<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi Tomlin and All,</p>
<p>I want to share that - surprisingly - I find myself in agreement
with Paul McGrady in his email to Council of 10 August on Closed
Generics (and I paste it below). I disagree with most of Kurt's
representations of Closed Generic history, and agree
wholeheartedly with Paul's. I'm surprised myself, but what Paul
writes below is exactly what we did with each and every New gTLD
rule we reviewed for the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP
Working Group (which I co-chaired for 4 years). <br>
</p>
<p>The Status Quo is that Closed Generic gTLDs should not proceed.
How do we know? Because they did not proceed in the First Round;
they all changed to become open gTLD applications or withdrew
(except one and it proceeded on a separate trademark/legal rights
basis). Literally dozens of Closed Generics opened up or withdrew
their applications - .SAFETY, .BOOK, .SEARCH, and many more.
That's the Status Quo, although a number of our friends refuse to
acknowledge it. <br>
</p>
<p>As Paul wrote below: <<One of the basic tenants that
everyone in the SubPro PDP agreed to was that, absent any changes
captured in the Recommendations, that the status quo would
prevail. All the letter does is ask for that. I feel better
about sticking with the WG’s inability to change the status quo
than I do asking the Board to write a policy when the community
couldn’t agree to anything, even after two valiant efforts. We
tried in the WG, we couldn’t get there, the status quo should
prevail. We tried again at the request of the Board at the SO/AC
level, we couldn’t get there, the status quo should prevail.
>></p>
<p>It's true. <i>Someday we may be able to create a rule that will
receive consensus for Closed Generics, but not today. We
certainly tried! </i><br>
</p>
<p>Best regards and good luck!</p>
<p>Kathy</p>
<p>---------------------------------------------------<br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, <b>Aug 10, 2023 at 10:15 AM </b>Paul
McGrady via council <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Kurt,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for this. I’m not sure I am
understanding your concern. One of the basic tenants that
everyone in the SubPro PDP agreed to was that, absent any changes
captured in the Recommendations, that the status quo would
prevail. All the letter does is ask for that. I feel better
about sticking with the WG’s inability to change the status quo
than I do asking the Board to write a policy when the community
couldn’t agree to anything, even after two valiant efforts. We
tried in the WG, we couldn’t get there, the status quo should
prevail. We tried again at the request of the Board at the SO/AC
level, we couldn’t get there, the status quo should prevail. The
letter leaves open the possibility of future community work on
this but notes there is no bandwidth or appetite to do so and we
don’t want the next round held up. Help me understand you concern
about asking the Board to maintain the status quo until/if the
community comes up with a policy on these. <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/20/2023 4:55 PM, Tomslin
Samme-Nlar wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAM8DdeV+a2b6ggzQ=AKLg006e9jFTvVmXFzUZwjzgQY5WV8WGA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi Kathy,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hope your medical procedure went well.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My concern was based on the letter sent to the
facilitated-dialog members which said <b>"<i>unless and until
there is a community-developed consensus policy in place,
any applications seeking to impose exclusive registry
access for "generic strings" to a single person or entity
and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in
Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should not
proceed</i></b>". This wording appears to recommend a
specific policy direction to the board for the next round
despite the SubPro report saying we have "No
Agreement....there is arguably no clear “status quo” or
default position from the 2012 round to affirm", so let the
board decide.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, the good news is that the council hasn't drafted
the letter to the board yet, so with this concern of wording
expressed to the council, hopefully the letter to the board
will be more clearer in its intent to allow the board decide
for themselves since the GNSO is still not able to develop a
policy recommendation on this issue.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>About the work output of the facilitated dialog (CGST), I
absolutely agree with you that the group explored in-depth the
problems and possibilities of closed generics. And the letter
to board from the council also intends to acknowledge this by
saying that <b>should the community decide in the future to
resume the policy discussions, this should be based on the
good work that has been done to date in the facilitated
dialogue</b>. Despite not in support of putting together
this new facilitated dialogue process, I admit its output is
helpful and thank you for the hard work you and colleagues
from GAC and ALAC put into it.<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Warmly,<br>
</div>
Tomslin
<div><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px"></span></div>
