[Consultation] PIR Transaction and Proposed Public Interest Commitments Update

[Rafik Dammak]

thanks Amr, the edits were included.

Best,

Rafik

Le mar. 28 avr. 2020 à 21:48, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> a
écrit :

> Hi Bruna, Rafik and All,
>
> Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, but if there still time,
> here is the text I propose to replace the section I commented on previously
> (titled “Org Stewardship Council”):
>
>
> .Org Stewardship Council (OSC):
>
> The proposed PICs dated April 15th, 2020 included that the *“Registry
> Operator will, in accordance with the .ORG Stewardship Council charter (the
> “Charter”), notify and consult with the .ORG Stewardship Council with
> respect to modifications proposed by Registry Operator to its policies in
> the .ORG domain name space regarding: (x) censorship and freedom of
> expression; and (y) use of .ORG registrant and user data (the “Designated
> Policies”). The .ORG Stewardship Council will have authority to provide
> independent advice on and a binding right to veto modifications proposed by
> Registry Operator to the Designated Policies.”*
>
> The NCSG believes that two additional measure can be taken to make the
> role of the OSC more effective, which should be reflected in the proposed
> PICs as well as the draft OSC charter:
>
> 1. The OSC should be given the mandate to review PIR policies for .org
> (such as any anti-abuse policies adopted by the registry) to ensure that
> these policies do not negatively impact non-commercial registrants in the
> .org space, with particular emphasis on their ability to express themselves
> freely and the processing and use of registrant data by the registry.
> 2. PIR should adopt a complaints system, where .org registrants are able
> to appeal decisions made by the registry in the implementation of its
> policies concerning freedom of expression and processing/use of registrant
> data. The OSC should be a party in the review of any such complaints, and
> should be able to overturn registry decisions, if the decisions are found
> to conflict with existing PIR policies (i.e. if implementation of PIR
> policies are not consistent with their intent).
>
> Furthermore, the proposed PICs state that *“…, Registry Operator reserves
> the right at all times to ensure compliance in its sole judgment with
> applicable laws, regulations and ICANN policies.”* (emphasis added)
>
> PIR cannot reasonably be expected to follow advice from the OSC, in the
> event that this advice conflicts with the registry’s contractual
> obligations towards ICANN. However, the OSC should be given the mandate to
> enter into discussions with PIR on policy recommendations it advocates for
> in the course of gTLD policy development at ICANN. Again, this particularly
> concerns the development of policy recommendations that may impact freedom
> of expression and/or the processing of non-commercial registrants’ gTLD
> registration data.
>
> Although PIR cannot be expected to follow OSC advice, which would conflict
> with ICANN policies, the OSC should be in a position to advise PIR in the
> course of the development of these policies, particularly where the
> policies in question impact the OSC’s mandate.
>
>
> I hope this is helpful, and apologies again for the late reply.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 1:42 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Bruna for follow-up.
> @amr can you propose the amendments?
>
> Rafik
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020, 23:51 Bruna Martins dos Santos <
> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> Just a short follow up on my previous email for us to know what to
>> exclude from the document...
>>
>> Le jeu. 16 avr. 2020 à 12:30, Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> Thanks to the replies and comments! @Amr I understood and agree with
>>> your concern of the supposed empowerment of the OSC through this suggested
>>> new competence and how it could extrapolate whats initially expected of the
>>> OSC. So I have two questions: (a) would you suggest the complete
>>> suppression of the section? (b) cant we come to a compromise around a less
>>> specific sort of oversight provision on this ?
>>>
>>> Thinking if we should come up with a new language to the section or
>>> simply suppress it..
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> B
>>>
>>> Le jeu. 16 avr. 2020 à 07:43, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Bruna…, thank you so much for pulling this together from the different
>>>> views expressed here. There’s one part I’m not comfortable with:
>>>>
>>>> *Org Stewardship Council *
>>>> We would like to also offer our concerns with regards to the proposed
>>>> stewardship council. NCSG understands that the OSC must be able to present
>>>> a counter point or even oppose to policy implementations on behalf of PIR.
>>>> Foreseeing the possible issues with the implementation of policies such as
>>>> the PIR Anti-Abuse Policy that allows PIR “to comply with any   applicable
>>>> laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any
>>>> dispute resolutio process" we would like to note the importance of an
>>>> independent OSC able to express powers to examine difficult issues of
>>>> jurisdiction and protect free expression for organizations and individuals
>>>> engaged in political debates.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Most of the examples of policies in this section strictly refer to
>>>> PIR policies; specifically, what may be included in the current or future
>>>> anti-abuse policy at PIR, and how that policy is implemented in order to
>>>> cater to requirements resulting from applicable laws and regulations as
>>>> well as to requests by governments and law enforcement. Opposing instances
>>>> of implementation of this policy is suggested as a power of the Stewardship
>>>> Council, and this is where I think there will be a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I don’t want to see the Stewardship Council turning in to
>>>> some kind of regulatory beast similar to ICANN, which is what I believe the
>>>> current draft letter is proposing. I’m not a fan of heavy-handed regulation
>>>> in principle. For one thing, it is costly and burdensome, especially that
>>>> the way I see this working based on the text here (as well as Kathy’s
>>>> original email proposing this) to mean that every domain name takedown
>>>> resulting from implementation of PIR’s anti-abuse policy will need to go
>>>> through the Council, or at least be challengeable by it. This can’t be good
>>>> for the Registry’s ability to operate in an agile and cost-effective
>>>> manner. I’m always hesitant in proposing policies that add financial burden
>>>> to Contracted Parties, because ultimately, these burdens are shifted to
>>>> Registrants. Also, we’re effectively proposing a costly solution to an
>>>> undefined problem. I say that the problem is undefined, because I’m not
>>>> aware of any issues with controversial .org name takedowns in the past.
>>>>
>>>> Another issue of concern with heavy-handed regulation for me is
>>>> potential capture of the Stewardship Council by special interest groups
>>>> other than civil-society or non-commercial registrants. This is always a
>>>> risk with any regulatory body, and there’s no guarantee I can see that this
>>>> Council will not include, or even be controlled by interests like those of
>>>> trademark holders, governments/law enforcement, domain name investors, etc…
>>>> at some point in the future. Why would we propose so much power to what is
>>>> essentially a pilot right now (or ever even)?
>>>>
>>>> I don’t believe the Stewardship Council should have this kind of
>>>> oversight on implementation of PIR policies. Instead, I believe the
>>>> Council’s role should be focused on how these policies are developed and
>>>> adopted, as well as have the ability to review existing policies, which may
>>>> not be fit-for-purpose if they are to safeguard FoE and privacy in the .org
>>>> gTLD space.
