April 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Proposal to Extend CC2 Deadline
by Jeff Neuman May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

All, Last week the Avri and I received a formal request from the Governmental Advisory Committee to "consider an extension of the deadline for public comments to the Community Comment 2 (CC2) questionnaire." In light of the extensive nature of the questionnaire as well as the desire to get as many responses as possible, Avri and I are inclined to agree to this request. In order to be fair, we believe the extension should be applied to everyone, not just the GAC. Working backwards, it is our desire to have a summary of all of the public comments to discuss at ICANN59 at the end of June. The document deadline for that meeting is 15 business days prior to the meeting (beginning of June). In order to give staff some time to compile the summary in time for the document deadline, we are proposing May 22, 2017 as the new date for comments to be due. This would be a 3 week extension for the entire community. I know this is asking for quick turnaround, but please let us know by no later than April 20th if you have any strong objections to this proposal. Otherwise, we will let the community know about the extension on April 21st. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

13 18

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 2 May 2017 at 03:00 UTC
by Steve Chan May 1, 2017

May 1, 2017

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 2 May 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/review agenda 2. SOIs 3. Work Track Updates 4. Second Reading - Review of draft response to the Competition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) - available here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ… 5. Update on Drafting Teams 6. AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

2 2

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 24 April 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter April 24, 2017