<div><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 23:54,
Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:Kathy@kathykleiman.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Hi Tomslin,</p>
<p>What recommendation is Council sending to the Board and
how does it contradict the SubPro WG? I'm sorry to not
be on these lists or see these nuances. I am sure there is
great anger from Jeff, Kurt and Paul right now. <br>
</p>
<p><i>Just between us, can we be candid about what happened
in the Closed Generics Small Team?</i><i> </i>As a
matter of real policy, I feel the Closed Generics Small
Team (CGST) advanced this dialogue of Closed Generics with
a real cross-community and in-depth exploration of the <u>problems
and possibilities</u><u> of Closed Generics</u>. <br>
</p>
<p>The Framework showed with great clarity that Closed
Generics are gTLDs of words/strings with meanings for
entire industries and should be allocated - if allocated -
with great sensitivity to the representativeness of the
entire industry AND clear agreement to abide by defined
standards of non anti-competitive behavior if one company
in an industry obtains the Closed Generic. For example,
Amazon can't take all the domain names in .BOOK for
themselves alone. <br>
</p>
<p>Section 10 may be its strongest and best part of the
Framework. It lays out what I wrote above.
<a
href="https://community.icann.org/display/GFDOCG/FOR+INPUT%3A+Draft+Framework+for+Closed+Generic+gTLDs?preview=/244944418/244944420/Draft%20Framework%20for%20Closed%20Generic%20gTLDs.pdf"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://community.icann.org/display/GFDOCG/FOR+INPUT%3A+Draft+Framework+for+Closed+Generic+gTLDs?preview=/244944418/244944420/Draft%20Framework%20for%20Closed%20Generic%20gTLDs.pdf</a>
<br>
</p>
<p>---</p>
<p>I head into a medical procedure so won't be able to
engage on the members list. Also, we on the Members list
do not understand the nuances of Council wording as you
do. I think Council practices are becoming very nuanced.
<br>
</p>
<p>We will follow your good advice. But please don't let
them erase the good work of the Closed Generics Small
Team. You called us into existence and we worked hard.
What we learned cannot be unlearned - and the Board will
be reading our work and processing it. <br>
</p>
Best regards, Kathy<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 8/17/2023 8:23 AM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Hi Kathy,
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Thanks for the detailed update. We are
certainly thankful to you and the team for the hard
work you put into this.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">My only concern with the
'recommendation' that the council leadership is
planning on sending to the board is that it appears
to make recommendations contrary to the subpro
report. This concern comes strictly from the point
of view of my role as a GNSO policy manager
(councillor). </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If the SubPro report didn't recommend
neither to allow nor ban closed generics, hence
leaving it at the discretion of the board, then I
believe the Council should be careful not to make
contradictory statements that might appear to the
community as making an "executive recommendation" to
the board outside the PDP process.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I see a thread has also been spun in
the members' list. Perhaps we should take the
discussion there and see what other members think?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Warmly,
<div dir="auto">Tomslin</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 17 Aug
2023, 06:58 Kathy Kleiman, <<a
href="mailto:Kathy@kathykleiman.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Hi Tomslin,</p>
<p>I'm sorry that the Facilitated Dialogue is
being viewed by some as a failure. In our
Closed Generics Small Team meeting last week,
it was made very clear to us that the Chairs
of the GNSO, GAC and ALAC did not consider our
work a failure, but a success that resulted in
important issues being raised. I share the
highlights of the "3 Chair Letter" and attach
it to this email:</p>
<p>- "As the Chairs of the three community
groups that agreed to participate in this
dialog[ue, we are extremely grateful to you as
well as very proud of how your work is a
testament to the robustness and viability of
ICANN’s multistakeholder model. We would like
to thank you all for all the hard work,
collaborative effort, and time that you have
put into this project, resulting in a detailed
draft framework for potential policy work that
reflects the many hours of good faith
discussions that took place."</p>
<p>- "We noted that there does not seem to be
strong community demand for closed generic
gTLDs in the next round, particularly if
success in obtaining a gTLD in this category
will entail engaging in a complex process with
complicated requirements." <br>
</p>
<p>- "As a result of all these considerations
and our discussions, we believe that it is not
necessary to resolve the question of closed
generic gTLDs as a dependency for the next
round of new gTLDs, and we plan to inform the
ICANN Board accordingly. We agree with the
ICANN Board (in its original invitation to the
GAC and the GNSO to engage in a facilitated
dialogue) that this topic is one for community
policy work, rather than a decision for the
Board. <i><br>
</i></p>