>>>>
>>>> We might also propose that PIR’s Stewardship Council adopt a complaints
>>>> service in its Charter, where registrants who have been subject to
>>>> takedowns are able to submit complaints to the Council, and have the
>>>> Council evaluate the complaint - not on a subjective basis, but rather on
>>>> wether the takedown is consistent with existing policy, or not. The Council
>>>> dealing with these kinds of complaints should provide it with the means to
>>>> address any problem in implementation of PIR policies without having it
>>>> meddle in the day-to-day operations of the Registry.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Having said that, not all the examples concern just PIR policies.
>>>> There is mention of dispute resolution processes in there too. This is
>>>> where I believe this section becomes really problematic. Compliance with
>>>> dispute resolution processes is an obligation imposed on Contracted Parties
>>>> by ICANN contracts. It seems like the NCSG is considering proposing powers
>>>> for the Stewardship Council, which could potentially result in conflicts
>>>> between what the Council tells PIR to do, and what its contractual
>>>> obligations towards ICANN are. This seems rather nonsensical to me, and I
>>>> also very much doubt that either PIR or ICANN will agree to this. The only
>>>> reason I can see to asking this is to create a contentious issue between
>>>> NCSG on one hand, and PIR and ICANN on the other where there would be no
>>>> chance for the NCSG to prevail, but could potentially land us in a
>>>> protracted disagreement with both parties. Even if this proposal is
>>>> entertained, all it would accomplish is stalling the process for ICANN to
>>>> either agree or disagree to PIR’s change of control.
>>>>
>>>> Instead (and again), it makes more sense to me for the Stewardship
>>>> Council to have an active role in working with PIR to determine how to best
>>>> advocate for FoE and privacy during ICANN policy development. This means
>>>> that the Stewardship Council will have a role in guiding PIR’s positions in
>>>> determination of what is included in its contract with ICANN, instead of
>>>> providing PIR with advice (binding or otherwise), which would conflict with
>>>> its contractual obligations. I’ve already proposed this in a personal
>>>> comment I submitted on Goran's blog
>>>> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/pir-transaction-and-proposed-public-interest-commitments-update>, and
>>>> I suggest that the NCSG adopt a similar approach in its letter to the ICANN
>>>> Board.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 15, 2020, at 11:25 PM, Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> Putting together some of the comments on this list, this is what the
>>>> NCSG "comment" looks like:
>>>>
>>>> Pad: https://pad.codingrights.org/p/NCSGCommentPIR
>>>> -------
>>>>
>>>> *NCSG Statement on the "PIR Transaction and Proposed Public Interest
>>>> Commitments Update"*
>>>>
>>>> Back in november 2011, the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group issued a
>>>> letter to the ICANN Board advocating for Ethos Capital to uphold its
>>>> previously acquired obligations with regards to  noncommercial registrants.
>>>> The letter also pointed out that it was ICANN's duty to to enter into
>>>> negotiations with Ethos Capital to ensure that its operation of the ORG
>>>> domain conforms to criteria upon which the original award of ORG was
>>>> contingent (related to noncommercial registrants).
>>>>
>>>> *Lack of a Freedom of Expression related provision on the PIC*
>>>> Due to concerns regarding eventual restrictions to rights such as
>>>> Freedom of Expression, NCSG asked that the PIC text included both a
>>>> process-oriented commitment to allow the Org Stewardship Council to veto
>>>> “modifications” of RO’s policies pertaining to free expression and a
>>>> positive commitment to ensuring rights such as freedom of expression in the
>>>> .Org domain. Despite stating this point previously in statements and to the
>>>> PIR Leadership team, the lack of mention to this request on the modified
>>>> PIC makes it harder for us to fully support the revised document.
>>>>
>>>> *Extended registration terms for .org registrants *
>>>> With regards to the possible extension of registration terms for .org
>>>> registrants this was also a topic in which NCSG pointed out the need for a
>>>> stronger PIR commitment. Despite understanding the eventual policy changes
>>>> entailed by the proposed change, we would like to, once again, state the
>>>> need for a sronger PIR involvement in creating such a change.
>>>>
>>>> *Org Stewardship Council *
>>>> We would like to also offer our concerns with regards to the proposed
>>>> stewardship council. NCSG understands that the OSC must be able to present
>>>> a counter point or even oppose to policy implementations on behalf of PIR.
>>>> Foreseeing the possible issues with the implementation of policies such as
>>>> the PIR Anti-Abuse Policy that allows PIR “to comply with any   applicable
>>>> laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any
>>>> dispute resolutio process" we would like to note the importance of an
>>>> independent OSC able to express powers to examine difficult issues of
>>>> jurisdiction and protect free expression for organizations and individuals
>>>> engaged in political debates.
>>>>
>>>> Another possible issue listed on the same policy is the discussion of
>>>> “trusted notifiers” as a type of fast-track method of reporting and taking
>>>> down domain names with disliked content. In order for this provision to
>>>> happen in an adequate manner we must ensure that the OSC composition also
>>>> have experts in topics such as Freedom of Expression, Free Speech and Human
>>>> rights. These experts must have deep   substantive legal and policy
>>>> background and ability to independently research and expertly comment on
>>>> substantive and procedural issues brought before them by Ethos/PIR.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *OSC Representation and NCSG participation*
>>>> NCSG also informed the PIR leadership the need for more independence on
>>>> the proposed ORG Stewardship Council (OSC). Despite being a point that was
>>>> mentioned on the new PICs and PIR statements, we believe the proposed
>>>> process could still be improved.  Specifically, they say “The PIR Board
>>>> will not appoint the first five members of the .ORG Stewardship Council. To
>>>> ensure independence, Ethos will engage an internationally-recognized
>>>> executive search firm to oversee and manage a process for identifying
>>>> candidates to be the inaugural members. The search firm will solicit
>>>> applications from a variety of .ORG Stakeholders, including ICANN’s
>>>> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and At-Large Advisory Committee
>>>> (ALAC) and provide its proposed nominations to a Selection Committee
>>>> established by the PIR Board.”.
>>>>
>>>> When it comes to the ORG Stewardship Council representatives, we would
>>>> like to state the following:
>>>>
>>>> (a) From what it seems, even with the new proposed selection process,
>>>> PIR will still be responsbible for selecting all the OSC members.
