understanding from Council was that of course the Human Rights checklist would be applied in every PDP.  You may be saying that the specific mechanism for conducting the HRIA will be up to the Working Group members if I understand your summary correctly?

 

This has been a great discussion regarding expectations of this PDP.  I am not sure that the discussion is now closed.  My concern lies with the three elements identified by Farzi that constitute her definition of "legitimate" in the Human Rights paragraph.  I do believe she is correct that the Latin Diacritics PDP involves a much simpler analysis.   So at the risk of being repetitive, I think the issue is what the term "legitimate" means in Question 3 in the Human Rights paragraph.  Justine offered her understanding and it differs from Farzi's.  I think it may have been Sam who mentioned that not much would be lost if Question 3 were deleted?  Then Lawrence weighed in and said he shared my view that the definition on "legitimate" is problematic.  

 

So here is Farzi's definition of "legitimate" in Question 3:   "


if the law and policies 1) were enacted through consent and participation 2) don't go against fundamental rights themselves - 3) there is fairness in enforcement. 

 

Your summary email addresses HRIA but does not address this point as to whether there is a common understanding on "legitimate" in question 3.  These principles appear obvious to Farzi but seem not to be obvious to other members of this small team.  Nor do I think they are obvious to the Council as a whole.  My aim here is clarity for the direction to be provided to the EPDP in the Charter.

 

Anne

 

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

 

 

On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 5:41 PM jen--- via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org> wrote:

Thank you all for your input and extensive discussion on closing out the charter. The effort, time and care invested in these exchanges are appreciated.

 

From my reading of the discussion, it seems we have broad agreement to go with the suggested text from Justine in q5. And to retain the original language in q3 and q8. I would like to thank Anne and Farzi for the detailed discussion on HRIA, and agree that it was council decision to add this to the PDP charters from LD PDP onwards. I note that they are operationalizing it for the first time in that PDP and Council will be able to learn from this process - if there needs to be any significant changes it would be a Council-level discussion and subsequent decision. Right now the language we have in the charter on Human Rights is sufficiently clear with the requisite reference links.

 

With this, I believe we have closed out the remaining substantive edits to the Charter, and request staff to clean up a final version so we can link this to the motion we will be voting on next week.  

 

Thank you again everyone for your constructive contributions, let’s maintain momentum and direct our collective attention to the substantive work of the PDP itself. As we all recognize, the expectations of the community are significant, and the work ahead will require sustained focus and collaboration.

 

Best,

Jen

 

From: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2026 4:41 PM
To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vivekg@ldotr.red>; Mohr, Susan <Susan.Mohr@lumen.com>; Demetriou, Samantha <sdemetriou@verisign.com>; justine.chew.icann@gmail.com; jen@dot.asia; gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam] Re: Happy New Year - closing out/resolving some open comments on the Charter

 

Dear All,

 

Compliments of the Season and this is wishing us all a Happy New Year!  

 

On the edits posed to Questions 3 and 5, i am aligned that adopting Option 2 as proposed by Justine remains the most viable option to adopt as it helps with clarity and organization of the points. 

 

On the discuss around Question 8, 

I agree with keeping the original wording, “What metrics will be used to evaluate the policy’s effectiveness?” and agree it is sufficient. 

 

I support Anne’s point of view on 3 and around the discuss ongoing.

 

Lawrence.  

 

 

From: farzaneh badii via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2026 9:07 PM
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vivekg@ldotr.red>; Mohr, Susan <Susan.Mohr@lumen.com>; Demetriou, Samantha <sdemetriou@verisign.com>; justine.chew.icann@gmail.com <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>; jen@dot.asia <jen@dot.asia>; gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam] Re: Happy New Year - closing out/resolving some open comments on the Charter

 

Anne, 

 

Human rights impact assessment is how we operationalize the GNSO PDP HR check-list. Did you like the Human Rights Checklist that applied in the analysis of transfer policy? I did that with the help of NCSG voluntarily. And all the three questions of legitimacy, proportionality and necessity were considered (we used the checklist and human rights impact assessment tools). 