<p><i>- As such and based on our collective
belief that there is neither the need nor
the community bandwidth to conduct
additional work at this stage, we also plan
to ask that, for the next round, the Board
maintain the position that, unless and until
there is a community developed consensus
policy in place, any applications seeking to
impose exclusive registry access for
"generic strings" to a single person or
entity and/or that person's or entity's
Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of
the Registry Agreement) should not proceed.
[italics added]</i><br>
</p>
<p>- "Finally, we also plan to inform the Board
that any future community policy work on this
topic should be based on the good work that
has been done to date in this facilitated
dialogue."<b><br>
</b></p>
<p><b>----------------</b></p>
<p><b>So overall, we were told we did a good job
on a tough issue. I think the Small Group's
Framework advanced the dialogue and our
joint understanding of the competition
problems associated with a single company
controlling a "closed generic" gTLD
significantly. <br>
</b></p>
<p>Frankly, I would advise the Council to
support the work and words of the GNSO Chair,
and the recommendation not to proceed with
Closed Generic applications in the next round
under the circumstances as outlined in the
letter.</p>
<p>I urge you not to join in the criticism of
some on the GNSO - excellent and hard work was
done here - including our GNSO representatives
John McElwaine, Phillippe Fouquart, Jeff,
Sophie and me. We worked very hard, and
pushed the understanding of this issues, and
ways to address it, to new levels. Our work
likely will become the basis of future
discussion. But, as Chris Disspain said at our
second Closed G meeting in ICANN77 (and he was
on the Board in the first round), not all
issues deserve the huge amount of time it
would take to fully resolve them. <br>
</p>
<p>Best regards, Kathy <br>
</p>
<p>Attachment: 3 Chairs Letter Aug 5 <br>
</p>
<div>On 8/15/2023 4:55 PM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear councillors,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What is our stance on this? <br>
<br>
1. Overall, I think the declaration that
the Facilitated dialogue on Closed
generics is a failure is a win to NCSG as
we warned council and the board against
taking this path.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. I think the concern Kurt raises that
the letter to be addressed to the board
asking to "<i><b>pause any release of
closed generics to a future round
might inadvertently be revising subpro
recommendation</b></i>" and that of
Anne that "<b><i>contains a subtle
underlying policy recommendation in
favor of accepting new Closed Generic
applications in the next round in the
absence of developed policy</i></b>"
are both valid concerns we should pay
close attention to.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3. However, I like Anne's proposal that
avoids subtly modifying any consensus
policy. She proposes that "<b><i>Perhaps
Council should simply advise the Board
that (1) Based on public comment, the
Facilitated Dialogue process proved
unsuccessful in this instance and (2)
Council does not believe a further
policy process would result in a
consensus and therefore, the Board
should decide the issues, including
whether or not to accept Closed
Generic applications in the next
round.</i></b>"<br>
<br>
What are your thoughts?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Warmly,<br>
</div>
Tomslin
<div><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px"></span></div>
<div><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">----------
Forwarded message ---------<br>
From: <b class="gmail_sendername"
dir="auto">Anne ICANN via council</b>
<span dir="auto"><<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a>></span><br>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 02:17<br>
Subject: Re: [council] Update on
Closed Generics<br>
To: DiBiase, Gregory <<a
href="mailto:dibiase@amazon.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">dibiase@amazon.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a
href="mailto:COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG</a>
<<a
href="mailto:COUNCIL@gnso.icann.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">COUNCIL@gnso.icann.org</a>>,
Avri Doria <<a
href="mailto:avri.doria@board.icann.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">avri.doria@board.icann.org</a>><br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Thanks Greg - The point
you make that there is as yet no
official statement from Council to the
Board on this issue is an important
one. I think there is rough
consensus at the Council level that we
don't want the next round to be
delayed by this issue. I think two
significant questions remain as to the
following:
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Issue #1. Whether to accept
applications for Closed Generics
in the next round or to pause such
applications pending future Board
action or GNSO policy development
efforts. The draft statements
put forward so far would endorse
accepting applications and that is
also a policy statement which
essentially defines the "status
quo" as permitting such
applications. (After all, closed
generic applications could block
open generic applications in that
instance.) This is tricky
because the GAC has reiterated
that its previous Closed Generic
advice is "standing advice".
