July 2019 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group / Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter July 23, 2019

July 23, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/cIqjBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

2 1

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 19, 2019

July 19, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… * Application Fees, start with timing of disbursement of excess funds, page 6 * Variable Fees, page 10 * Application Submission Period, page 14 (time permitting) 3. AOB Note, in relation to agenda item 2, WG leadership and staff have tried to prepare summary documents for each topic that seeks to help you review some of the background material, consider a high-level summary of what we believe the WG is seeking to accomplish for the topic, a high-level summary of public comment received, and finally, a catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). A PDF snapshot also is attached for reference. If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 19, 2019

July 19, 2019

Hi Jim, Thanks very much for these helpful requests. They are noted. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM> Date: Friday, July 19, 2019 at 2:54 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 July 2019 Thanks Julie I had put an AOB request into chat but there was no call for AOB as we were short on time and it appears the chat feed was only captured after the recording started. What you can see is my willingness to move it to the next call due to time constraints. My item for AOB was an update/explanation of some correspondence I saw between the co-chairs and members of the GNSO council on string similarity. Specifically with regards to an effort the ccNSO may undertake on string similarity for ccTLDs and how that may or may not include similar concerns for gTLDs. The email is here ( https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2019-July/022881.html) but since many in the PDP may have missed it, it may be worthwhile to touch on it and explain the decision taken by leadership. Especially as it has the potential for two standards on the same topic. If we could also get a readout from the leadership briefing to the GNSO council that too may be beneficial. If providing these via email is a better alternative, I’m open to that. The next call is in the timeslot that typically has the lowest participation so it may actually be more beneficial. Thanks From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 11:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 July 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 18 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: From 15 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Include a link to the USAG work. From 18 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 3: On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Overarching process comment: Call out when decisions on whether or not to accept/support new ideas will be taken well ahead of the meeting where decisions will be made. Note that these are called out as actions below. a. Application Fees: Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence -- INTA comments seem to be contradictory: Maybe saying that the cost that ICANN is going to expend per TLD application should come from other sources thus driving the cost down and encouraging frivolous application. There are ways that the price could be below cost recovery. INTA doesn’t support it being unnecessarily expensive. So, not really divergence with the cost recovery summary. It is okay with cost recovery if it includes all of the costs. Comments on the scope of what should be included for cost-recovery: ACTION: Any support for the three new ideas? Application fee floor: -- Question: Thought the idea of the floor is that it is separate from the application fee -- it is used to determine what happens with any excess funds. Answer: It’s not a component of the fee (as we worded it in the Initial Report). Is that every application would cost a different amount. ICANN has to determine the total cost of the program but can’t divide it to figure out how much each application would be. -- Recommendations don’t address how to control warehousing. But this is not meant to define TLD warehousing as part of the rationale to not have it go to low. -- On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. Disbursement of excess fees (with no price floor): ACTION: Any support for these new ideas? To the extent that they are inconsistent with the above recommendations in the high-level agreements no need to spend more time on them. Circumstances where revenue-cost neutral amount results in a refund that is greater than the application fee floor value: -- NOTE: for accounting reasons it might be better to have refunds (if any) in the form of discounts/NOTE Disbursement of excess fees (with an application fee floor): ACTION: Is there support for any of these new ideas? **Next call start with the timing of disbursement of excess funds, page 6**

2 1

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 19, 2019

July 19, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 18 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: From 15 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Include a link to the USAG work. From 18 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 3: On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… Overarching process comment: Call out when decisions on whether or not to accept/support new ideas will be taken well ahead of the meeting where decisions will be made. Note that these are called out as actions below. a. Application Fees: Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence -- INTA comments seem to be contradictory: Maybe saying that the cost that ICANN is going to expend per TLD application should come from other sources thus driving the cost down and encouraging frivolous application. There are ways that the price could be below cost recovery. INTA doesn’t support it being unnecessarily expensive. So, not really divergence with the cost recovery summary. It is okay with cost recovery if it includes all of the costs. Comments on the scope of what should be included for cost-recovery: ACTION: Any support for the three new ideas? Application fee floor: -- Question: Thought the idea of the floor is that it is separate from the application fee -- it is used to determine what happens with any excess funds. Answer: It’s not a component of the fee (as we worded it in the Initial Report). Is that every application would cost a different amount. ICANN has to determine the total cost of the program but can’t divide it to figure out how much each application would be. -- Recommendations don’t address how to control warehousing. But this is not meant to define TLD warehousing as part of the rationale to not have it go to low. -- On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. Disbursement of excess fees (with no price floor): ACTION: Any support for these new ideas? To the extent that they are inconsistent with the above recommendations in the high-level agreements no need to spend more time on them. Circumstances where revenue-cost neutral amount results in a refund that is greater than the application fee floor value: -- NOTE: for accounting reasons it might be better to have refunds (if any) in the form of discounts/NOTE Disbursement of excess fees (with an application fee floor): ACTION: Is there support for any of these new ideas? **Next call start with the timing of disbursement of excess funds, page 6**