I mention an external expert to just remove perception of bias and maybe base the conversation on different human rights impact assessment tools that we can customize to our own purposes, otherwise I think the PDP should do it with the help of staff. 

 

I think PDP should do the analysis with the help of staff and if they see conversations lead to deadlock having an external expert would be good. It's all very iterative at the moment, it's also being done at LD but LD might not have much HR issues. 

 

Farzaneh 

 

 

On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 2:41 PM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Farzi.  Helpful to clarifying that you are not referencing the Human Rights Checklist, but rather a formal Human Rights Impact Assessment process.  This is one of the considerations mentioned in the HR-FOI but I don't know if all agree on the approach with outside experts (as opposed to the Human Rights Checklist that applied in the analysis done after the Transfer Policy was forwarded.  

 

Would the analysis of the elements you describe as components of the question whether the proposed action is "legitimate" be done by the PDP or by an outside expert?  In other words, can the PDP itself make a determination on those elements using the PDP WG Consensus guidelines?

Anne

 

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

 

 

On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 12:34 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Anne. 

 

Doing a human rights impact assessment is an iterative process but also I believe it should be done in liaison with human rights organizations and experts. This is why I believe we need to have a budget for some external expert to guide us through it. I think at this stage the council doesn't have enough information and access to expertise to decide to elaborate on the template. So for this PDP we can't change the template but as the PDPs undertake HRIAs we can re-assess.

 

Farzaneh 

 

 

On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 2:21 PM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Farzi, - I hope you did not misinterpret my comment as an objection to HRIA.  That is NOT the case.

 

I think that if everyone on Council agrees with you that the three elements that you have spelled out for "legitimate" are appropriate, then we should just list all three of those elements as work that must be performed by the PDP (not that I think it's really practical but if you all agree that this is what it means in terms of the PDP's tasks, then let's be specific about it.)

 

Anne

 

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

 

 

On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 12:02 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

Anne,

 

The council had conversations about this a few years ago and they actually approved the HR template (and the questions) to be added to every charter. The template was drafted in consultation with people who have done HR activities at ICANN for years.

 

And my legitimacy definition doesn't broaden the PDP.  I am fully aware of the FOI and followed the HR discussions closely. 

 The beauty of human rights impact assessment is that it tells you the risk. It  can also provide solutions which the group can consider. It can just guide the PDPs decision. Nothing more nothing less. The PDP can say we don't agree that this is a  high risk activity or that here is the mitigation mechanism we have come up with.  

There are three questions that you can ask when it comes to legitimacy:

- was the policy done by participation of relevant stakeholders - this is almost always a yes. 

- will the recommendations have an impact on fundamental rights and whether there are mitigation mechanisms, if so which rights, whose rights what is the severity of the impact. (this is the harder question) 

- are there procedural fairness mechanisms in place. will the policy be reviewed for impact on human rights later on, are there procedurally fair mechanisms in place if things go wrong, challenge the policy or we find later on that some of these recommendations have had human rights impact that we didn't know. 

 

Just a note that human rights impact assessment or the checklist is not a matter of "where appropriate". The council has decided that it will be applied to every PDP moving forward. 

 

Best regards, 

 

Farzaneh 

 

 

On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 12:58 PM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Farzi,  If you are suggesting that the PDP Working Group has to make the assessment you have identified below in order to determine whether the action is "legitimate", then I believe a full discussion of this language should in fact be had at Council.  I don't think the WG is in a position to conduct this assessment at the policy-making stage:

 

if the law and policies 1) were enacted through consent and participation 2) don't go against fundamental rights themselves - 3) there is fairness in enforcement. 

 

I also note that Accountability Workstream 2 Human Rights Team spent a great deal of time discussing and finalizing the Human Rights Framework of Interpretation that was then adopted by the ICANN Board and is the existing ICANN Framework that applies.   Your reference to a proper template is relevant here in that the HR-FOI is actually the Board instrument (or  template) that governs Human Rights analysis, including, as has been pointed out, the Human Rights Impact Assessment, which of course I support where appropriate.

