I agree. This is overly complicated and unnecessary. Why use paper tickets and have them be purchased? Is this 1980? Why not just have the applicant elect electronically through the applicant portal whether or not they wat to participate in the prioritization draw. Only certain authorized applicant representative have access to the portal so this should be both efficient and secure. I also don’t think we need a live draw and can just use some recognized third party provider to conduct the draw and then announce the results. Furthermore, and further to what Rubens posted below, purchasing tickets could be deemed an illegal lottery under the laws of various US states and other countries. Generally, the elements of an illegal lottery are: chance, prize, and consideration, all of which would be present here. So, in sum I think: 1. No tickets 2. Applicants elect to participate in the prioritization draw through the applicant portal by a certain date 3. Draw conducted by recognized provider and doesn’t have to be live Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>  |  View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [cid:image002.png@01DA6327.C711D540] From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 9:28 AM To: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 19: Application Queuing *EXTERNAL TO GT* Complicating things shouldn't be an implementation goal. From https://oag.ca.gov/charities/raffles<https://www.google.com/url?q=https://oag.ca.gov/charities/raffles&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1708359932350488&usg=AOvVaw3x9QF84Jb3OHI95hhYPblB>: "Registration is not required if all tickets for a drawing are free, solicitations of voluntary donations to the organization are in no way connected to distribution of tickets, and this is made clear to all participants. If a "donation" is required in return for a ticket, registration is required." So by selling tickets instead of giving them away, org is complicating itself and applicants unnecessarily. Rubens Em 16 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 11:22, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> escreveu: Peter, Using a separate ticket drawing was used in 2012 only because AGB foresaw Digital Archery. Now that the application will include priority ticket from the start, there is no sane reason to do it like this. I suggested an alternative in the Google Doc. Rubens Em 16 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 07:38, Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> escreveu: Dear IRT Members, We are pleased to share a link to proposed AGB language on the subject of ‘Application Queuing’ for discussion at our meeting on Tuesday, 20 February 2024, based on the Board-adopted recommendations included in Topic 19 of the Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-repo...>: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NndHCLSbv8MHmX-jsakfuj2LWRuAolGfherL0eJ-... A PDF version of this document and an agenda for Tuesday’s call is available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=296583198 If you have any questions or concerns, or experience difficulties accessing the above links, please let us know in advance of the meeting. Thanks and best wishes, Peter Peter Eakin (Mr) Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: + 32 493 547 913 Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt _______________________________________________ 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.

Rubens, I am not sure what CA law requires written tickets or a physical draw to set the order for application review. To the extent that you require consideration (i.e., payment) to get a benefit where such is determined by chance you create the risk of an illegal lottery. But if no consideration/payment is required that risk goes away and it is unlikely that the process would be deemed a sweepstakes or promotion requiring registration under any state or country law as it is not open to the public or consumers but rather is a process for determining priority to a closed group of companies that applied for TLDs. Re the need for draw tickets I think that is a bad and confusing phrase. But there seems to be value letting applicants choose whether they care about prioritization or not, and if they do, randomly selecting which order their application is reviewed. If others agree then I would propose letting the applicant elect of they want to be prioritized and then if they do having a third party randomly assign order of review. Maybe we are talking past each other and saying the same thing? Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>  |  View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [cid:image002.png@01DA6338.2E3E1570] From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 11:43 AM To: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 19: Application Queuing Marc, The reasons for the physical draw are rooted in California law; what you are suggesting would work in Nevada, I’m told. What I challenged was the need for the draw tickets now that this round will have the draw as it’s prioritization mechanism of choice since day 1. Rubens Em 19 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 14:35, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> escreveu: I agree. This is overly complicated and unnecessary. Why use paper tickets and have them be purchased? Is this 1980? Why not just have the applicant elect electronically through the applicant portal whether or not they wat to participate in the prioritization draw. Only certain authorized applicant representative have access to the portal so this should be both efficient and secure. I also don’t think we need a live draw and can just use some recognized third party provider to conduct the draw and then announce the results. Furthermore, and further to what Rubens posted below, purchasing tickets could be deemed an illegal lottery under the laws of various US states and other countries. Generally, the elements of an illegal lottery are: chance, prize, and consideration, all of which would be present here. So, in sum I think: 1. No tickets 2. Applicants elect to participate in the prioritization draw through the applicant portal by a certain date 3. Draw conducted by recognized provider and doesn’t have to be live Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>  |  View GT Biography<https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> <image001.png> <image002.png> From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 9:28 AM To: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 19: Application Queuing *EXTERNAL TO GT* Complicating things shouldn't be an implementation goal. From https://oag.ca.gov/charities/raffles<https://www.google.com/url?q=https://oag.ca.gov/charities/raffles&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1708359932350488&usg=AOvVaw3x9QF84Jb3OHI95hhYPblB>: "Registration is not required if all tickets for a drawing are free, solicitations of voluntary donations to the organization are in no way connected to distribution of tickets, and this is made clear to all participants. If a "donation" is required in return for a ticket, registration is required." So by selling tickets instead of giving them away, org is complicating itself and applicants unnecessarily. Rubens Em 16 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 11:22, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> escreveu: Peter, Using a separate ticket drawing was used in 2012 only because AGB foresaw Digital Archery. Now that the application will include priority ticket from the start, there is no sane reason to do it like this. I suggested an alternative in the Google Doc. Rubens Em 16 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 07:38, Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> escreveu: Dear IRT Members, We are pleased to share a link to proposed AGB language on the subject of ‘Application Queuing’ for discussion at our meeting on Tuesday, 20 February 2024, based on the Board-adopted recommendations included in Topic 19 of the Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-repo...>: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NndHCLSbv8MHmX-jsakfuj2LWRuAolGfherL0eJ-... A PDF version of this document and an agenda for Tuesday’s call is available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=296583198 If you have any questions or concerns, or experience difficulties accessing the above links, please let us know in advance of the meeting. Thanks and best wishes, Peter Peter Eakin (Mr) Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: + 32 493 547 913 Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information.