>>>> Additionally, despite the mention to NCSG on the document, there are no
>>>> guarantees that the selection committee nor PIR will ensure NCSGs
>>>> participation on the OSC. We also must note that ALAC contains, and to some
>>>> extent is more representative of, commercial users as well as noncommercial
>>>> users and has no historical connection to the ORG domain;
>>>> (b) PIR and Ethos Capital should ensure that the OSC members include
>>>> include multiple and well-known experts in free speech and freedom of
>>>> expression, human rights,  copyright/trademark/fair use. Also, as pointed
>>>> above, it is of utter importance that the selected appointees hold the same
>>>> compromise with ensuring that the registry keeps its allignment with the
>>>> Noncommercial registrants.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le mer. 15 avr. 2020 à 17:08, Peter Micek <petermicek at gmail.com> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I fully support a comment by NCSG. Access Now are just finalizing
>>>>> ours, I'll paste a draft below. I support holding them to account for their
>>>>> promise of clarity on the selection process, but as you can see, I feel
>>>>> that committee is more like a deck chair arrangement than hand on the
>>>>> ship's tiller.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> In Access Now’s last *letter*
>>>>> <https://www.accessnow.org/ORG-ICANN-Response-2020Mar13> to ICANN, we
>>>>> outlined some of the many reasons why the proposed Public Interest
>>>>> Commitments (PICs) would in no way be sufficient to hold PIR — and Ethos
>>>>> Capital as its controlling investor — accountable to the .ORG community or
>>>>> to ensure the needs and interests of those who rely on .ORG are protected.
>>>>> The several adjustments Ethos has made to its proposal since we wrote that
>>>>> letter are not significant and do not change our position.
>>>>>
>>>>> ICANN has an important opportunity to restore the .ORG community’s
>>>>> confidence, and to do its part in protecting online civic space — which is
>>>>> already under attack all around the world. It can do that by taking the
>>>>> following steps:
>>>>>
>>>>> *Extend the public comment period. *
>>>>> If ICANN is serious about getting meaningful input from the community
>>>>> on the current proposal, a seven-day comment period isn’t enough. At a
>>>>> minimum ICANN needs to allow its standard 30-day window for comments,
>>>>> especially considering the additional strain civil society around the world
>>>>> is burdening under the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. This falls in line with
>>>>> *guidance*
>>>>> <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25788&LangID=E>
>>>>> from the UN special rapporteur on the freedom of assembly, that
>>>>> “multilateral institutions should take steps to ensure civil society
>>>>> organizations can continue to participate in all policy decisions,
>>>>> including those related to the Covid-19 response, especially in the case of
>>>>> public-private partnerships.” That ICANN is multi-*stakeholder*, not
>>>>> multilateral (like the UN), only adds to its responsibility to meaningfully
>>>>> consult civil society.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Negotiate an extension with PIR and Ethos.*
>>>>> ICANN is rushing to get in public comments in just seven days, with
>>>>> only two working days to process the results ahead of their April 20th
>>>>> deadline for deciding .ORG’s future. Further, ICANN is still *waiting
>>>>> for responses*
>>>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jeffrey-to-nevett-03apr20-en.pdf>
>>>>> from Ethos to many very important questions (covering issues like PIR’s
>>>>> financial solvency, avenues for community input going forward, and who
>>>>> would actually be in control of PIR across the several holding companies
>>>>> involved in the transaction). Getting the information they need both from
>>>>> Ethos and the community is essential to the long-term sustainability of
>>>>> .ORG, and ICANN should insist on more time to make this decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Withhold consent to the transfer of control of .ORG.*
>>>>> Even without extended comment periods and additional information,
>>>>> though, ICANN already has all it needs to reject this deal. Simply put,
>>>>> this is an underhanded and dangerous deal that puts all of us at risk, and
>>>>> ICANN should stop it. After several rounds of empty concessions from Ethos,
>>>>> and their continued failure to produce essential information about how the
>>>>> deal is structured, it is very clear that there is no path to redeeming
>>>>> this sale.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Lead a community consultation on the future of .ORG.*
>>>>> ICANN should provide an inclusive, substantive, community-driven venue
>>>>> for discussing a viable path forward for .ORG. If ISOC no longer has an
>>>>> interest in being a steward for the domain, it is essential that we can
>>>>> collectively identify a new solution that — first and foremost — meets the
>>>>> needs of the .ORG community, now and in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:20 AM <kathy at dnrc.tech> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Raphael,
>>>>>> Tx for your comments.  You'll note my comments/points reference both
>>>>>> free speech (law where .ORG has been based for 34 years, and of its
>>>>>> proposed upcoming owners) and free expression (referencing Article
>>>>>> 19
>>>>>> of the UN Declaration of Human Rights).  It is the language of both
>>>>>> sets of laws, and expertise in both, that I advise in points 1 and 3
>>>>>> below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't imagine how that would be controversial -- there are people
>>>>>> who are experts on protecting free expression around the world --
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> if this controversial sale goes through, we will need them here.
>>>>>> It's
>>>>>> hard to hold your ground in complex circumstances (against private
>>>>>> corporate attorneys) if you are not an expert -- we want people who
>>>>>> know the precedent and the laws and protections around the world.
>>>>>> Glad
>>>>>> you like the second proposition!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In all events, our NCSG voice needs to be heard here.  Bruna offered
>>>>>> to prepare a quick comment -- I think we we should move forward.
>>>>>> Time
>>>>>> is of the essence!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best, Kathy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > I think we have some materials for a comment, but are lacking a few
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> > days to put things together. Not only is that 7 days too short, but
>>>>>> > blogpost comments are not quite appropriate either to say the
>>>>>> least. Given
>>>>>> > the unanimity of those who commented on the blogpost, we can hope
>>>>>> they will
>>>>>> > change their mind (and we can individually join such request for a
>>>>>> standard
>>>>>> > public comment period.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > As for the substance of our comment, I find myself closer to
>>>>>> Milton's
>>>>>> > propositions. Kathy, I think your first and third proposition are
>>>>>> difficult
>>>>>> > to work out in practice without enunciating what the base line is
>>>>>> supposed
>>>>>> > to be - I understand it would be the US (i.e. assuming
>>>>>> jurisdiction, PIR
>>>>>> > should not comply with requests which could not validly be made
>>>>>> under US
>>>>>> > law by a US entity) I have difficulties with that position as it
>>>>>> puts US
>>>>>> > free speech law on a pedestal and means committee members must be
>>>>>> immersed
>>>>>> > in the US understanding of free speech. Globally, with its
>>>>>> extremely high
>>>>>> > thresholds before the government can directly regulate speech, the
>>>>>> US rides
>>>>>> > alone.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > But the problem is not solved by choosing any other law, or some
>>>>>> sort of
>>>>>> > generic transnational mix of "free speech best practices" as a
>>>>>> strict set
>>>>>> > of legal rules. I get your worry that PIR will comply with any law
>>>>>> > enforcement order it receives, bogus and legitimate alike, for
>>>>>> business
>>>>>> > reasons. I guess the domain name industry is not in a position to
>>>>>> make the
>>>>>> > very brazen move to apply US speech regulation threholds to all
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> > customers... Nor even to do so with a slightly watered down best
>>>>>> practices.