 

I am pointing this out because your summary of the analysis that must be done by the PDP as to whether the action is "legitimate" indicates an expectation to broaden the scope of the PDP in ways that I believe will be unmanageable for the WG.  Those types of issues were discussed in Accountability Workstream 2 work and we settled on the HR-FOI and that is why this is worth discussing.

 

Anne

 

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

 

 

On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:40 AM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

 

We cannot agree with any changes in the Human Rights section. Because this section and the questions are approved by the council and it's like a template, the drafting team member cannot agree on changing the section. If you want to change anything, it needs to be done in consultation with the council after a full conversation. (in fact Sam had an excellent suggestion in December to add to  that section and we couldn't do it because this is a template)

 

Legitimacy is a human rights language and is not vague in that framework. Legitimacy goes beyond applicable law and rules. In the legal system and human rights cases experts use it to see if the law and policies 1) were enacted through consent and participation 2) don't go against fundamental rights themselves - 3) there is fairness in enforcement.

 

Best regards, 

 

Farzaneh 

 

 

On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 11:56 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:

Regarding question 3, my aim is to adopt language that actually expresses a standard that can be determined.  "Legitimate" is extremely vague.  I note some have said not much would be lost by deleting it but I also note the interpretation that it has to do with compliance with applicable law and rules so I suggest replacement language as follows in Question 3 of the Human  Rights paragraph:

 

(3) Does the proposed action conform with applicable law and rules?

 

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

 

 

On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 7:53 AM Vivek Goyal via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org> wrote:

Agree with Susan and Sam’s suggestions.

 

Vivek

 

From: Mohr, Susan via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Date: Thursday, 8 January 2026 at 5:16 AM
To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>, Demetriou, Samantha <sdemetriou@verisign.com>
Cc: justine.chew.icann@gmail.com <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, jen@dot.asia <jen@dot.asia>, gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam] Re: Happy New Year - closing out/resolving some open comments on the Charter

Happy New Year! 

  1. On Question 8, I agree with keeping the original wording, “What metrics will be used to evaluate the policy’s effectiveness?”.
  2. On Questions 3 and 5, I support Justine’s proposed Option 2 below. Question 3 would address aspects of the investigation while Question 5 would address remedies. I recall this discussion during one of the calls and support this approach.
  3. I don’t have a strong opinion on this one.

Regards,

Susan

 

 

From: farzaneh badii via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 3:37 PM
To: Demetriou, Samantha <sdemetriou@verisign.com>
Cc: justine.chew.icann@gmail.com; jen@dot.asia; gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam] Re: Happy New Year - closing out/resolving some open comments on the Charter

 

Hello The impact on the registrant is not a repetition. The impact in Question 3 is about the proportionality of the investigative act itself; Question 5 is about the broader investigative and cumulative consequences of associated domain checks

Hello 

 

The impact on the registrant is not a repetition. 

The impact in Question 3 is about the proportionality of the investigative act itself; Question 5 is about the broader investigative and cumulative consequences of associated domain checks as a mechanism, and whether remedies are sufficient to address those harms. 

As such I don’t agree with the change Justine is suggesting. 

As to our addition, can you please provide a rational on why it should not be added? It is not necessarily prescriptive, doesn’t expand the scope and just makes the PDP think more broadly about reporting. 

 

 

 

 

Farzaneh 

 

 

On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 5:04 PM Demetriou, Samantha via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org> wrote:

Hi all,

 

Happy new year to everyone and thanks for the ongoing work to get this Charter done. Just to weigh in on the items from this thread that are still outstanding:

 

  1. On Question 8, I agree that the original wording, “What metrics will be used to evaluate the policy’s effectiveness?” is sufficient.

 

  1. On the potentially duplicative text in Questions 3 and 5, I would support Justine’s proposed Option 2 below.

 

  1. I don’t have a strong opinion about the inclusion of the question, “Is the proposed action legitimate?” under the “Impact on Human Rights” paragraph of the Charter. I think Justine’s interpretation is valid, but I also don’t think that paragraph would lose much if that question were struck.