April 24, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 24 April 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7LDRAw MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-24apr17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p482g5wkvfz/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7LDRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 24 April 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 24 April 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:loud and clear, jeff. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hi all Jeff Neuman:4 minute warning Vanda:hi all. finally my itnernet running today.... Annebeth Lange:Good evening from a snowfilled Oslo Jeff Neuman:2 minutes Karen Day (SAS):Happy Rainy Monday everyone Jeff Neuman:ok - 1 minute warning Karen Day (SAS):Sara, not me Vanda:yes Jeff Neuman:Sorry Sara Phil Buckingham:Hi Jeff , 2 minutes Donna Austin, Neustar:I have the WT1 call in my calendar for tonight at 8pm PDT (0300 UTC). Is that correct? Jeff Neuman:yes Phil Buckingham:We have another on Thursday 27 April @21.00 UTC . We will continue with closed generics to start to get some consnsus within the group on what we are all agreed is a complex and contentous subject . Karen Day (SAS):Robin covered it all Karen Day (SAS):Thakns Vanda:good point kavouss Alexander Schubert 2:Thanks Kavouss: Community defibnition was WAY to narrow in the last round.... Alexander Schubert 2:Geographic names: Currently only GNSO and GAC are working on it. No one else. The CCTN WG just eliminated itself - and I don't see resurrection is an option. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC: "social good" is a very narrow subset of freedom of expression and association in a community. It's questtionable whether ICANN wants to be in the business of determining what is and is not a purpose of "social good". Annebeth Lange:Well, the UCTN will produce a Final Report after having gone through all the input to the Interim Report. Phil Buckingham: Sorry I nothing to further to say. Annebeth Lange:The comment period ended 21st April for the UCTN. THe staff is working on a summary of the comments Steve Chan:CC2 public comment extension announcement here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann… Donna Austin, Neustar:The RySG is making good progress and are currently reviewing. not sure what our target date it. Donna Austin, Neustar:is Emily Barabas:The Google Doc is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… Emily Barabas:the content is the same as in the pod here Kavouss Arasteh:Alan+1 Karen Day (SAS):Have to drop for a few. Will be back in 5 min. Kavouss Arasteh:yes Greg but why with reduced price? Kavouss Arasteh:Still I do not understand why price should be reduced Paul McGrady:+1 Greg Kavouss Arasteh:we should follow the principle of equiutable access Kavouss Arasteh:Please register my objection with the concept of reduced costs Greg Shatan:i didn't say prices should be reduced. I just said that the issue of "cost" could refer to both price per registration and to reducing costs by reducing the need to engage in defensive registration. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Yes, you did. My point is that it wasn't clear to me how it's consistent and I doubt I'm the only person who may not be sure. Greg Shatan:That said there has been some inequitable pricing aimed at getting higher prices for defensive registrations. Vanda:Greg. defensive registration I beleive will increase qith the initial price reduced. more people can register a brand name if the cost is reduced. Alexander Schubert 2:Can't hear Kavouss speaking. I am on Adobe only. Can it be that the phone lines aren't looped into the Adobe Audio? Vanda:so the need of defensive registration will grow Vanda:Alex, I am only at adobe and hear him quite well Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC: 1.1(c) in the ByLaws carves out measures that are consistent with the Mission . For example, 1.1(c) apparently does not prohibit GAC Safeguards to certain strings. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I like the idea of identifying the comment requests, stating them at the beginning, and identifying the recommendations to which they apply. The recommendation-specific requests would then be only that - recommendation-specific. Steve Chan:I think Kavouss' point is at least in part, taken into account in the third paragraph of the high-level feedback? Alexander Schubert 2:Vanda: I think for th majority of run of the mill gTLDs defensive and speculative registrations are the main revenue stream. Sadly. Vanda:you right, but is not reducing price that this will change Greg Shatan:Vanda, you may be right when it comes to "penny pricing.". But I don.t think using price as a barrier to abusive registrations is the solution, since the practical effect (and possibly the intent) is to milk brand owners like cash cows. Greg Shatan:Alexander, you may be right. Which would be quite sad. Either way those sales are to registrants with little or no intent to use the domains for websites, emails, etc. At