>>>>>> > While that's not new, I still think we can ask for PIR to do better
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> > others. But the choice they would be facing is jeopardizing their
>>>>>> business
>>>>>> > (or their finances, eventually) in the name of values.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Hence the language that Milton suggests, a written commitment to a
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> > general value and ensuring that members of the committee come from
>>>>>> diverse
>>>>>> > civil society background, is, I find, more likely to find a broader
>>>>>> appeal
>>>>>> > among our community and the ICANN/dot org community in general.
>>>>>> Public
>>>>>> > opinion and community pressure (stirred by a vigilant council)
>>>>>> might be a
>>>>>> > better safeguard against opportunistic or otherwise undesirable
>>>>>> behavior by
>>>>>> > PIR with regards to LEA requests than some sort of inbedded court
>>>>>> of review
>>>>>> > with an ad-hoc set of very binding but still very vague rules.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Your second proposition seems fine as is! We can legitimately
>>>>>> request that
>>>>>> > trusted notifiers be actually neutral and not a IP
>>>>>> > rightsholders association...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > have a nice evening,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 5:57 PM <kathy at dnrc.tech> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> To Milton's proposed comments below, I offer key substantive
>>>>>> changes
>>>>>> >> -- otherwise I fear the Stewardship Council will be completely
>>>>>> >> bypassed by Ethos and PIR.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Specifically:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Powers of the Stewardship Council must allow it to strongly,
>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>> >> and with authority support (or oppose) Ethos/PIR LLC's
>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>> >> of PIR's Anti-Abuse Policy.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Background: In October 2019, the then-new PIR President Jon Nevett
>>>>>> >> announced a PIR Anti-Abuse Policy that allows PIR “to comply with
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> >> applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law
>>>>>> >> enforcement, or any dispute resolution process.”
>>>>>> >> https://thenew.org/doing-our-part-for-a-safer-stronger-dns/  The
>>>>>> >> Stewardship Council -- to protect free speech and free expression
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> >> .ORG -- *must* have the ability to oversee (and veto) Ethos/PIR's
>>>>>> >> interpretation and implementation of the PIR Anti-Abuse Policy.
>>>>>> >> Otherwise, it cannot protect .ORG registrants against censorship.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Concern 1:  The Anti-Abuse Policy commits PIR to responses to
>>>>>> >> "requests of law enforcement" without stating whether the law
>>>>>> >> enforcement requests must come from a law enforcement agency with
>>>>>> >> jurisdiction over the registry, registrar or registrant.  Is the
>>>>>> >> request for takedown of speech even legal in the country in which
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >> speech originated?  Is the speech perhaps purposely and
>>>>>> intentionally
>>>>>> >> directed to expose corruption or malfeasance of a national
>>>>>> government
>>>>>> >> or official who has stepped beyond their authority and law?
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> **Accordingly, the Stewardship Council must have express powers to
>>>>>> >> examine difficult issues of jurisdiction and protect free
>>>>>> expression
>>>>>> >> for organizations and individuals engaged in political debates.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Concern 2:  The PIR Anti-Abuse policy discusses “trusted
>>>>>> notifiers” as
>>>>>> >> a type of fast-track method of reporting and taking down domain
>>>>>> names
>>>>>> >> with disliked content. Recent PIR President Jon Nevett, when he was
>>>>>> >> General Counsel/VP of Donuts, paired up with controversial “trusted
>>>>>> >> notifier” the Motion Picture Association (MPAA),
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://www.multichannel.com/news/mpaa-donuts-team-takedown-best-practice-402440
>>>>>> >> The MPAA is not known for its neutrality or fairness in its
>>>>>> accusations,
>>>>>> >> see e.g.,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://www.brainz.org/14-most-ridiculous-lawsuits-filed-riaa-and-mpaa/
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ** Accordingly, the Stewardship Council must be able to review all
>>>>>> >> “trusted notifiers” and veto those that are not genuinely fair and
>>>>>> >> neutral and will not genuinely protect free speech and free
>>>>>> >> expression, including legitimate critique and legal fair use.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Problem 3: Nice people on the Stewardship Council without deep
>>>>>> >> expertise in free speech, free expression, human rights, privacy
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> >> relate laws can be easily captured by Ethos/PIR’s own research and
>>>>>> >> reasoning.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ** Accordingly, all Stewardship Councils must include *multiple and
>>>>>> >> well-known experts in free speech and free expression, human
>>>>>> rights,
>>>>>> >> copyright/trademark/fair use.* These experts must have deep
>>>>>> >> substantive legal and policy background and ability to
>>>>>> independently
>>>>>> >> research and expertly comment on substantive and procedural issues
>>>>>> >> brought before them by Ethos/PIR.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Best, Kathy
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Quoting "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> > Rafik:
>>>>>> >> > Thanks for your initiative. NCSG must comment on this. We are
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> >> > derelict in our duties to represent noncommercial users if we
>>>>>> don’t.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > I may not be up to date about this, but one important issue still
>>>>>> >> > seems to be unresolved. In its commitment to amend the PIC in a
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> >> > that would satisfy the concerns of noncommercial registrants, PIR
>>>>>> >> > wrote that “he search firm and nomination criteria process will
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> >> > announced on March 23, 2020.” Has that been done? If so, I don’t
>>>>>> >> > know where it is.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Some comments about the modified PIC that could be used as is or
>>>>>> >> > incorporated into a NCSG comment.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > 1.       We had asked that the PIC text include not just a
>>>>>> >> > process-oriented commitment to allow the Org Stewardship Council
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> >> > veto “modifications” of RO’s policies pertaining to free
>>>>>> expression,
>>>>>> >> > but a positive commitment to fostering freedom of expression in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >> > .Org domain. The CEO of Org seemed to express a favorable view of
>>>>>> >> > that request in a public consultation. The modified PIC contains
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> >> > such modification. This is disappointing, and makes it impossible
>>>>>> >> > for us to fully support the revised PIC.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > 2.       We had also asked for PIR to express a stronger
>>>>>> commitment
>>>>>> >> > to extending registration terms for org registrants. While we
>>>>>> >> > understand that extending registration terms requires a policy
>>>>>> >> > change, we were hoping for a statement that PIR would join in
>>>>>> >> > efforts to create such a change. The modified PIC contains no
>>>>>> such
>>>>>> >> > commitment.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > 3.       We informed PIR that the ORG Stewardship Council (OSC)
>>>>>> >> > needed to be more independent of PIR. The new PICs and PIR
>>>>>> >> > statements have been partially responsive to that request, but
>>>>>> still
>>>>>> >> > fall short. Specifically, they say “The PIR Board will not
>>>>>> appoint
>>>>>> >> > the first five members of the .ORG Stewardship Council. To ensure
>>>>>> >> > independence, Ethos will engage an internationally-recognized
>>>>>> >> > executive search firm to oversee and manage a process for
>>>>>> >> > identifying candidates to be the inaugural members. The search
>>>>>> firm
>>>>>> >> > will solicit applications from a variety of .ORG Stakeholders,
>>>>>> >> > including ICANN’s Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and
>>>>>> >> > At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and provide its proposed
>>>>>> >> > nominations to a Selection Committee established by the PIR
>>>>>> Board.”
