- Gnso-newgtld-wg - lists.icann.org

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 20 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 19, 2020

Feb. 19, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 20 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. Review draft final recommendations – see attached Working Document and here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5…: 2.7.3 Closed Generics (page 33) 3. AOB Please prepare for the following topics for future meetings: Tuesday, 25 February at 0300 UTC: 2.2.5 Applications Submission Limits (page 7) 2.3 Role of Application Comment (page 38) If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 18 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 18, 2020

Feb. 18, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 18 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/JwVxBw> (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

1 0

Pre-ICANN67 Policy Report now available!
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 18, 2020

Feb. 18, 2020

Dear all, Just in time for ICANN67 Prep Week, the Pre-ICANN67 Policy Report is now available: https://go.icann.org/pre67. For prep-week webinar dates and times, please check here: https://meetings.icann.org/en/cancun67-prep-week Kind regards, Nathalie

1 1

Article from George Sadowsky on Closed Generics
by Jeff Neuman Feb. 17, 2020

Feb. 17, 2020

All, I am forwarding an interesting article just published on CircleID by Former ICANN Board Member George Sadowsky on the issue of Closed Generics. I filed a comment to his story. I neither endorse or disagree with his point of view and my bringing it up here is more for Informational purposes. I hope my comment after the article is also neutral about the subject. I just tried to point out that there are many complexities surrounding this issue. If you believe that y comment is not neutral, please do let me know as I honestly just tried to point out the various sides Best regards, Jeffrey J Neuman (202) 549-5079 Jeff.Neuman(a)comlaude.com ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

3 3

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Article from George Sadowsky on Closed Generics
by Alexander Schubert Feb. 17, 2020

Feb. 17, 2020

Great article!We have to be cognizant that while in many jurisdictions it is permitted to protect very narrow defined goods & services being used in business in COMBINATION with a generic keyword (not the string is protected - but the USE of the string for certain goods & services) - such protection can't grant exclusive use in the DNS (as such protection would be the equivalent to a TM protection for ALL goods & services; something that for good reasons doesn't exist; and it can't be ICANNs job to destroy and undermine hundreds of years of carefully crafted, grown & established intellectual property law). So if your businesses name or TM is "car" - you can't create a closed gTLD (e.g. brand gTLD) for it. Period. Special protection should be provided for the narrow set of "Category Defining Generic Keyword Based gTLDs" - anything that is THE keyword that identifies an entire category of goods and services (car, lawyer, realestate, news).But most importantly George inadvertently made a crystal clear case for denying contract renewal to (generic keyword string based) registries that have a clear launch phase in their application (e.g. a sunrise period) - but haven't executed on it:"As an example, the new gTLD .book is an open generic gTLD, and anyone should be able to apply for a second level domain name registration under it. Alternatively, the registry may have a stated policy to restrict registration, but must allow domain names to be registered by all 'similarly-situated' businesses or industries, e.g., all cloud companies in .cloud, all search industries in .search, and all bloggers in .blog."The key is:"Must allow names to be registered...."If you apply for a generic "category defining keyword" based new gTLD; you are forced to contract and enter the root (by penalty of losing the string); and your ONE AND ONLY job is to "allow names to be registered"; if you can't execute that within a DECADE: why should ICANN allow a renewal? I will bring to his attention that the same lobby that wants to hijack generic keywords is reverting to the "trick" of making them "open"; but never allow registrations. That's a "closed gTLD" by definition. To those who say: "But maybe an applicant has a new business model that doesn't require registrations by the public; we need to allow innovation!"? Well: then say so UPFRONT - and DO NOT commit to a Sunrise phase in your application. It's THAT easy.In that light: shouldn't we have a closer look into the 2012 class of gTLDs - and tally those that HAVE made crystal clear commitments to a sunrise phase - but haven't executed one yet? Would be nice to see how many there are - and how long they are contracted already. I do not suggest to force existing gTLDs to launch or lose their contract (that ship has probably sailed) - but if we ignore dire failures from the first round; then we fail. If the one or other applicant has a valid reason that they can't launch (imagine an Istanbul based '.kurds' registry being under court order to not launch): the board might grant an exception. But if you just want to block a category keyword gTLD: no renewal. You made a clear commitment to a launch phase (sunrise) - you deliver on it. A DECADE should be enough. Else allow others to serve the public: because YOU do not. And I still believe ICANN and its expansion of the DNS is committed to that goal: Serving the Internet Community. Not self-serving interests like firewalling off industry defining keywords.Thanks,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Date: 2/17/20 04:38 (GMT-05:00) To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Article from George Sadowsky on Closed Generics Sorry, link is here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200216_icann_do_not_allow_closed_new_gtlds_… Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2020 11:32 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Article from George Sadowsky on Closed Generics All, I am forwarding an interesting article just published on CircleID by Former ICANN Board Member George Sadowsky on the issue of Closed Generics. I filed a comment to his story. I neither endorse or disagree with his point of view and my bringing it up here is more for Informational purposes. I hope my comment after the article is also neutral about the subject. I just tried to point out that there are many complexities surrounding this issue. If you believe that y comment is not neutral, please do let me know as I honestly just tried to point out the various sides Best regards, Jeffrey J Neuman (202) 549-5079 Jeff.Neuman(a)comlaude.com The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 18 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Tuesday, 18 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. Review draft final recommendations – see attached Working Document and here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… * 2.6.1 Application Queuing (page 30) * 2.7.3 Closed Generics (page 33) 3. AOB Please prepare for the following topics for future meetings: Thursday, 20 February at 15:00 UTC: 2.7.3 Closed Generics Other upcoming topics: 2.2.5 Applications Submission Limits 2.3 Role of Application Comment If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Updated Work Plan
by Steve Chan Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