that point it's just speculators and suckers.... avri doria:Kavouss understood you thought a group parralell to the gTLD-IRT could do it. That is possible but someone else would have to charter it. Paul McGrady:a predictable process with knowable deadlines and subject matter guidelines Kavouss Arasteh:PICs may normally be changed Julie Hedlund:@Jeff: Staff tried to capture that in the notes. Vanda:Greg. me neither. price is not a barrier itself in a razonable prices but reducing prices can growth the defensive application, but also price is not the key point to reduce defensive applications. Alan Greenberg:But if they are "normally changed", the intent of the Rec is minimal Vanda:Alan + 1 Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC:What if PICs arise in response to GAC Consensus Advice? We don't want a TLD to be "hung up" because it is unable to make a new PIC of record. Jon Nevett:Anne +1 -- consensus advice or otherwise Jon Nevett:an applicant may not know of concerns with a name, so would be impossible to address in the application Robin Gross:The rules are supposed to be knowable and predictable according to the principles. If PICs can be changed, that would violate this predictability requirement. Paul McGrady:+1 Robin avri doria:what about if a review period is required for some change procedure. hadia Elminiawi:+1 Robin Jon Nevett:I am thinking about adding PICs to address a concern vs. changing them Kavouss Arasteh:You may need to talk to Mrkus and Manal Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC:+1 Jon Julie Hedlund:@Hadia if ou are speaking we can't hear you. Alexander Schubert:MAybe there is a mike muted! hadia Elminiawi:I was speaking, and i can't hear you either now Susan Payne:yes Jeff Vanda:yes Jamie Baxter:yes Emily Barabas:@Hadia, Michelle has sent you a private chat to help troubleshoot Emily Barabas:Geo Names Webinar: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Emily Barabas:This includes presenter lineup Donna Austin, Neustar:On the GEO names, I through the background document was really helpful. Emily Barabas:and presenter slides Donna Austin, Neustar:thought not through Emily Barabas:as well as the background paper Annebeth Lange:Will it be possible for other than presenters to comment? There are a lot of presentations in these two hours hadia Elminiawi:So basically I wanted to ask if our group has to adhere to or follow or the recommendations, or do we have the choice to see things differently Emily Barabas:@Annebeth, the chat will be open throughout the session Emily Barabas:and there will be a question and answer at the end Annebeth Lange:Thanks, Emily Annebeth Lange:Thanks, Avri, very useful Emily Barabas:Please send us an email at Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org<mailto:Geo-Names-Session@icann.org> to RSVP. Thanks! Emily Barabas:I think you covered everything. Thanks Jeff. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone... good call today... Emily Barabas:There are only three Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):looking forward to our webinars... talk Kavouss Arasteh:Steve, Some of us have another meeting at 05,00 UTC. mAY THEN FINISH THIS MEETING NOW hadia Elminiawi:@Emily thanks Greg Shatan:03:00 UTC is very late, not very early.... :-) avri doria:anything that maks it better for one group may make it worse for another. Robert Burlingame:Thank you Jeff et all. Looking forward to the geo names webinar tomorrow. Greg Shatan:Not so good for the Eastern Americas either. Sara Bockey:It 4UTC makes it very late for many in the US Greg Shatan:+1 Sara. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):exactly Avri Paul McGrady:+1 Avri - we have to strike the balance to ensure opportunities to participate globally. Annebeth Lange:Sorry, I have to go. Good night. Greg Shatan:It would be nice to know if we are getting a high percentage of APAC participants are making the APAC friendly call, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that said for me 0300 or 0400 is little difference Phil Buckingham:Kavouss - you / us Europeans can always listen to the transcripts the following morning ! Greg Shatan:Rather than numbers, how about percent. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye Annabeth Sara Bockey:+1 Greg Vanda:midnigh for us Paul McGrady:+1 Alan Vanda:+ 1 ALAN Greg Shatan:Let's just make sure they are raking advantage of this, not in sheer numbers but in percentage. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now everyone... Vanda:5:30 hours Alexander Schubert:Bye Greg Shatan:Bye all Susan Payne:But Kavouss the 1 hour chage would mean hardly anyone in the US joins and the reality is you will have almost no-one on the call. You have one call in 4 which you cannot make. If you live in Australia you have 3 in 4 you cannot attend unless you are willing to do so at very unreasonable times hadia Elminiawi:Thank you all Robin Gross:Thanks Jeff and all, bye! Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:bay avri doria:bye see you at 1am EDT Vanda:thanks to all!! Phil Buckingham:Thanks Jeff - great call