 

 

Thanks,

Sam

 

From: Justine Chew via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Reply-To: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 at 4:28 PM
To: "jen@dot.asia" <jen@dot.asia>
Cc: "gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org" <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam] Re: Happy New Year - closing out/resolving some open comments on the Charter

 

Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 

Hi Jen,

In reply to your questions --

1) I concur with you that “8. What metrics will be used to evaluate the policy's effectiveness?” is sufficient.

2) On q3 and q5, my proposal and preference for Option 2 still stands

Option 1 - to alleviate duplication on the question of impact on DN registrants in q5

1.      Defining "investigation": What constitutes a "reasonable investigation" by a registrar? What investigation steps are required or recommended? Are the criteria for investigation proportionate and necessary? What is the impact of this investigation on domain name registrants?

1.      Do associated domain checks have a negative impact on domain name registrants and if they do, are there remedies?

 

Option 2 -  to focus q5 squarely on the question of remedies and to alleviate duplication on the question of impact on DN registrants in q5

1.      Defining "investigation": What constitutes a "reasonable investigation" by a registrar? What investigation steps are required or recommended? Are the criteria for investigation proportionate and necessary? What is the impact of this investigation on domain name registrants?

1.      Do associated domain checks have a negative impact on domain name registrants and if they do, are there remedies? If the associated domain checks have an adverse impact on domain name registrants, are there corresponding remedies?


3) Regarding Anne's comment about "3. is the proposed action legitimate", I understand "legitimate" to mean conformity to applicable laws (or rules) and would support keeping it.


Kind regards,
Justine

 

 

On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 at 03:46, jen--- via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org> wrote:

Thank you Anne and Farzi for this discussion. This current question 8 in the charter “What metrics will be used to evaluate the policy's effectiveness?” does I think encompasses the contemplation for the PDP to work on this topic, including considerations that Farzi has articulated. IMHO, I think the current formulation gives the PDP the flexibility and less directed specificity to work on recommendations and solutions.  Would like to hear others’ thoughts on this.

 

Also a reminder for us to please weigh in on the open comment on q3 and q5.

 

Finally, as I am not an expert on Human Rights, Anne brings up a suggestion to delete the very last part of the paragraph “Impact on Human Rights” (bottom of page 4) namely to delete “3) is the proposed action legitimate.” Could NCSG and other colleagues more familiar with this please also opine. Many thanks!

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LKQqjuSY-puI8cTfaAktad60IimVkuHSmBikC2P6JpI/edit?tab=t.0

 

Best,

Jen

 

From: farzaneh badii via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 10:45 AM
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>; jen@dot.asia; gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam] Re: Happy New Year - closing out/resolving some open comments on the Charter

 

Hi Anne. Under compliance section, question number 8:

What metrics will be used to evaluate the policy's effectiveness?

 

Farzaneh 

 

 

On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 9:30 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Farzi,

I searched the doc for a reference to "effectiveness" in relation to this suggestion on metrics.  I couldn't find that term so I'm wondering what would be the standard for measuring "effectiveness" or what is it's definition?

 

Thank you,

Anne

 

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

 

 

On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 10:22 PM farzaneh badii via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org> wrote:

We have to look over these changes as NCSG tomorrow but wanted to suggest adding a paragraph under metrics: 

 

Are there any aggregated, high-level metrics that could support evaluation of effectiveness, and if so, should such information be made available publicly or through other mechanisms?

 

Would that be acceptable? 

Farzaneh 

 

 

On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 11:59 PM Justine Chew via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks, Jen.

Hello all,

Happy New Year 2026.

Regarding the query on duplication of impact of investigation/checks, I proposed Option 2 which I believe preserves the intent of all concerned:

 

Option 1 - to alleviate duplication on the question of impact on DN registrants in q5

3.       Defining "investigation": What constitutes a "reasonable investigation" by a registrar? What investigation steps are required or recommended? Are the criteria for investigation proportionate and necessary? What is the impact of this investigation on domain name registrants?