Hi, Why so complicated: Why a “draw”? The only reason we had a draw last time around was that we did not know BEFORE we started the round that we need application queuing. This time we know it. Why not baking random queuing for those that indicate they need it into the process? A random number is being assigned to the application (whatever, a 4096 digit long number for example). Once all applications are logged in the only thing we have then to “draw” would be a “sequence start number”, e.g. “1037”: We thereby have additionally randomized the outcome. We use the first e.g. 32 numbers starting at the sequence start number (e.g. 1037) – and the result will be the application priority number. It’s double randomized as a randomized number has been assigned at application submission AND the sequence start position has been randomly drawn after all applications are logged in. No way on earth to game this method. Those who do not demand prioritized processing still get a number assigned, which determines their processing order, too. No lottery needed. Additional idea: Applicants may indicate at application submission that they wish priority processing. They can’t do that afterwards, but they can withdraw the priority request afterwards at any given time. Even after having been placed into the priority queue - but before the priority processing of their application has started. And: I hope we do not allow any priority slot swapping or trading. Danke, Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Alexander Schubert ___________________________________ Alexander Schubert LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert U.S. +1(202)684-6806 Germany +49(030)8643-7863 From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 2:43 AM To: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 19: Application Queuing Em 19 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 16:33, trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> escreveu: Rubens, I am not sure what CA law requires written tickets or a physical draw to set the order for application review. To the extent that you require consideration (i.e., payment) to get a benefit where such is determined by chance you create the risk of an illegal lottery. But if no consideration/payment is required that risk goes away and it is unlikely that the process would be deemed a sweepstakes or promotion requiring registration under any state or country law as it is not open to the public or consumers but rather is a process for determining priority to a closed group of companies that applied for TLDs. The CA website I mentioned has the legal references… but indeed your point indicates yet another reason to not have tickets. Re the need for draw tickets I think that is a bad and confusing phrase. But there seems to be value letting applicants choose whether they care about prioritization or not, and if they do, randomly selecting which order their application is reviewed. If others agree then I would propose letting the applicant elect of they want to be prioritized and then if they do having a third party randomly assign order of review. Maybe we are talking past each other and saying the same thing? In this point, yes. I’m not advocating for forcing applicants into the prioritization contest. ICANN should repeat what happened in the 2012 draw where applicants that prefer to not have prioritization were assigned numbers after the ones wanting prioritization. But in 2012, and I believe we should do in 2026 too, got and should get a number from the draw. All applications having a number allow for simpler processing thru the pipeline. Rubens Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> trac@gtlaw.com |  <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com  |  <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> View GT Biography <image001.png> <image002.png> From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 11:43 AM To: subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 19: Application Queuing Marc, The reasons for the physical draw are rooted in California law; what you are suggesting would work in Nevada, I’m told. What I challenged was the need for the draw tickets now that this round will have the draw as it’s prioritization mechanism of choice since day 1. Rubens Em 19 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 14:35, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> > <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> > escreveu: I agree. This is overly complicated and unnecessary. Why use paper tickets and have them be purchased? Is this 1980? Why not just have the applicant elect electronically through the applicant portal whether or not they wat to participate in the prioritization draw. Only certain authorized applicant representative have access to the portal so this should be both efficient and secure. I also don’t think we need a live draw and can just use some recognized third party provider to conduct the draw and then announce the results. Furthermore, and further to what Rubens posted below, purchasing tickets could be deemed an illegal lottery under the laws of various US states and other countries. Generally, the elements of an illegal lottery are: chance, prize, and consideration, all of which would be present here. So, in sum I think: 1. No tickets 2. Applicants elect to participate in the prioritization draw through the applicant portal by a certain date 3. Draw conducted by recognized provider and doesn’t have to be live Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> trac@gtlaw.com |  <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com  |  <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> View GT Biography <image001.png> <image002.png> From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 9:28 AM To: subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 19: Application Queuing *EXTERNAL TO GT* Complicating things shouldn't be an implementation goal. From <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://oag.ca.gov/charities/raffles&sa=D&sourc...> https://oag.ca.gov/charities/raffles: "Registration is not required if all tickets for a drawing are free, solicitations of voluntary donations to the organization are in no way connected to distribution of tickets, and this is made clear to all participants. If a "donation" is required in return for a ticket, registration is required." So by selling tickets instead of giving them away, org is complicating itself and applicants unnecessarily. Rubens Em 16 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 11:22, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> > escreveu: Peter, Using a separate ticket drawing was used in 2012 only because AGB foresaw Digital Archery. Now that the application will include priority ticket from the start, there is no sane reason to do it like this. I suggested an alternative in the Google Doc. Rubens Em 16 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 07:38, Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org <mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org> > escreveu: Dear IRT Members, We are pleased to share a link to proposed AGB language on the subject of ‘Application Queuing’ for discussion at our meeting on Tuesday, 20 February 2024, based on the Board-adopted recommendations included in Topic 19 of the <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-repo...> Final Report: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NndHCLSbv8MHmX-jsakfuj2LWRuAolGfherL0eJ-...> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NndHCLSbv8MHmX-jsakfuj2LWRuAolGfherL0eJ-... A PDF version of this document and an agenda for Tuesday’s call is available here: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=296583198> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=296583198 If you have any questions or concerns, or experience difficulties accessing the above links, please let us know in advance of the meeting. Thanks and best wishes, Peter Peter Eakin (Mr) Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: + 32 493 547 913 Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> SubPro-IRT@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt _______________________________________________ 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> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> 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. _____ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com> postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.