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 24 April 2017
by Julie Hedlund April 24, 2017

April 24, 2017

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 24 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes will be provided separately. The referenced document also is attached and excerpts from the chat room are included for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes 1. Work Track Updates Work Track 1 -- Christa Taylor: -- Sent agenda for 25 April at 0300 UTC. Continuation of RSP and costing discussions. Work Track 2 -- Phil Buckingham: -- Discussing closed generics and what to do about them in the future. Presented pros and cons. -- We have another on Thursday 27 April @21.00 UTC . -- -- We will continue with closed generics to start to get some consensus within the group on what we are all agreed is a complex and contentious subject. Work Track 3 -- Robin Gross: -- Good discussions on community applications and priority evaluations. -- Don't have a shared understanding of what we are trying to achieve with the concept of community applications. Need to come back to this concept. Is this groups of groups? Or is there some kind of social good to achieve? -- Next meeting on 02 May on 2000 UTC. Discuss more about freedom of expression and geographic name issues. -- Question: Do we know what we mean by "community"? Language, country, etc.? Answer: That is an issue that we need to focus on -- we don't have a common understanding of what we mean by "community". -- On geographic names there are many activities so it might be good to avoid overlapping or duplicative discussions to avoid conflict of definitions, objectives, etc. Helpful for their to be sharing of information and coordination. Work Track 4 -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -- Met last week on name collisions. That is a continuing conversation. Encourage more to join the Work Track call on 04 May. >From the chat: Alexander Schubert 2: Thanks Kavouss: Community definition was WAY too narrow in the last round...Geographic names: Currently only GNSO and GAC are working on it. No one else. The CCTN WG just eliminated itself - and I don't see resurrection is an option. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC: "social good" is a very narrow subset of freedom of expression and association in a community. It's questtionable whether ICANN wants to be in the business of determining what is and is not a purpose of "social good". Annebeth Lange: Well, the UCTN will produce a Final Report after having gone through all the input to the Interim Report. The comment period ended 21st April for the UCTN. THe staff is working on a summary of the comments. 2. Community Comment 2 – extended. Announcement here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-04-24-en -- GAC asked for an extension. Extend for everyone. Working backwards from ICANN59 so that a summary of the public comments could be drafted prior to the document deadline. May 22nd was the most we could extend the comment period -- a 3-week extension. Comments are due from everyone by May 22nd. -- Announcement went out and the extension will be announced to the SOs and ACs. See: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-04-24-en. -- Please make sure your communities can get comments in by that date. Don't wait for the deadline if your comments are ready. Overall comments on the draft document: -- Where the comment wording is the same for several recommendations just note to which recommendation that wording applies, rather than repeating for each recommendation. -- Question: In terms of longer term impact not sure if that is a normal part of an IRT. Answer: The WG comes to its own conclusions but do have to take all views and recommendations seriously. >From the chat: avri doria: Kavouss understood you thought a group parallel to the gTLD-IRT could do it. That is possible but someone else would have to charter it. hadia Elminiawi: So basically I wanted to ask if our group has to adhere to or follow or the recommendations, or do we have the choice to see things differently. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I like the idea of identifying the comment requests, stating them at the beginning, and identifying the recommendations to which they apply. The recommendation-specific requests would then be only that - recommendation-specific. High-Level Feedback Section: -- Be more clear "To what extent is it appropriate for the Working Group..." change to "To what extent the Working Group could recommend..." Not making ourselves subordinate to that group. That second sentence has been deleted and the third sentence talks about how to interpret. -- Per "is inconsistent or conflicting..." change so that we could do something that may be different from what they produced. May be "different" is a better word? -- Looking at the overview of the relationship of the two groups. The CCT-RT recommendations go to the Board. They don't have the power to tell a WG what to do in a PDP, but the could ask the Board to reject a recommendation from a PDP WG. If we recommend something different than they recommend we should justify it to the Board and explain why. -- We can consider if implementable or not. Language "expected to implement all parts of the recommendation..." not up to them to determine what we should have to do. -- In this case the CCT-RT is using the language "should" "must" and "may" -- what we are asking is if they are going to use such words be consistent and clear in their usage. Recommendation 10: -- What is logic for "small number of brands registering a large number of domains can be reduced"? Seems to be a speculation about defensive registrations. The issue really is the issue of defensive