3 2

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 19, 2019

July 19, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/kaijBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Monday, 15 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 15 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/bYqjBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 15 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 15 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-15+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): Kathy Kleiman is now on the faculty of American University Law School. 2. Review of summary document: (continued): a. Applicant Freedom of Expression (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yz…) – start at Input on Implementation Guidelines – General, top of page 10; -- From last week: It seemed that most commenters is that we should continue the policy that was approved in 2008 by the ICANN Board, but that we needed to try in implementation guidance more specific with respect to how that consideration should take place. -- It’s one thing to say that Freedom of Expression should be considered, but another to put that into practice. Give more concrete guidance in the AGB wherever possible. 1) Input on Implementation Guidelines - General -- ICANN Org: Be as specific as possible. -- Provide practical examples to evaluators. -- Balance with freedom of expression with all users. -- Not sure we have agreement to change from the 2008 policy approved by the ICANN Board. -- Providing consistency and clarity is a step forward. -- There are examples where we consider the use or intended use of a string in these types of evaluations. -- Questions: What were the original rules? What were the problems in the 2012 round? Answer: There were no rules that you couldn’t apply for a particular string, but based on evaluation of string contention. Found that there were no clear guidelines and up to the independent objector to use his/her analysis, and evaluators based it on their own beliefs. Most of the comments were that to the extent possible we need to be more clear and provide more guidance. 2) Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO -- From Kathy Kleiman: Then we must expressly reference the Morality and Public Order findings and standards in referencing the new Applicant Freedom of Expression. I don't see material reference anywhere in our materials here. It all has to be balanced -- But there was evolution between the original references and what went into the AGB. We could reference the AGB. -- Should change the high-level agreement to include references to Morality and Public Order findings. Protecting applicants’ Freedom of Expression rights should be balanced with other recognized rights. -- Should be considered when deliberating on the Objection section. ACTION: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. 3) Suggested criteria to ensure that denial of an application does not infringe on FX rights: -- Should be considered when deliberating on the Objection section. -- Question: ICANN org's comment before the start of 2.3.4. suggests that some of the assumptions about evaluation were incorrect and criteria was applied. do we know what the criteria was that was applied? b. Universal Acceptance, page 11 Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence Suggestions for additional work on this topic: -- Section 1.2.4 of the AGB talks about ”Notice concerning Technical Acceptance Issues with New gTLDs” -- Not even primarily and issue of registrar acceptance but much more needs to be done to resolve this issue. Came up midstream in the last round, as in name collisions. -- Seek clarification on ALAC comment: New Idea: ALAC - Registries and Registrars, if they are owned by the same entity, should be Universal Acceptance (UA) ready as part of their application. This means that their systems should be ready for IDN registrations, ready handle IDN and non-IDN New gTLDs consistently on nameservers and other machines and able to manage any Email Address Internationalization (EAI), i.e. <nativelanguage>@<idn>.<idn>, as part of the contact information and be able to send and receive emails from these type of addresses. In addition, Registries and Registrars should take affirmative actions to ensure that their suppliers are also UA ready. -- What they were saying is if you are offering registrations in the Chinese language, you should be able to get and have email that is in that language about your registration -- such as support questions, web site tools, third party suppliers of services, etc. -- Should the WG in its recommendations be urging some specific steps to address the problems? Answer: Will rewrite the high-level agreement text. -- Good to get an update from the USAG/ICANN on the state of UA and in particular on their progress. Include a link to the USAG work in the Final Report. -- This isn’t about TLDs not working, but third party applications working or not. ICANN has addressed the IDN issues from 2012, but some third parties have not. -- What more can the SubPro WG do that the USAG is not already doing. There is a new idea from the ALAC with respect to registries and registrars that we need to decide whether to include. -- So maybe one solution is stronger language from ICANN elaborating on the potential problems IDN applicants could face with usage of their domains. Clearly ICANN knows it’s a problem. Thy have spent millions on UASG efforts. But the last communication was not good for new applicants and players in the gTLD space.