Dear Jim, WG Members, Please find the latest version of the work plan here as a Google doc (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96k…) and attached as PDF. You can also find these resources on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/NAp1Aw Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM> Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:19 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 10 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Julie. Any sense of when the draft work plan that was presented on the call yesterday will be distributed? On Feb 7, 2020, at 3:49 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 10 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Review draft final recommendations – see attached Working Document and here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds (brief continued discussion – page 20) 2.2.6 RSP Pre-Approval (page 20) AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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) 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.

5 5

FW: [council] SubPro Project Change Request for the 20 February 2020 GNSO Council Meeting
by Emily Barabas Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

Dear Working Group members, As discussed on today’s call, please find attached the Project Change Request (PCR) submitted by the WG Co-Chairs to the GNSO Council for its consideration during the 20 February Council meeting. Kind regards, Emily From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 12 February 2020 at 00:28 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] SubPro Project Change Request for the 20 February 2020 GNSO Council Meeting Dear Councilors, On behalf of Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr, SubPro PDP WG Co-Chairs, and Flip Petillion and Elsa Saade, GNSO Council Liaisons to the WG, please see the attached Project Change Request (PCR) and WG work plan/timeline for your consideration for the agenda of the GNSO Council Meeting on 20 February. As noted in the PCR, the Co-Chairs and liaisons are forecasting the delivery of the Final Report no later than 31 December 2020. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 13 February 3:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 13 February 3:00 UTC. 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/2020-02-13+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. Working Group working methods 3. Review draft final recommendations – see attached Working Document and here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… * 2.3.4 Universal Acceptance (page 6) * 2.11.1 Registry System Testing (page 7) 4. AOB 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest - No SOI updates 2. Working Group working methods - Discussion – we have begun reviewing sections of draft recommendations. What are the next steps? - Work Plan was discussed in the last meeting: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96k… - Leadership team will start a new document containing revisions for the topics that have been covered on calls so far. - These will be released in logical batches with material that is related to each other, for example by report segment. - The leadership team would like to adopt procedures that have worked well for the EPDP. - There will be a template for WG members to comment on revised text. Any future revisions to topics should be of necessity, something that you would “die in a ditch” for. The template will ask you to quote the language of concern in the report and propose and edit. These comments will be circulated on the mailing list. - Leadership team will put out a note that explains the process in writing. - Question – member brought up concerns about specific meeting dates. What is the status of these? They still appear in the work plan that was sent to Council with the Project Change Request. - Answer – leadership is still discussing. The Council’s main concern is about the end date for the project and not all of the specific meeting dates. There may still be adjustments to meetings themselves, including scheduling extended sessions. - Leadership team met today with Council leadership team to prepare for the presentation of the Project Change Request to Council during the GNSO Council February meeting. - Council leadership asked how Council can support the WG. WG leadership said that Councilors can go back to their respective groups and remind those participating in the WG to be collaborative and work hard towards compromise where this is necessary. ACTION ITEM: Staff to send Project Change Request to the WG mailing list. 3a. Review draft final recommendations – 2.3.4 Universal Acceptance - Review of text of the two affirmations. ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote to the first affirmation with links to information about the Universal Acceptance Initiative and the Universal Acceptance Steering Group. - Question regarding first affirmation, does affirming their work in effect make policy? - Answer – that is not the intent. Members can suggest adjustments to the text to make that clear if they would like to do so. - Review of recommendation with revision of Principle B. ACTION ITEM: Consider restructuring recommendation text. Sentence is currently very long. - Review of Implementation Guidance. ACTION ITEM: Change “may want to” to “should” in Implementation Guidance. In the corresponding rationale, change “The Working Group encourages ICANN to. . .” to “The Working Group believes that ICANN should. . .” 