registrations. Could be two sides to costs -- lower cost per registration or lower the need, but this is part of the substantive discussion. -- In looking at cost they are not looking at just price but also lowering investment. Clarify: Is there any substantive reason to refer to a small number of brands registering a large number of domains. Look back at the draft report on the context. Also clarify costs and fees in terms of investment. >From the chat: Kavouss Arasteh: yes Greg but why with reduced price? Still I do not understand why price should be reduced. Paul McGrady: +1 Greg Kavouss Arasteh: we should follow the principle of equiutable access Kavouss Arasteh: Please register my objection with the concept of reduced costs. Greg Shatan: i didn't say prices should be reduced. I just said that the issue of "cost" could refer to both price per registration and to reducing costs by reducing the need to engage in defensive registration. That said there has been some inequitable pricing aimed at getting higher prices for defensive registrations. Alexander Schubert 2: Vanda: I think for the majority of run of the mill gTLDs defensive and speculative registrations are the main revenue stream. Sadly. Vanda: you right, but is not reducing price that this will change. Greg Shatan: Vanda, you may be right when it comes to "penny pricing.". But I don.t think using price as a barrier to abusive registrations is the solution, since the practical effect (and possibly the intent) is to milk brand owners like cash cows. Alexander, you may be right. Which would be quite sad. Either way those sales are to registrants with little or no intent to use the domains for websites, emails, etc. At that point it's just speculators and suckers.... Vanda: Greg. me neither. price is not a barrier itself in a razonable prices but reducing prices can growth the defensive application, but also price is not the key point to reduce defensive applications. Recommendation 14: >From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Yes, you did. My point is that it wasn't clear to me how it's consistent and I doubt I'm the only person who may not be sure. Recommendations 33-38 -- no questions or comments on the draft. Recommendation 39: -- Wording presumes that PICs will be available early enough that the GAC and others can comment on them. That suggests that the PICs can be changed from the original application, but it's not clear. If they are saying the PICs can be changed because of the comments then they need to be more explicit. -- Also assumes that PICs will be similar to the last round and that is not clear either. >From the chat: Paul McGrady: a predictable process with knowable deadlines and subject matter guidelines Kavouss Arasteh: PICs may normally be changed. Alan Greenberg: But if they are "normally changed", the intent of the Rec is minimal Vanda: Alan + 1 Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC: What if PICs arise in response to GAC Consensus Advice? We don't want a TLD to be "hung up" because it is unable to make a new PIC of record. Jon Nevett: Anne +1 -- consensus advice or otherwise. an applicant may not know of concerns with a name, so would be impossible to address in the application. Robin Gross: The rules are supposed to be knowable and predictable according to the principles. If PICs can be changed, that would violate this predictability requirement. Paul McGrady: +1 Robin avri doria: what about if a review period is required for some change procedure. Jon Nevett: I am thinking about adding PICs to address a concern vs. changing them hadia Elminiawi: +1 Robin Recommendation 43 and 46 -- no questions or comments on the draft. Recommendation 47: -- At ICANN57 amended Bylaw providing rationale for GAC advice. Discussing in the GAC WG and will be finalized in ICANN59. Maybe mention. -- Why we expect the Board provide a template for GAC advice? If there is a template it should be mutually agreed. (Comment related to the substance of the recommendation. Could be a good comment from the GAC to the CCT-RT.) -- Comment is that there should be a predictable process for GAC advice. Recommendation 48, 49, and 50 -- no questions or comments on the draft. 3. Geographic Names Webinars: -- 25 April -- 1500 UTC for 120 min and 2200 UTC for 120 min. -- Presenters have sent in their materials and they are on the wiki. -- Format: Each presenter will present and then have a Q&A period. -- Can comment and chat in the chat room and this will be captured. -- Please RSVP if you haven't already. 4. Update on Drafting Teams: -- Staff sent drafts to each DT. -- Fourth category is combined with others -- predictability -- DT is looking at that the mechanisms to address change are predictable. Only one volunteer for that DT. 5. Next PDP WG Call: -- Next week on 02 May at 0300 UTC not in two weeks as that is the GDD summit. -- Reconsider the 0300 UTC time -- is it possible to make it 0400 UTC? Very difficult issue. Trying to make sure it is a convenient time for the Asia Pacific WG members. Will look back at attendance records to see if there is something we can do. -- Trying to be open and attract more people from other regions. Good to know how many we would lose on a rotation. Make sure how we balance making it better for one group makes it worse for another. >From the chat: Greg Shatan: It would be nice to know if we are getting a high percentage of APAC participants are making the APAC friendly call, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that said for me 0300 or 0400 is little difference Greg Shatan: Let's just make sure they are raking advantage of this, not in sheer numbers but in percentage.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations
by Emily Barabas April 24, 2017