Would it be a solution for the
Board to simply accept that advice
in relation to a Closed Generic
application and then accept
applications in the next round
but require the Applicant to
prove that the application serves
a public interest goal without
specifying any standards that
apply for that proof? Or could the
Board say that it cannot accept
the advice from the GAC because it
would require ICANN to weigh the
content of the Closed Generic
application and to police the
public interest goal issue during
the term of the contract award,
meaning the requirement of the GAC
advice is out of scope for ICANN's
mission as overly content
-related? Maybe the Council
should just say "don't delay the
next round" and should not take a
policy position on whether or not
to accept Closed Generic
applications when the next round
opens, i.e. leave that to the
Board to decide that policy issue
as well?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Issue #2. Whether the Council
itself has taken a decision that
it will not proceed to develop
Closed Generic policy using an
existing GNSO policy process. (I
think it's possible the Board has
the authority to request a formal
policy process - not sure whether
Council has the right to refuse to
do so.) Did the Council already
decide it would not undertake an
existing policy process when it
authorized the Facilitated
Dialogue process? Does the
statement need to reflect a
Council decision in this regard
and if so, does that need a
separate vote from Council? Are
we risking delay of the next round
over the Council's failure to act
on this policy issue? The Board
invoked the Facilitated Dialogue
process outside normal policy
development channels but it
appears that process failed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Any thoughts re the above
considerations ?</div>
<div>Anne</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"
class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Anne Aikman-Scalese</div>
GNSO Councilor
<div>NomCom Non-Voting
2022-2024</div>
<div><a
href="mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">anneicanngnso@gmail.com</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On
Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 6:51 AM
DiBiase, Gregory via council <<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Kurt,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A couple
thoughts here:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in"
type="1" start="1">
<li style="margin-left:0in">We
have not communicated a
decision or feedback to
Board yet, so we have time
to discuss our messaging
(so far, the SO/AC chairs
have sent a letter to the
dialogue participants and
the dialogue participants
have agreed with the
letter’s sentiment). </li>
<li style="margin-left:0in">I
think council is in
agreement that work on
closed generics cannot be
a dependency for the next
round and the Facilitated
Dialogue on Closed Generic
gTLDs should not continue
to be the vehicle
advancing this work
(please let me know if I’m
oversimplifying). If this
is correct, I think we can
simplify this issue to:
how or if we should frame
the “status quo” to the
Board. More specifically,
we can take a closer look
at this proposed language
from the letter to the
dialogue participants:
<ol style="margin-top:0in"
type="a" start="1">
<li
style="margin-left:0in">“until
there is
community-developed
policy, the Board
should maintain the
position from the 2012
round (i.e., any
applications seeking
to impose exclusive
registry access for
"generic strings" to a
single person or
entity and/or that
person's or entity's
Affiliates (as defined
in Section 2.9(c) of
the Registry
Agreement) should not
proceed;”</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li style="margin-left:0in">Perhaps
we should modify this part
to say closer to: “given
that there is no
community-developed policy
on closed generics (i.e.,
any applications seeking
to impose exclusive
registry access for
"generic strings" to a
single person or entity
and/or that person's or
entity's Affiliates (as
defined in Section 2.9(c)
of the Registry
Agreement), we acknowledge
that the Board may not
allow closed generics to
proceed (in line with
their position from the
20201 round) until policy
is developed.” In other
words, we don’t need to
instruct the Board on what
the status quo is, rather,
we are informing them that
a policy on closed
generics has not been
finalized and we recommend
not delaying the next
round until this policy