>>>>>> >> > Clearly, in this process PIR will still select all the OSC
>>>>>> members.
>>>>>> >> > While the solicitation of applications specifically mentions
>>>>>> NCSG,
>>>>>> >> > there is no guaranteed representation from NCSG on the OSC. We
>>>>>> also
>>>>>> >> > must note that ALAC contains, and to some extent is more
>>>>>> >> > representative of, commercial users as well as noncommercial
>>>>>> users
>>>>>> >> > and has no historical connection to the ORG domain.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>> >> Dammak
>>>>>> >> > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:25 PM
>>>>>> >> > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>>> >> > Subject: Re: [Consultation] PIR Transaction and Proposed Public
>>>>>> >> > Interest Commitments Update
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > hi all,
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > resending this to ask if there is anything we would like to
>>>>>> comment
>>>>>> >> > regarding .org proposed PICs.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Best,
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Rafik
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Le ven. 10 avr. 2020 à 08:30, Rafik Dammak
>>>>>> >> > <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> a écrit
>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >> > Hi all,
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > there is an update related to PIR and ,org sale with regard to
>>>>>> >> > communication between PIR and ICANN, and the matter of PIC
>>>>>> (Public
>>>>>> >> > Interest Commitments). As ICANN has to make decision within the
>>>>>> >> > timeline regarding the change on control of PIR , it is asking
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >> > community to provide feedback regarding the proposed PICs. it
>>>>>> won't
>>>>>> >> > be through usual public comment but either by responding as
>>>>>> comment
>>>>>> >> > to the blog (unusual) or sending letter to the board.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > As this topic is of interest to NCSG and it is an opportunity to
>>>>>> >> > share comments on the PIC, we should draft a letter quickly and
>>>>>> send
>>>>>> >> > it as correspondence to boars. For more information you can check
>>>>>> >> > the blog post here
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/pir-transaction-and-proposed-public-interest-commitments-update
>>>>>> >> or
>>>>>> >> > below.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Best regards,
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Rafik
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>>> >> > De : Michelle DeSmyter
>>>>>> >> > <michelle.desmyter at icann.org<mailto:michelle.desmyter at icann.org
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> > Date: ven. 10 avr. 2020 à 00:02
>>>>>> >> > Subject: [council] FYI: [ICANN Community Leaders] 9 April 2020
>>>>>> >> > To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:
>>>>>> >> council at gnso.icann.org>>
>>>>>> >> > Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
>>>>>> >> > <gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > FYI:
>>>>>> >> > [Image removed by sender.]
>>>>>> >> > Thursday, 9 April 2020
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > ICANN Community Leadership Digest
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > [Image removed by sender.]
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > The ICANN org Policy Development Support function publishes this
>>>>>> >> > twice-weekly digest
>>>>>> >> > to help ICANN community leaders track requests and follow
>>>>>> updates.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Table of Contents
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Information Sharing
>>>>>> >> > •     NEW: PIR Transaction and Proposed Public Interest
>>>>>> Commitments
>>>>>> >> Update
>>>>>> >> > •     NEW: Addressing Recent Zoom News
>>>>>> >> > •     ENDS TOMORROW: Your Feedback about this Digest
>>>>>> >> > •     REMINDER: Call for Expressions of Interest: Standing Panel
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> >> > ICANN’s Independent Review Process
>>>>>> >> > Public Comment
>>>>>> >> > •     CLOSES MONDAY: Revised Community Travel Support Guidelines
>>>>>> >> > •     Proposal for Chinese Script Root Zone Label Generation
>>>>>> Rules
>>>>>> >> > •     Proposal for Bangla Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules
>>>>>> >> > •     Phase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights
>>>>>> Protection
>>>>>> >> > Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process
>>>>>> >> > •     Addendum to the Initial Report of the Expedited Policy
>>>>>> >> > Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for
>>>>>> gTLD
>>>>>> >> > Registration Data Team – Phase 2
>>>>>> >> > •     Guidelines for Developing Reference Label Generation Rules
>>>>>> >> > (LGRs) for the Second Level Version 2
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Information Sharing
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > NEW: PIR Transaction and Proposed Public Interest Commitments
>>>>>> Update
>>>>>> >> > Executive: Göran Marby, ICANN President and CEO
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Since Public Interest Registry (PIR) formally notified ICANN of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >> > proposed change of control transaction on 14 November 2019