April 24, 2017

Dear All, For those currently on the full group call, we are currently discussing WG member edits and comments to this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ…. For those who prefer to follow the discussion using a Microsoft Word document, please see attached. This is the document currently on display in the AC room. Kind regards, Emily From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Monday 24 April 2017 at 21:33 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: 'avri' <avri(a)acm.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations Sending to the list this time… From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 11:57 AM To: 'Rosette, Kristina'; Emily Barabas Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations Hi Kristina, I read 1.1(c ) as not permitting any sort of regulation of unique identifiers outside the mission specified in 1.1(a), which includes whatever is need to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet. So maybe a correlation between the identifier and the content is – or else is not – part of maintaining consumer trust and confidence in the Internet? (This seems to be the issue raised by the Review.) I consider that if 1.1(c ) would prohibit this entirely, then GAC Safeguard strings are not allowed either but they do exist. Anne Section 1.1. MISSION (a) The mission of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems as described in this Section 1.1(a) (the “Mission”). Specifically, ICANN: (i) Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”) and coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”). In this role, ICANN’s scope is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies: • For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS including, with respect to gTLD registrars and registries, policies in the areas described in Annex G-1 and Annex G-2; and • That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique names systems. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2BD4B.E4E2EE80] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 11:15 AM To: Emily Barabas; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations Hi, I’ve added a few comments and suggestions in the Word doc (attached). Summary below: • Recommendation 14: Requests that CCT-RT clarify how “relationship of content of a gTLD to its name” is consistent with Section 1.1(c) of the Bylaws; • Recommendations 33 & 35: Comment made about recommendation 34 (CCT to clarify how expect PDP WG to address recommendation given scope of Sub Pro WG) seems applicable here, too. • Recommendation 43: Requests CCT-RT clarify if it is recommending that applications from Global South should be subject to different application evaluation standards to ensure goals met for number of delegated strings. • Recommendation 46: added “objection-related fees” as example of “additional post application fees”. Happy to answer any questions by email or on today’s call. Kristina From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 8:15 AM To: Jon Nevett <jon(a)donuts.email<mailto:jon@donuts.email>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations Hi Jon, Thanks for this feedback. I’ve added your comment to the Google doc for easier reference during the call at 20:00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily From: Jon Nevett <jon(a)donuts.email<mailto:jon@donuts.email>> Date: Monday 24 April 2017 at 15:32 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations I think that we give way too much deference to the CCT-RT report in the quote from the draft letter below. While we absolutely should take the appointed review group's input into our deliberations, does it really matter if the review group expects us to strictly interpret and implement its recommendations, for example? It is the GNSO that is tasked with recommending policy to the Board under ICANN's Bylaws. I don't think that we should be asking another group whether it thinks we have latitude to suggest alternative solutions that meet or do not meet the spirit of its recommendations. JN "It would be helpful for the CCT-RT to clarify how strictly it expects the PDP WG to interpret and adhere to the language of the recommendations. To what extent is it appropriate for the Working Group to recommend alternative mechanisms or policies that meet the spirit of the CCT-RT recommendations? Alternately, does the CCT-RT view the obligation as more limited -- that the PDP must consider the recommendation but may end up with an outcome that is inconsistent or conflicting with CCT-RT recommendations? If the CCT-RT expects the Working Group to strictly interpret and implement the language of the recommendations, it would be helpful to have clear definitions for terminology used in the document." On Apr 21, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Gentle reminder – Please review and provide feedback on the SubPro draft comments for the CCT-RT Report prior to the full Working Group meeting on Monday 24 April at 20:00 UTC. The draft comments are available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ…. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday 18 April 2017 at 21:54 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations Dear all, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG leadership team has prepared draft comments in response to the CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ…. The draft text draws from WG discussion with representatives of the CCT-RT on our 10 April Working Group call. Please provide feedback and suggested edits prior to the full Working Group meeting on Monday 24 April at 20:00 UTC. For those who do not use Google Docs, a Microsoft Word version is attached to this email. The WG will consider proposed revisions during the 24 April call, after which the leadership team will finalize and submit the text. The deadline for public comments on the CCT-RT Draft Report is 27 April 2017. Please note that the purpose of this comment is to pose clarifying questions and make suggestions about the language of the Draft Recommendations to help the CCT-RT refine the text for the Final Report. The goal is not to provide substantive responses to the Recommendations, as the text of the Report is not yet final. Please let the leadership team know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations
by Emily Barabas April 24, 2017