Em 20 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 10:07, trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu:

Alex,

I think we agree that no “draw” is needed and just randomized assignment of priority for those who elect to be prioritized through the applicant portal. But from there your way again seems to be overcomplicated. The simplest method would be for ICANN to just use a randomizer but I know people distrust ICANN so I suggest a reputable third party to do the randomization and then the results can be announced. I agree no slot trading.

California law has no specific bias on trusting ICANN or not, they simply do not allow it for anyone. Rubens

Good points made by Rubens, Marc and Alexander How does contention set play into this? I can't overlook that as we think about the starting of the process of review on any given application that order of operation is somewhat irrelevant where contention sets occur. As I understand it, those have the impact where the entire contention set gets stuck until the application with the highest of the sets is processed and/or contention resolution occurs, whichever is sooner. -Jothan On Mon, Feb 19, 2024, 9:36 AM trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:

I agree. This is overly complicated and unnecessary. Why use paper tickets and have them be purchased? Is this 1980? Why not just have the applicant elect electronically through the applicant portal whether or not they wat to participate in the prioritization draw. Only certain authorized applicant representative have access to the portal so this should be both efficient and secure. I also don’t think we need a live draw and can just use some recognized third party provider to conduct the draw and then announce the results.

Furthermore, and further to what Rubens posted below, purchasing tickets could be deemed an illegal lottery under the laws of various US states and other countries. Generally, the elements of an illegal lottery are: chance, prize, and consideration, all of which would be present here.

So, in sum I think:

1. No tickets 2. Applicants elect to participate in the prioritization draw through the applicant portal by a certain date 3. Draw conducted by recognized provider and doesn’t have to be live

Best regards,

*Marc H. Trachtenberg * Shareholder

Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020

M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h>

[image: Greenberg Traurig Logo]

*From:* SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT *Sent:* Monday, February 19, 2024 9:28 AM *To:* subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 19: Application Queuing

**EXTERNAL TO GT**

Complicating things shouldn't be an implementation goal. From https://oag.ca.gov/charities/raffles <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://oag.ca.gov/charities/raffles&sa=D&sourc...> : "Registration is not required if all tickets for a drawing are free, solicitations of voluntary donations to the organization are in no way connected to distribution of tickets, and this is made clear to all participants. If a "donation" is required in return for a ticket, registration is required."

So by selling tickets instead of giving them away, org is complicating itself and applicants unnecessarily.

Rubens

Em 16 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 11:22, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> escreveu:

Peter,

Using a separate ticket drawing was used in 2012 only because AGB foresaw Digital Archery. Now that the application will include priority ticket from the start, there is no sane reason to do it like this.

I suggested an alternative in the Google Doc.

Rubens

Em 16 de fev. de 2024, à(s) 07:38, Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org> escreveu:

Dear IRT Members,

We are pleased to share a link to proposed AGB language on the subject of ‘Application Queuing’ for discussion at our meeting on Tuesday, 20 February 2024, based on the Board-adopted recommendations included in Topic 19 of the Final Report <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-repo...> : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NndHCLSbv8MHmX-jsakfuj2LWRuAolGfherL0eJ-...

A PDF version of this document and an agenda for Tuesday’s call is a vailable here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=296583198

If you have any questions or concerns, or experience difficulties accessing the above links, please let us know in advance of the meeting.

Thanks and best wishes,

Peter

Peter Eakin (Mr)

Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Tel: + 32 493 547 913

Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium

_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt

_______________________________________________ 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.

------------------------------ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt

_______________________________________________ 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.