>>>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtMbojNo0l3-5FANH24DHECSiWoBxsLSaqGlloXx-5FUcAwJwakeQ9Zmj6QVbLPEgY1YoMQ30XcWD0EfoICTUD3fQsUgTRutD1d4E9y-2D5LUMBGXHzz5KkRxQtTHxwFk0xJWQ0E5Dc20U-2DqwV-5FjHI6W5uMb0IMvlWR-2D5vUUlNlzJnBCaG0Q-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=mLXHpNOHqUpl4b9smtPPhoUEZkfXME5gylo_YK5fpHA&e=
>>>>>> >,
>>>>>> >> the ICANN org and Board have worked together to thoughtfully and
>>>>>> thoroughly
>>>>>> >> evaluate the proposed acquisition to ensure that the .ORG registry
>>>>>> remains
>>>>>> >> secure, reliable, and stable. Throughout this process, ICANN has
>>>>>> urged PIR,
>>>>>> >> the Internet Society (ISOC), and Ethos Capital (Ethos) to engage
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> >> consult with the .ORG community, and to provide full transparency
>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>> >> the proposed
>>>>>> >> > transaction.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Today, ICANN is publishing
>>>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtMjl-2DLfzT9kl16ErkR6z6u2dnFIk8nbt5udOqVrVKLsftd1T8OPz2mml3-2DC-2DH7IAjX29PnKBS-5FBmWKWgICCjqgyzR4c8NWnenXlseFPEKyVB16RneWbnmGzb0G1T7WZWmhO-2DJA9b67bhA0s30fnk2HieXDOgw9WXF6u-5FntnNq2sjl-2DbfHRdB-5F-5FCg-3D-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=ts4XYR8T3ZJT4y-6SxsLyD1y4BIj0BUeGrarBKdExLU&e=
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> PIR's recently updated Public Interest Commitments (PICs), which
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> >> received by ICANN on 7 April 2020. PIR proposes that these PICs be
>>>>>> added to
>>>>>> >> the .<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-qViuZxFtMMIlnB_968dbzElej_FsRAoGq9Eqxvee5Q_KV5Ct9-uvF3B31UTR6Pun8VJszaEAlzU4xxfVyba-mp3rK4vMyrYD5X7zBxTYL-Y2bodULglcmjvrcd2FKT5ZvSFm834cHPq-Lo-SHUpaAa10pknkz_QmRkfJzm_COPRwJcwnEAZIq0fVsl5mIrAuPWKCpT_0bS9JLJoOeypYS3lYOf8USOG9-Lnbs0VPbBZvw6z7abI16KnPdxcAd8ilswdLQVIKP58l2duFHIEfp_5jKkTmexLuak03kILHIa569s8HYm2jzhPYFwc30tXVW7a89Hu-2JoexXh6ZHsF4Ly5aM9lr3oG1z5LFmgsIBEZuu4ZtvCdXnl3JIDWTLsCvY5gP8VaKpDf_sU5EVVKYmg9DuNkuIpPYMB4w6Knz3koBfDS71iKx_MiXAc-a4n0KRH04OAFSnK9SoDHcro7hFDPzd-y_oY-NdPKWVWBy43QVOxGMzUxgS0TgrW6gmetCRBpI_TDSU62AMXlzBng-VsqHgkUvtQ==&c=wy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA==&ch=3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg==
>>>>>> >ORG
>>>>>> >> Registry Agreement  [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtMt8ZrQ-5FUUDPTpBScWUeesMbPDgtiEx9JsqUZ2RBBSmfuo3amjba4h6H0FCK6sF6ZzI563CxHXZiQNwwMvlhv1A-5FqJiOclOyojun5IxJ71bhFSHVpJ8RCrubAItweNsQgV39EXBLH9hvA-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=PFZv7yhgsFMq0lzJYXDEZdNlTGoZ4scsPzhlOXouNvA&e=
>>>>>> >should
>>>>>> >> ICANN approve the change of control request submitted by PIR. Two
>>>>>> versions
>>>>>> >> of the PICs are being published: a "clean [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtMPkg-5FIhS82AYz2s0agDU9ankQXLYTjJeksRZN597OYN1pXU7CA-2DizP91h-2DCxUrMPyE581jkJBcMq5gWufSkDdhOW2M-2DkMl3vUtj4urTtIr99h-5FkiqRZTERHDJtge9P-5Fz5WerwaZluwmVlaNURyQf-2DAvXUwzYPpFr-5FYvXFhHORQWqTP5NK7uD3-5Fg-3D-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=yrlvXk8vaOH9RSyqAuJb1YP_VxI3vFuz6Yyo4WxRdkc&e=
>>>>>> >"
>>>>>> >> version and a "redline [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtM2NGnW2TWIbAuSn-5Fra-2DV40EhKb8SQVrjtcMLlKR3PwRnjHjXMd-5FJWOT4i6SC-5FtTb-5FuTMBKCjdgG-5FAnOVMddwuP-5F-2DZMTcbzNklSTp6b1EE960w0cwLdtSoQOXwcvOfLoT1zI-2DzoNWdc4nTxw5lQIXMfgZyb5cgQbeVhbscHVmg5otVtAqawVBTSLJaHeGb7Xy2-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=L2bmKUr5EWBlGGQCZOhCeVTqRJu6SEUQgFgHIAjmJ1M&e=
>>>>>> >"
>>>>>> >> version that shows changes made by PIR from its 16 March 2020
>>>>>> version
>>>>>> >> submitted to ICANN following PIR's Public Engagement process.
>>>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtM1ecPoHkp0Qu90ued5Lbmf3r3DQM-2DRewknXnd2HMqbj-2DaC7vftx82qbFD6UixhfAJk6asLfO5ZiM5vpvaysPdcYLV2k7nAGJHjgvpt54cmoCnd2VcNM43hg-3D-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=ANKFOin7HLmMPYHXq1AFPnYmvexcAakJovbMGTdQr8A&e=
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > The revised PICs that ICANN is publishing today are in response
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> >> > additional questions posed by ICANN as part of its diligence
>>>>>> around
>>>>>> >> > the change of control request. On 3 April 2020, ICANN provided
>>>>>> PIR
>>>>>> >> > with two sets of questions. One set of questions are in
>>>>>> follow-up to
>>>>>> >> > previous ICANN inquiries designed to further understand the
>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>> >> > transaction and its potential effect on PIR and the .ORG
>>>>>> top-level
>>>>>> >> > domain (TLD). The second set of questions relate specifically to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >> > proposed PICs. PIR has indicated that it is working to answer
>>>>>> all of
>>>>>> >> > the questions from ICANN.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > It is ICANN's intention to post PIR's responses to these
>>>>>> questions
>>>>>> >> > when they are available, subject to any appropriate requests for
>>>>>> >> > confidentiality made by PIR.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Many people have questioned the enforceability of PICs by ICANN.