April 24, 2017

Dear all, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG leadership team has prepared draft comments in response to the CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ…. The draft text draws from WG discussion with representatives of the CCT-RT on our 10 April Working Group call. Please provide feedback and suggested edits prior to the full Working Group meeting on Monday 24 April at 20:00 UTC. For those who do not use Google Docs, a Microsoft Word version is attached to this email. The WG will consider proposed revisions during the 24 April call, after which the leadership team will finalize and submit the text. The deadline for public comments on the CCT-RT Draft Report is 27 April 2017. Please note that the purpose of this comment is to pose clarifying questions and make suggestions about the language of the Draft Recommendations to help the CCT-RT refine the text for the Final Report. The goal is not to provide substantive responses to the Recommendations, as the text of the Report is not yet final. Please let the leadership team know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

6 10

FW: [Ext] Re: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne April 24, 2017

April 24, 2017

Sending to the list this time… From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 11:57 AM To: 'Rosette, Kristina'; Emily Barabas Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations Hi Kristina, I read 1.1(c ) as not permitting any sort of regulation of unique identifiers outside the mission specified in 1.1(a), which includes whatever is need to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet. So maybe a correlation between the identifier and the content is – or else is not – part of maintaining consumer trust and confidence in the Internet? (This seems to be the issue raised by the Review.) I consider that if 1.1(c ) would prohibit this entirely, then GAC Safeguard strings are not allowed either but they do exist. Anne Section 1.1. MISSION (a) The mission of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems as described in this Section 1.1(a) (the “Mission”). Specifically, ICANN: (i) Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”) and coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”). In this role, ICANN’s scope is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies: • For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS including, with respect to gTLD registrars and registries, policies in the areas described in Annex G-1 and Annex G-2; and • That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique names systems. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D2BCF1.DA781A10] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 11:15 AM To: Emily Barabas; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations Hi, I’ve added a few comments and suggestions in the Word doc (attached). Summary below: • Recommendation 14: Requests that CCT-RT clarify how “relationship of content of a gTLD to its name” is consistent with Section 1.1(c) of the Bylaws; • Recommendations 33 & 35: Comment made about recommendation 34 (CCT to clarify how expect PDP WG to address recommendation given scope of Sub Pro WG) seems applicable here, too. • Recommendation 43: Requests CCT-RT clarify if it is recommending that applications from Global South should be subject to different application evaluation standards to ensure goals met for number of delegated strings. • Recommendation 46: added “objection-related fees” as example of “additional post application fees”. Happy to answer any questions by email or on today’s call. Kristina From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 8:15 AM To: Jon Nevett <jon(a)donuts.email<mailto:jon@donuts.email>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations Hi Jon, Thanks for this feedback. I’ve added your comment to the Google doc for easier reference during the call at 20:00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily From: Jon Nevett <jon(a)donuts.email<mailto:jon@donuts.email>> Date: Monday 24 April 2017 at 15:32 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations I think that we give way too much deference to the CCT-RT report in the quote from the draft letter below. While we absolutely should take the appointed review group's input into our deliberations, does it really matter if the review group expects us to strictly interpret and implement its recommendations, for example? It is the GNSO that is tasked with recommending policy to the Board under ICANN's Bylaws. I don't think that we should be asking another group whether it thinks we have latitude to suggest alternative solutions that meet or do not meet the spirit of its recommendations. JN "It would be helpful for the CCT-RT to clarify how strictly it expects the PDP WG to interpret and adhere to the language of the recommendations. To what extent is it appropriate for the Working Group to recommend alternative mechanisms or policies that meet the spirit of the CCT-RT recommendations? Alternately, does the CCT-RT view the obligation as more limited -- that the PDP must consider the recommendation but may end up with an outcome that is inconsistent or conflicting with CCT-RT recommendations? If the CCT-RT expects the Working Group to strictly interpret and implement the language of the recommendations, it would be helpful to have clear definitions for terminology used in the document." On Apr 21, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Gentle reminder – Please review and provide feedback on the SubPro draft comments for the CCT-RT Report prior to the full Working Group meeting on Monday 24 April at 20:00 UTC. The draft comments are available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ…. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday 18 April 2017 at 21:54 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations Dear all, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG leadership team has prepared draft comments in response to the CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ…. The draft text draws from WG discussion with representatives of the CCT-RT on our 10 April Working Group call. Please provide feedback and suggested edits prior to the full Working Group meeting on Monday 24 April at 20:00 UTC. For those who do not use Google Docs, a Microsoft Word version is attached to this email. The WG will consider proposed revisions during the 24 April call, after which the leadership team will finalize and submit the text. The deadline for public comments on the CCT-RT Draft Report is 27 April 2017. Please note that the purpose of this comment is to pose clarifying questions and make suggestions about the language of the Draft Recommendations to help the CCT-RT refine the text for the Final Report. The goal is not to provide substantive responses to the Recommendations, as the text of the Report is not yet final. Please let the leadership team know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 24 April 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Steve Chan April 20, 2017

April 20, 2017

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 24 April 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/review agenda 2. SOIs 3. Work Track Updates 4. Community Comment 2 – potential extension 5. Review of draft response to the Competition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) - available here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ… and attached as a Word document. 6. Update on Drafting Teams 7. Update on Geographic Names 8. AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

REMINDER: RSVP for Webinar on Geographic Names at the Top Level
by Emily Barabas April 18, 2017

April 18, 2017

Dear WG members, Several weeks ago, staff shared an announcement about the 25 April webinar on geographic names at the top level, organized by the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG leadership team. Two sessions will take place: 15:00-17:00 UTC and 22:00-0:00 UTC. Additional details are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/p77RAw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. If you plan to attend the webinar and have not already done so, please send an email to Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org<mailto:Geo-Names-Session@icann.org>. This will ensure you receive the call details and other important information for attendees. For those able to attend, we look forward to your participation! Kind regards, Emily

1 0

Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter April 14, 2017

April 14, 2017

Dear all, The following call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC. 08:00 PST, 11:00 EST, 16:00 London, 17:00 CET for other places see:http://tinyurl.com/kcsn3l4 ADOBE CONNECT Room : https://participate.icann.org/newgtldswg If you require a dial-out, please email me with your preferred contact number at gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: NEW GTLD Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 EGYPT 0800000-9029 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 VIETNAM 120-11751

1 0