3b. Review draft final recommendations – 2.11.1 Registry System Testing - The leadership team further discussed the possibility of re-naming the RSP Pre-Approval Program and is proposing RSP Pre-Evaluation Process (PREP). Some support expressed on the call. ACTION ITEM: Replace RSP Pre-Approval Program with RSP Pre-Evaluation Process (PREP) throughout the report. - Review of recommendation 8 from 2007 and affirmation with modification of recommendation 7. - Note from the leadership team that we are making a distinction between registry evaluations and registry testing. Registry evaluation includes answers to questions – it relates to capabilities that cannot be demonstrated until the registry is up and running. Testing is what ICANN does to test certain capabilities of a registry. - As an example, when we talk about a registry being able to scale, you can’t test scaling capabilities, but you can evaluate the ability to scale by looking at responses to questions. - Both testing and evaluation could be part of both the pre-evaluation and regular process. Part of what was in PDT will be in the testing that is applied during the pre-evaluation and regular application process. The recommendations also call for additional testing based on feedback from the SSAC and the Work Track. - In 2012 there was a theoretical exam and then testing to confirm ability to manage the registry from a technical perspective. The evaluation component is like the exam and the testing component is the actual demonstration of abilities. Both parts will be part of pre-evaluation and regular evaluation process. - Question – Why do we have a recommendation to develop registry system tests designed to minimize SLA violations. Shouldn’t the tests be about the technical capability of the RSP? - Language came from SSAC recommendation and/or discussion. WG looked at SLA statistics. Recommendation could be edited to include elements of both. - Comment – it may be difficult to minimize violations of SLAs in practice. Suggestion to instead that they should “take into account service level requirements.” ACTION ITEM: Edit recommendation xx (rationale 2) to state: “ICANN must develop a set of Registry System tests designed to demonstrate the technical capabilities of the Registry Operator [in order to reduce the likelihood for registry violations of SLAs / taking into account service level requirements].” WG members to provide input on the two bracketed options. - Review of IG in connection with rationale 2. No additional comments. - Review of recommendation in connection with rationale 3. - Question – is this more appropriate as Implementation Guidance? - Leadership team suggested this as a recommendation because it is overarching, with more specific guidance included under it. - Suggestion to remove “as possible” language. Support from the group for this suggestion. ACTION ITEM: Edit recommendation xx (rationale 3) to read: “Registry System Testing must be efficient.” - Question from ICANN org on the first piece of IG connected to rationale 3 – in the sentence “To the extent an applicant is proposing tables that are not pre-vetted by the community, the tables should be reviewed prior to RST and should utilize IDN tools available at the time of review.” ICANN org’s interpretation is that this should be done as part of the evaluation and not that this is something the applicant should do with these tools. Suggestion to edit text to make that clear. ACTION ITEM: Change sentence to read: “To the extent an applicant is proposing tables that are not pre-vetted by the community, the tables should be reviewed during the evaluation process and the evaluator should utilize IDN tools available at the time of review.” - Review of second piece of IG related to rationale 3 – suggestion to change “to the extent possible” to “to the extent practical.” - Review of recommendation in connection with rationale 4 – feedback that this recommendation without context is challenging. There is an assumption that the current modeling isn’t robust, but how do you make it more robust? - The EBERO threshold incidents should be referenced as background for the recommendation. - Question – does ICANN publish service level statistics in their reports? - Additional question – depending on the response to the above question, does the WG want to affirm the publication of these statistics if ICANN is doing it already or put as a recommendation that ICANN publish this information going forward if it is not already? - Suggestion that ICANN should make readily available information about the results of the monitoring that is taking place. ACTION ITEM: Add under Recommendation xx (rationale 4) a new recommendation or IG that ICANN regularly publish aggregate, anonymized data on all SLA violations that result from monitoring conducted by ICANN org. - It could also potentially be beneficial to publish responses given in relation to these SLAs to provide context for the statistics, for example if there was an error in the monitoring process. This would also need to be anonymized. This could potentially be added as IG. 4. AOB - none

1 0

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 13 February 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 13 February 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/IgVxBw> (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