work is completed.</li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m sure
I have point 3 wrong as I am
not as well-versed in subpro
as others, but we can
discuss further to make sure
we are all aligned.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Greg</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt
medium
medium;border-style:solid
none
none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225)
currentcolor
currentcolor;padding:3pt
0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
council <<a
href="mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council-bounces@gnso.icann.org</a>> <b>On
Behalf Of </b>kurt <a
href="http://kjpritz.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">kjpritz.com</a>
via council<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday,
August 13, 2023 7:54 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Paul McGrady
<<a
href="mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">paul@elstermcgrady.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Avri Doria
<<a
href="mailto:avri.doria@board.icann.org"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">avri.doria@board.icann.org</a>>; GNSO
Council <<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE:
[EXTERNAL] [council]
Update on Closed
Generics</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<table
style="border-collapse:collapse"
cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr
style="height:15.25pt">
<td
style="width:842.35pt;border:1.5pt
solid
rgb(237,125,49);padding:0in
5.4pt;height:15.25pt" width="1123" valign="top">
<p><b><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black;background:rgb(255,255,153)">CAUTION</span></b><span
style="color:black;background:rgb(255,255,153)">: This email originated
from outside of
the
organization. Do
not click links
or open
attachments
unless you can
confirm the
sender and know
the content is
safe.</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Replying
to Paul (Hi Paul): </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As
pointed out by Anne (and
Rubens in a parallel
email exchange), the
question of status quo
is not settled. That is
the reason the SubPro
working group
specifically asked the
Board to settle the
question. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The
Board essentially
created a new, temporary
policy when it
introduced an additional
restriction into the
criteria for delegating
new TLDs. (I say
temporary because the
restriction was
time-limited in a way.)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The
SubPro final report does
not recommend an
extension of that
restriction by way of a
“pause,” the report
specifically recommends
something else. By
recommending a pause,
the SO/AC leadership
would be amending the
final report
recommendation. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I
wish I could be clearer.
That somehow eludes me
at the moment. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kurt</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On
11 Aug 2023, at
3:37 am, Anne
ICANN <<a
href="mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">anneicanngnso@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Hi
Kurt and Paul, </p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">As
I see it, the
issue has come
back to what
constitutes
the "status
quo". This
issue was
hotly debated
in the Sub Pro
Working
Group. Some
maintained
that there was
no prohibition
on the
applications
for Closed
Generics
because none
was contained
in the 2012
AGB. Others
maintained
that due to
the GAC Advice
and Board
direction to
"pause"
pending policy
development,
the "status
quo" is
actually a
"pause" which
would be
continued at
the start of
the next
round. The
risk I see for
the ICANN
Board in the
latter
situation is
that those
existing
applications
for Closed
Generics
(which are on
hold) as well
as any future
applications
to be taken in
the next round
(not
prohibited by
this
recommendation)
would build a
case for
Request for
Reconsideration
if the Board
does not allow
those
applications
to move
forward. For
example, the
grounds might
be Applicant
Freedom of
Expression
under the
Human Rights
Core Value and
the underlying
principle of
Applicant
Freedom of
Expression
that has been
affirmed by
subsequent PDP
work and is
now being
confirmed in
the Sub Pro
IRT process. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Another
factor is that
the Board has
consistently
declined to
make policy.
