[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [Consultation] PIR Transaction and Proposed Public Interest Commitments Update
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Thu Apr 16 03:22:30 EEST 2020
hi all,
this requires an urgent and swift response from PC. we have a thread
regarding this short consultation from ICANN regarding .org sale and the
proposed PICs.
based on comments shared in the list, Bruna quickly drafted the statement
below.
please review !
Best,
Rafik
---------- Forwarded message ---------
De : Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>
Date: jeu. 16 avr. 2020 à 06:27
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [Consultation] PIR Transaction and Proposed
Public Interest Commitments Update
To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20200416/d25a7dcb/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list