5.       Do associated domain checks have a negative impact on domain name registrants and if they do, are there remedies?


Option 2 -  to focus q5 squarely on the question of remedies and to alleviate duplication on the question of impact on DN registrants in q5

3.       Defining "investigation": What constitutes a "reasonable investigation" by a registrar? What investigation steps are required or recommended? Are the criteria for investigation proportionate and necessary? What is the impact of this investigation on domain name registrants?

5.       Do associated domain checks have a negative impact on domain name registrants and if they do, are there remedies? If the associated domain checks have an adverse impact on domain name registrants, are there corresponding remedies?


Thanks for your consideration.

Kind regards,
Justine

 

 

On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 at 12:34, jen--- via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org> wrote:

Happy New Year to all!

 

Noting that we have a motion before Council for the adoption of the Charter, I wanted to remind us all and also make sure we are comfortable with where the text of the Charter now stands. Thank you to the work that we have collectively done to get to this stable version. Thank you to all who have reviewed and provided input, thank you also to staff who have resolved a few requests in the text. I note that there is still one (by my reading) open comment regarding q3 and q5 in the charter questions.

 

Charter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LKQqjuSY-puI8cTfaAktad60IimVkuHSmBikC2P6JpI/edit?usp=sharing

 

If I may suggest, that the first choice is we could either keep the text as is (even with the slight duplication on impact) as it represents compromise text between several SG/Cs after a series of productive calls – I note this is the preference of NCSG as articulated by Farzi in the link above.

 

Alternatively, if we do want to streamline for the sake of the PDP’s work to focus impact on q5, I will suggest again here (extracted from the link above, for more context and comments from small team member please go to the document):

 

  1. Defining "investigation": What constitutes a "reasonable investigation" by a registrar? What investigation steps are required or recommended? Are the criteria for investigation proportionate and necessary? What is the impact of this investigation on domain name registrants?
  1. Do associated domain checks have a negative impact on domain name registrants and if they do, are there remedies?

 

Justine also has an alternate formulation for q5, extracted here for your convenience:

  1. If the associated domain checks have an adverse impact on domain name registrants, are there corresponding remedies?

 

Thoughts from the small team members on the above and any other comments?

 

Best,

Jen

 

From: jen@dot.asia <jen@dot.asia>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2025 7:34 PM
To: 'gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org' <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Subject: Comments and items to be resolved - Updated Charter and Action Items

 

Dear All,

 

Thank you for those who input edits and comments by the deadline – we note that there are a few unresolved comments. We can take this up when ICANN returns from holiday break. Please also note that I will be sending the draft motion to the council list shortly as well for those of us who would like some time to take a look or still have working days ahead before we all return fresh for 2026.

 

Charter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LKQqjuSY-puI8cTfaAktad60IimVkuHSmBikC2P6JpI/edit?usp=sharing

 

Wishing all a restful holiday season.

 

Best,

Jen

 

From: John Emery via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2025 12:42 AM
To: gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam] Updated Charter and Action Items

 

Hello All,

 

Thank you again for working diligently this week, we appreciate all the compromises that have been made to get to this stage of the Charter. Staff has cleaned up the Charter questions and updated the agreed upon Membership Structure.

 

ACTION ITEM: Please review the Charter with your respective groups and add any input into the document (and comment on other’s input) by 23:59 UTC on Tuesday 23 December.(This timing will allow U.S.-based staff to send to Council prior to the ICANN holiday closure).

 

Please pay special attention to the charter questions and the membership model in your review.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LKQqjuSY-puI8cTfaAktad60IimVkuHSmBikC2P6JpI/edit?usp=sharing

 

Thank you,

 

John R. Emery, Ph.D.

Policy Development Support Senior Specialist

Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

www.icann.org

 

_______________________________________________
gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam mailing list -- gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam mailing list -- gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam mailing list -- gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam mailing list -- gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam mailing list -- gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
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.

This communication is the property of Lumen Technologies and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.

_______________________________________________
gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam mailing list -- gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam mailing list -- gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
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.