And I'm not
certain that
the GNSO
Council
actually has
the authority
to direct the
Board to make
a Closed
Generic
policy. Are
you gentlemen
certain that
this is
kosher?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Certainly
I agree this
issue should
not hold up
the next round
but of course
there is a
year to go.
If the Board
is willing to
take a
decision on
this, that is
one scenario.
If the Board
is not willing
to take a
decision on
this and/or is
concerned
about the risk
of expensive
litigation
over a
possible ban,
then that is
another
scenario. Has
anyone spoken
with our Sub
Pro Board reps
about this
approach?
(They are
copied here.)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Thank
you,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Anne</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Anne
Aikman-Scalese</p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">GNSO
Councilor </p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">NomCom
Non-Voting
2022-2024</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
href="mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">anneicanngnso@gmail.com</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">On
Thu, Aug 10,
2023 at
10:15 AM Paul
McGrady via
council <<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a>> wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border-width:medium
medium medium
1pt;border-style:none
none none
solid;border-color:currentcolor
currentcolor
currentcolor
rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in
0in 0in
6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Hi
Kurt,</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Thanks
for this. I’m
not sure I am
understanding
your concern.
One of the
basic tenants
that everyone
in the SubPro
PDP agreed to
was that,
absent any
changes
captured in
the
Recommendations,
that the
status quo
would
prevail. All
the letter
does is ask
for that. I
feel better
about sticking
with the WG’s
inability to
change the
status quo
than I do
asking the
Board to write
a policy when
the community
couldn’t agree
to anything,
even after two
valiant
efforts. We
tried in the
WG, we
couldn’t get
there, the
status quo
should
prevail. We
tried again at
the request of
the Board at
the SO/AC
level, we
couldn’t get
there, the
status quo
should
prevail. The
letter leaves
open the
possibility of
future
community work
on this but
notes there is
no bandwidth
or appetite to
do so and we
don’t want the
next round
held up. Help
me understand
you concern
about asking
the Board to
maintain the
status quo
until/if the
community
comes up with
a policy on
these. </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Best,</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Paul</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div
style="border-width:1pt
medium
medium;border-style:solid
none
none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225)
currentcolor
currentcolor;padding:3pt
0in 0in">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
council <<a
href="mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council-bounces@gnso.icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf
Of </b>kurt <a
href="http://kjpritz.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">kjpritz.com</a>
via council<br>
<b>Sent:</b>
Thursday,
August 10,
2023 3:45 AM<br>
<b>To:</b>
John McElwaine
<<a
href="mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b>
GNSO Council
<<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b>
Re: [council]
Update on
Closed
Generics</p>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">Hi John: <br>
<br>
Thanks for
taking time to
make this
detailed
report, and
also thanks to
the
well-intentioned
people that
participated
in the effort,
in particular,
our GNSO
representatives.
I am
not surprised
by the
outcome. <br>
<br>
I am surprised
by the
recommendation
to pause any
release of
closed generics
to a future
round. Such an
action would
turn the
consensus-based policy
development
process on its
head.</span></p>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">1. I don’t
understand how
the SO/AC
leaders have
the authority
to revise the
PDP final
report
recommendation. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">The PDP final
report
(approved by
each of the
Councillors)
stated that
the closed
generic
decision
should be left
up to the
ICANN Board.
The
final report
did
not recommend
the
conflicting
direction that
the closed
generics
ban be
continued
until a future
round.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">The Board made
an attempt to
(re)involve
the community
by
inviting the
GAC and GNSO
to develop a
solution. With
that effort
closed, we
should revert
back to the
final report
recommendations.
We should not
change
the consensus
position
developed. Do
we think the
PDP team would
have approved
a recommendation to pause closed generics for an additional round? (No.)
</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">We have
thoroughly
discussed the
conditions
under which a
Council approved final report can be changed (e.g., GGP), and this is
not one
of them. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">2.