>>>>>> To
>>>>>> >> > be clear, PICs are enforceable by ICANN. Any Internet user may
>>>>>> >> > submit complaints to ICANN Contractual Compliance. In addition,
>>>>>> >> > ICANN Contractual Compliance may identify an issue through its
>>>>>> >> > proactive monitoring. ICANN's follow-up questions to PIR seek to
>>>>>> >> > ensure that ICANN has a clear understanding of each commitment
>>>>>> >> > within the PICs, such that it could be enforced should the need
>>>>>> >> > arise. The ICANN Board continues to have reservations regarding
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >> > enforceability of PIR's proposed PICs.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > The .ORG Registry Agreement stipulates a specified time period
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> >> > ICANN to approve or withhold consent of the proposed change of
>>>>>> >> > control of PIR. ICANN and PIR have agreed to extend the deadline
>>>>>> >> > several times since the original deadline in mid-January, and the
>>>>>> >> > deadline for ICANN's response is now 20 April 2020.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Similar to when voluntary commitments in the form of PICs were
>>>>>> >> > proposed by applicants for new generic TLDs, ICANN is providing
>>>>>> >> > PIR's proposed PICs to the ICANN community with this public
>>>>>> notice.
>>>>>> >> > Given the fast-approaching deadline for ICANN to make a decision
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> >> > approve or withhold consent on the requested change of control of
>>>>>> >> > PIR, the typical 30-day public notice period has been condensed
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> >> > seven days. We recognize the full engagement of the .ORG
>>>>>> community
>>>>>> >> > in PIR's consultation process, but wanted to ensure ICANN
>>>>>> remained
>>>>>> >> > fully transparent in what is being considered, the concerns still
>>>>>> >> > present in the Board's review, and what the Board will be
>>>>>> reviewing.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > How to Participate: Feedback may be submitted as a comment to
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> >> > blog
>>>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtMlCsaRdGZCZWr6aGU7qSTQtpUsX57iyMIgI8JJa96lU54JNF3m0f3uwiK5VBqZGvI76JFMJ2xpZj-5FzGN7OihHOFJm5gB4DU1i7ZfKQR5gT36asgmsO8S0kradGtN09wQ0WCwZLgYbr-5F5OrqP-5F5rE8mBR-2DqBQzg-5FCJ1NMSJx02GVq7aag0yuegdg-3D-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=IWPBCoMxSRD7G3awtw0MQUJ1KUg5OrIsYh5MhUj_Jvk&e=
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> or through correspondence to me or the ICANN
>>>>>> >> > Board.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > We thank the ICANN community for its active participation in this
>>>>>> >> > matter and remain committed to keeping you informed of new
>>>>>> >> > developments.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > NEW: Addressing Recent Zoom News
>>>>>> >> > Executive: Ashwin Rangan, Senior Vice President, Engineering and
>>>>>> >> > Chief Information Officer
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > ICANN’s video conferencing platform, Zoom, has been in the news
>>>>>> >> > quite a bit. With shelter-in-place and work-from-home becoming
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> >> > familiar, not only for the ICANN community but the world at
>>>>>> large,
>>>>>> >> > Zoom has become a vital tool for many businesses. With this
>>>>>> recent
>>>>>> >> > increase in Zoom usage, we’ve also seen a number of bugs, flaws,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> >> > security vulnerabilities come to light.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > It’s natural that a hugely popular system like Zoom will be poked
>>>>>> >> > and prodded, and it’s likely that alarming bits of information
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> >> > continue to be revealed in the coming weeks and months.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > However, it’s important to remember that almost any piece of
>>>>>> >> > software has bugs and glitches. What’s vitally important in these
>>>>>> >> > moments is how the software vendor reacts to receiving such
>>>>>> >> > information. In this regard, ICANN applauds Zoom for their
>>>>>> efforts.
>>>>>> >> > Every time a new vulnerability has been exposed, Zoom has reacted
>>>>>> >> > swiftly by releasing patches within a day or two, while remaining
>>>>>> >> > transparent about the nature of the underlying issues.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > If you care to learn more about any specific vulnerability or how
>>>>>> >> > Zoom has responded, we highly recommend taking a look at Zoom’s
>>>>>> >> > blog, which is available here
>>>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtM6QSfysSoBf4quheUTAwEiPz0sCAeBTGnXtBWT3VOUDdgLqy-5FjkRDUX-2DDoc-5FAIJBNsEZCrqBaQEMqmDJxayUWRYd8HvkuefBV-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=PcGAwKynwBZUH87c_nxV4y4WJ4UDzgrIgLEF0Y-yy3M&e=
>>>>>> >.
>>>>>> >> As stated before, it’s likely that this won’t be the last time we
>>>>>> will hear
>>>>>> >> about Zoom’s flaws, either from security researchers or new attack
>>>>>> >> > vectors.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > While we continue to monitor developments, ICANN remains
>>>>>> committed
>>>>>> >> > to Zoom. We strive to offer the best solutions to our community,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> >> > at this time, we are still confident that Zoom fits the bill.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > If you have any questions or comments regarding Zoom and how it
>>>>>> may
>>>>>> >> > relate to you, please do not hesitate to reach out to
>>>>>> >> > mts at icann.org<mailto:mts at icann.org>.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > ENDS TOMORROW: Your Feedback about this Digest
>>>>>> >> > Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy
>>>>>> Development Support
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Reflecting on the first year of the ICANN Community Leadership
>>>>>> >> > Digest, the ICANN org Policy Development Support function seeks
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> >> > feedback. Please take this brief survey
>>>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFkIoDPRoPRvsBdZ-5FGoiv0BcyEsqTchFFXXkzDy-5FPrXuLQ2wWkGUnqMG5vB-5FBsL-2DexDGGYx9Z93RcP-5FqESAsVE1N-5Fes14Oc-5FQcEOwODWQkSy-2D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=9DQ1pHoBVR4vpcEUVnWV4Lw8sYIcbujzoWdUKYawy9U&e=
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> by Friday, 10 April