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Please specify & Clarify is My Privacy at Risk?
by Vaibhav Aggarwal, Catalyst & Group CEO July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

Dear Priscillia, I appreciate your response. But this is too little and too late. If there was a Vulnerability, why were we not informed earlier as a customer / User. Secondly, I will need to understand what is the extent of this vulnerability. By Saying “Low risk Vulnerability” it is clearly showing that you are not willing to elucidate and want to either brush it under the carpet or ignore or underplay the risk. This is a mandatory disclosure you need to do as it is my privacy at stake. This is Super Important. Regards, -VA > On Jul 10, 2019, at 2:44 AM, Priscilla McCarthy <priscilla.barolo(a)zoom.us> wrote: > > Hi there Vaibhav, > Thank you for your email. These are low-risk vulnerabilities that apply only to Mac users, and we have drafted a blog post discussing them. We are updating our service tonight and this coming weekend. When you see prompted updates, you should update your Zoom app to ensure your security. Here is more information: https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2019/07/08/response-to-video-on-concern/ <https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2019/07/08/response-to-video-on-concern/> > Thank you! > <https://zoom.us/> > Priscilla Barolo > Manager, Communications > Zoom Video Communications > Call 650-438-9456 <tel:650-438-9456> | Click zoom.us <https://zoom.us/> | Zoom 650-438-9456 <http://zoom.us/j/650-438-9456> > <http://www.facebook.com/zoomvideocommunications> > <http://www.twitter.com/zoom_us> > <http://www.linkedin.com/company/zoom-video-communications-inc-/> > <https://zoom.us/referrals> > > > > <https://smart.zoom.us/v2/a/zoomtopia19/5d2503c401ca44fa0d942282-OjqXg/https…> > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:20 PM Vaibhav Aggarwal <va(a)thevaibhav.com <mailto:va@thevaibhav.com>> wrote: > Dear Eric, > > I am in receipt of this following email content : > > Hey - remember when ICANN switched everyone from Adobe over to Zoom as a way of enhancing information security and data privacy? > > "A vulnerability in the Mac Zoom Client allows any malicious website to enable your camera without your permission... This vulnerability allows any website to forcibly join a user to a Zoom call, with their video camera activated, without the user's permission. On top of this, this vulnerability would have allowed any webpage to DOS (Denial of Service) a Mac by repeatedly joining a user to an invalid call. Additionally, if you’ve ever installed the Zoom client and then uninstalled it, you still have a localhost web server on your machine that will happily re-install the Zoom client for you, without requiring any user interaction on your behalf besides visiting a webpage. This re-install ‘feature’ continues to work to this day." > > Read more here: https://medium.com/@jonathan.leitschuh/zoom-zero-day-4-million-webcams-mayb… <https://medium.com/@jonathan.leitschuh/zoom-zero-day-4-million-webcams-mayb…> > > Please Clarify if my privacy at risk. And the steps taken to protect my privacy. > > Regards, > > Vaibhav Aggarwal > New Delhi, India > vaibhavaggarwal.com <http://vaibhavaggarwal.com/> > twitter.com/thevaibhag <http://twitter.com/thevaibhag> > youtube.com/+vaibhavaggarwalindia <http://youtube.com/+vaibhavaggarwalindia>

5 7

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… * Application Fees, page 3 * Variable Fees, page 4 (time permitting) 3. AOB Note, in relation to agenda item 2, WG leadership and staff have tried to prepare summary documents for each topic that seeks to help you review some of the background material, consider a high-level summary of what we believe the WG is seeking to accomplish for the topic, a high-level summary of public comment received, and finally, a catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). A PDF snapshot also is attached for reference. If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] August 2019 | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group
by lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

> ) > > Hmmm .... > > I had understood that : > > (a) the Co-Leads had recognised that this is the Peak holiday period in Europe if not elsewhere; > > (b) other Participants had expressed reservations as to voluntary availability for scheduled PDP calls twice a week (with +WT5 once a week aswell.) > > (c) What’s the Rush? As far as I can see, NONE of the CCT recommendations have been addressed, let alone implemented. A pre-condition. > > Why? > > CW > > >> On 15 Jul 2019, at 16:39, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> wrote: >> >> **We are sending in advance to get dates on everyone’s calendar. >> >> Dear all, >> >> Please find attached the ics attachments for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group in August 2019. Please download them to your inbox calendars. The details of the calls are as follows: >> Thursday, 01 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC >> Tuesday, 06 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC >> Thursday, 08 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC >> Monday, 12 August 2019 at 15:00 UTC >> Thursday, 15 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC >> Monday, 19 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC >> Thursday, 22 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC >> Tuesday, 27 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC >> Thursday, 29 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC >> >> Email invitations for each call will be sent out closer to the date of the meeting. >> As a reminder the next meeting will take place on Monday, 15 July at 15:00 UTC, invite has been sent. >> >> Thank you. >> Kind regards, >> >> Terri >> >> <New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group .ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [1].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [2].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [3].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [4].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [5].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [6].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [7].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [10].ics>_______________________________________________ >> Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg> >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > >

1 0