Continuing
the ban on
closed
generics
effectively
abandons
the consensus
policy model
of decision
making.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">The new gTLD
policy
developments,
in 2007-8 and
2016-21 have
asked the
questions: (1)
should there
be a round of
TLDs and, if
yes, (2)
what restrictions
/
conditions should
be in place to
address SSR,
IP,
and competition
concerns.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">Restrictions and
conditions
enjoying
consensus
support
were implemented
in the
program. (An
illustrative
example is the
RPM IRT,
whose recommendations
were ratified
by the
community
STI.)</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">During
discussions on
closed
generics,
there were
people
for barring
them, allowing
them, and
allowing them
with
restrictions.
Pausing
any introduction
of
closed generics
essentially
creates a
policy
advocated by
a minority
(and in any
case not
enjoying
consensus
support). The
final
report indicated
as much.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">This result
provides an
incentive to
avoid
compromise.
Going forward,
those wanting
to implement
an unsupported
policy can
refuse
to compromise
through a PDP
and subsequent
ad-hoc
discussions
with the hope
that leadership will “give up” and implement unsupported restrictions.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">3. The
decision to
ban closed
generics for
an additional
round contradicts the one step the Board took.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10pt">The Board direction to the GAC-GNSO team
established
guardrails, prohibiting
a model that
would either
ban or provide
for the
unrestricted release
of closed
generics. We
cannot be sure
this is where
the Board
will land
absent input
from the
GAC-GNSO
effort, but we
should not
erase the
chance that
the Board
would develop
a balanced
decision.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10pt">Two additional points:</span></p>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10pt"><br>
1. I do
not believe
that deferring
the issue to
the Board will
delay the next
round, despite
the recent
GAC-GNSO
detour. The
Board has more
than a year to
make a call. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10pt"><br>
2. I do
not believe
the Board is
exceeding
their
authority in
making the
call. The GNSO
specifically
assigned the
task to the
Board as part
of
their policy
management
responsibility.
In any event,
the Board
established
that authority
when it paused
closed
generics in
2012,
contradicting
the Council-approved policy. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10pt"><br>
If given the
opportunity to
participate in
a discussion
on this issue,
I would oppose
the
recommendation
that the issue
should be
paused, and
closed generics
banned for
the reasons
stated above.
I would
support the
final report
recommendation
that the issue
be decided by
the Board. </span>
</p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10pt"> <br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Kurt</span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"> </p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">On
10 Aug 2023,
at 7:33 am,
John McElwaine
via council
<<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Dear
Councilors,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">As
GNSO Council
liaison to the
ALAC-GAC-GNSO
Facilitated
Dialogue on
Closed Generic
gTLDs, I
wanted to
update you on
the latest
developments
on this
project. On 7
July 2023,
after
discussions
amongst
themselves
that I also
participated
in, Sebastien
(in his
capacity as
GNSO Chair),
Jonathan Zuck
(ALAC Chair)
and Nico
Caballero (GAC
Chair) sent
the attached
letter to the
participants
in the
dialogue. For
reasons set
out in the
letter, and in
response to
questions that
the dialogue
participants
had referred
to them (also
noted in the
letter), the
three Chairs
have
collectively
decided that
it will be
neither
necessary to
continue with
the dialogue
to develop a
final
framework nor
initiate
further policy
development
work on this
topic.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">The
dialogue
participants
have discussed
the Chairs’
joint letter
and agreed to
conclude their
work as
requested,
including
producing an
outcomes
report to
ensure that
the work to
date is
thoroughly
documented.