>>>>>> >> > 2020.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > REMINDER: Call for Expressions of Interest: Standing Panel for
>>>>>> >> > ICANN’s Independent Review Process
>>>>>> >> > Announcement
>>>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFhDXvOWShZvD2hLEBznqukU-2DzpGY9SKvgZYnzs8Pb7q6cYigVDx3lR28KNIIg1OZSSrtV6PTHjePVwGIxmZNiT5QJa0uMX2tqVpBsJG4J0BWWru2lfXIvdoYMrq-5FhNGeLCfd1j-5F1OZaM-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=wh1fzSPiKMlK_nF31FLv2uByqlUbU5tu7_fdgg8Hif4&e=
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > On 31 March 2020, ICANN opened a call for Expressions of Interest
>>>>>> >> > for panelists to serve on the omnibus Standing Panel for ICANN's
>>>>>> >> > Independent Review Process (IRP). The deadline to submit
>>>>>> Expressions
>>>>>> >> > of Interest is 31 July 2020 at 23:59 UTC.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Candidates for the IRP omnibus Standing Panel should review the
>>>>>> >> > Expressions of Interest document
>>>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFhDXvOWShZvDgPvUW1EhP8WCVbm7MS0BsmCnAHsaFMUEoj9AM6ObL9ubtekC1N1ukFoJ-5FBciA-2DgkijA-2DFBr90Ud-5FTOGNu8PWMhrNjdjjyZvqFIQ450g94Vru2c4WBkwiqkUG0w7QB7QlvcBo0S6i9KT2Lp9FwvFhrK2SAcT3d8Ft-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=G4e0eHDidhaSHCLG-Lp0mdVooTB9Udt6NFCT4_hfNvQ&e=
>>>>>> >before
>>>>>> >> submission. The document includes the following
>>>>>> >> > information:
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > •     Panel Position Description
>>>>>> >> > •     Required or Highly Preferred Skills
>>>>>> >> > •     Required or Highly Preferred Experience
>>>>>> >> > •     Time Commitment
>>>>>> >> > •     Compensation and Selection
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Expressions of Interest should be submitted to
>>>>>> >> > IRP-Standingpanel-EOI2020 at icann.org<mailto:
>>>>>> >> IRP-Standingpanel-EOI2020 at icann.org> by 23:59 UTC on 31 July
>>>>>> >> > 2020.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Public Comment
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > CLOSES MONDAY: Revised Community Travel Support Guidelines
>>>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFtY89CwSG4vGP9QyFiNsydEQVAWcEV-5Fx-5FyYMuDyD9mhUkKrwtZ0UYkgE52pUAGJUVyllQf8HsJVLqUb7Hl-2DQJvk-2DtNR7dPmp0y3V4wbIVgix6rHxXUJcoqQekwI114IIACiTWznCmlJwYRq4nQbpRTCw-2Dara5yu37Emw-5FDvyjlUE-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=KZRoix0AC0mirjIIP5MqMXYT8_kOVKpVj-AnQc4qVEI&e=
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Close Date: Monday, 13 April 2020
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Proposal for Chinese Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules
>>>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFhiNYDgFY8zJdVvy8ZlKxm9ygyJmLgZOGIYB-2DzeG5FSuiAXh8oBSRbqMjNeUcl0ggkZN8rs6RO4JLtosigTh8p4JBv7Amc7V4tOTqIRpzAXok0l9gaWxurzrwTxTbtIpqbNaih-5Fc5l85eB854mYXP0gKGto16a6-5FING4f4AaT1yo-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=g3VHZG_hmZ8ewQKGAD8iSf-O0ckPMC4xfCiO6F2bQkc&e=
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Close Date: Monday, 20 April 2020
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Proposal for Bangla Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules
>>>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFmKYv52uy6-2D4iiVzpAClZnxseaCCiGyXl0PjEyfQjPwmxWMXlc-5FOuVGUsBSfBJ4Mb8jrSF2ecxJcaUOwQrllleeTthNvI-5FKg7imzq2TklU4gGyf05gDt8XdZloNEILhO5PZupDyzOeDc6VBNUfC5kOBo8PJR7FS3KaJ6Hp2dBRu8-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=7RSaqRNE7rwHcd2Sia8v2TRbLiflkRsGySbo33Pq9D0&e=
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Close Date: Thursday, 23 April 2020
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Phase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection
>>>>>> >> > Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process
>>>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFj9fpHfmJJBeKb1epUydWc3EzsZSj8Uwcoii-2DXmD2XtnFwFaGxB-2Dx6I16WKdSg0EkEC8BAhBu2WHMbFq2sUIRInh2xgGkOwZhGqyawEOqZ634-5FhH7CQ8RxlXu63kefU2cg85EZjcOb2duwpwhMjATiAMPeaPDlTsxA-3D-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=nM36roD_xIofeZLEMtaGs4IFjj_j1wl-og3VAEvdazg&e=
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Close Date: Monday, 27 April 2020
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Addendum to the Initial Report of the Expedited Policy
>>>>>> Development
>>>>>> >> > Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD
>>>>>> Registration
>>>>>> >> > Data Team – Phase 2
>>>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFkIoDPRoPRvs82iXYdszIj2pYDMS0rHPlAwpwN9mhLx55-5FummJlrmbA4Y8TZsI1OX7YHgEoYiLKBHSAHoMPs0M9SBwTeNrArt-5F5k46yplBom7C7hdDtQ5K1ogJhd-5Fl8lJkSnqckbjs4vzHjRTRP8RF2guXWgh9xErA-3D-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=372vmvMQMKD1hyBnYvsBdaqs5ENaZ83CYOFt3YlQQ5Q&e=
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Close Date: Tuesday, 5 May 2020
>>>>>> >> > Guidelines for Developing Reference Label Generation Rules (LGRs)
>>>>>> >> > for the Second Level Version 2
>>>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFhkxpqfCSVcEKH3lZoDdmOeJGHXZWUszKwUfZd4u0uFjsOQLvwjUSG7DpH9-5Fmg09z483tj0jtrRtSrD-5FQHfMU-5F1gfUAgtIzJrrXdCCz60eVKM-2DMSL68SnYO77GMdeDFp8s8YUM5faEvCxgvyQZ-2D9yFNacpgtcwSCHA-3D-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=2L3B7qhd8walcslu4Qzo1xk083LuHFdGUKBwCMoEcVI&e=
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Close Date: Tuesday, 12 May 2020
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Volume 2, Issue 29 | Archive
>>>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFvN81lnNY4rwlNDFDEUS18xytYwuCwvTM36th-2DNM1lg23ibrV1QS9vnURID3EAHR2bL3FO7PSkQ2LjAdsmzGVn3m9oxJsnuRYZ7gwJeaIqWDGMtkORnO7mab4cIUHDskuHoIGeGQcvuVLX-2D-2DaoviPHPVhZVgldulZGKw9xaC8AS22-5FJL9uFCJzA-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=LLA54bpW6lPOCy5iKFZ3Vb9RORKPyANq7iVQ7ex-Q_8&e=
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> | Next Issue: Monday, 13 April
>>>>>> >> > 2020
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >> > council mailing list
>>>>>> >> > council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>>> >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >> > 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.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>>>
>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>> @boomartins
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>>
>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>> @boomartins
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>
>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>> @boomartins
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200428/198c9dd3/attachment.htm>