Participants
also agreed to
forward the
Chairs’ letter
to all the
commenters
that submitted
input on the
draft
framework
(viz., Tucows,
RySG, BC,
ISPCPC, ALAC
and GAC), and
have invited
those
commenters
that wish to
engage with
the group to
join their
next call to
clarify any
significant
concerns they
raised in the
feedback they
provided.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">The
staff team
that is
supporting the
dialogue is
currently
preparing a
draft outcomes
report for the
group to
review. The
group intends
for the
outcomes
report to
serve as an
introduction
and summary of
their work,
including
expressly
clarifying
that the draft
framework the
group
published in
June 2023 does
not reflect
agreed
outcomes but,
rather, was a
product of
compromise
that was
reached in the
interests of
soliciting
community
feedback on
the various
elements and
points
included in
the draft
framework. The
outcomes
report will
also include
all the
community
feedback that
were submitted
in full, links
to the group’s
community wiki
space and
other relevant
documentation,
and the
participants’
feedback on
the consensus
building
techniques and
approaches
that were used
for the
dialogue.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">The
group hopes to
wrap up its
work by
September, in
line with its
previous plan
to conclude
the dialogue
and final
framework by
end-Q3 2023. I
understand
that
Sebastien,
Nico and
Jonathan will
also be
sending a
separate
communication
to the ICANN
Board that
reflects the
decision they
took and, as
stated in the
letter,
expressing the
collective
view that:</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">(1)
closed generic
gTLDs should
not be viewed
as a
dependency for
the next
round;</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">(2)
until there is
community-developed policy, the Board should maintain the position from
the 2012 round
(i.e., any
applications
seeking to
impose
exclusive
registry
access for
"generic
strings" to a
single person
or entity
and/or that
person's or
entity's
Affiliates (as
defined in
Section 2.9(c)
of the
Registry
Agreement)
should not
proceed<b>;</b><span> </span>and</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">(3)
should the
community
decide in the
future to
resume the
policy
discussions,
this should be
based on the
good work that
has been done
to date in the
facilitated
dialogue.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Sebastien
and I will be
happy to
answer any
questions you
may have on
the letter,
the Chairs’
decision and
the proposed
next steps.
You may also
wish to check
in with the
representatives
that each of
your
Stakeholder
Groups
appointed to
the dialogue
for further
information.<span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Finally,
I am sure I
speak for all
of us when I
say that we
are very
grateful to
the dialogue
participants
and the staff
support team
for all the
hard work and
consensus
building that
resulted in a
detailed and
substantive,
if
preliminary,
draft
framework. I
also hope that
the
participants’
feedback on
the methods
and techniques
used in the
dialogue, as
well as other
lessons
learned from
the
experience,
will provide
the GNSO
Council and
community with
useful
information
that we can
put into
practice in
future policy
discussions.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Best
regards,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">John</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"> <b><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">Confidentiality
Notice</span></b><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
This message
is intended
exclusively
for the
individual or
entity to
which it is
addressed.
This
communication
may contain
information
that is
proprietary,
privileged,
confidential
or otherwise
legally exempt
from
disclosure. If
you are not
the named
addressee, you
are not
authorized to
read, print,
retain, copy
or disseminate
this message
or any part of
it. If you
have received
this message
in error,
please notify
the sender
immediately
either by
phone
(800-237-2000)
or reply to
this e-mail
and delete all
copies of this
message.</span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><Message
from ALAC GAC
GNSO Chairs
to Closed
Generics
Facilitated
Dialogue
Participants -
FINAL - 5
August 2023
(002).pdf><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">_______________________________________________<br>
council
mailing list<br>
</span><a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">council@gnso.icann.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</span><a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council</span></a><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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
(</span><a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</span></a><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">) and the website
Terms of
Service (</span><a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</span></a><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">). 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.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div
style="border:1pt
solid
rgb(156,101,0);padding:2pt"
id="m_-6503242595236262141m_2317932858697995501m_3420877618762687111m_3446894358639417709m_-7502727125778583484footer">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:rgb(255,235,156)"> <span style="color:black">This
email
originated
from outside
the firm.
Please use
caution.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
council
mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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
(<a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the
website Terms
of Service (<a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>).
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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
council mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>).
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.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
council mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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
(<a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>).
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.</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>