[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism

Tue Aug 20 23:52:04 UTC 2019

Underserved communities often have great grant writers - it a matter of survival for them!

Alan

At 20/08/2019 07:39 PM, Rudolph Daniel wrote:
If there are comprehensive guidelines published to assist applicants, this would negate much of the disagreements.
It is impossible to please everyone. Even underserved communities can have good grant writers.

 Providing "meaningful" feedback on proposals is very subjective and is in my opinion a very slippery slope.

RD

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 17:08 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> > wrote:

As Sylvia pointed out, it may not be possible to tell them what the issue was, as there may have been disagreements among the evaluations. And there may be just a shortage of funds at the time even if the application was "good enough".

Project evaluation is a very subjective issue and we must not pretend that it is not.

Providing feedback may be a good way to raise disputes!

I agree with John that if we think not knowing how to apply properly" is an issue, cover that up front and not during a rejection.

All of that being said, we may well want to treat relatively small grants differently than those that will be in the multi-million $.

Alan

At 20/08/2019 04:42 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
I agree with Sylvia and especially with regards to feedback to those whose proposals are rejected. They need appropriate feedback that will help them to produce the applications that are going to  make the grade. This is more needed by those from underserved communities that do not have experience in writing such proposals yet are requesting something that is really worthwhile.

Maureen

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, 9:30 PM Sylvia Cadena, <sylvia at apnic.net<mailto:sylvia at apnic.net>> wrote:

The text below is ok, however, it is important to reiterate this should be observed independently of the mechanism selected. Maybe worth mentioning that if the mechanism A is selected, there may be other traditional ICANN practices/mechanisms that will not be applicable -not only the IRP- but that will be for the implementation phase to review and analyse.

I also think the recommendation should not limit the feedback to the reason why they were not selected, as in some cases providing those reasons is not as simple to explain. Feedback to applicants about how to improve for future applications, feedback about what were the stronger parts or their proposal, feedback about the weakest part of the proposal, of funding availability are common ways to provide that feedback. Sometimes the committee canÃ¢€™t agree an and a proposal doesnÃ¢€™t have full support but those disdiscussions are not made public.

Regards,

Sylvia

________________________________________________________________________

Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia at apnic.net<mailto:sylvia at apnic.net> | http://www.apnic.foundation<http://www.apnic.foundation/>

ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 | http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia |
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,  4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
* Love trees. Print only if necessary.

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> >
Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 2:54 am
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >, " ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>" < ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>>, Becky Burr <BBurr at hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr at hwglaw.com>>, Judith Hellerstein <judith at jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith at jhellerstein.com> >, "erika at erikamann.com<mailto:erika at erikamann.com>" <erika at erikamann.com<mailto:erika at erikamann.com>>
Cc: John R Levine <johnl at taugh.com<mailto:johnl at taugh.com>>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism

Dear All,

Thank you all for your input. Hereby the current language of the draft Final Report which already addressed the point of the existing accountability mechanism with added in bold and brackets new language which aims to reflect the input received to date:

The CCWG discussed whether an appeals mechanism should be available for applicant not selected and/but agreed that [this would create a level of complexity that was deemed not desirable or necessary, after having reviewed how other organizations deal with appeals. Instead, it is the expectation that applicants not selected would receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected. Also, in the context of the regular review of the mechanisms, both selected applicants and non-selected applicants should be invited to participate and provide any feedback they may have on how the program can be further improved]. The CCWG did agree that appropriate measures should be taken that would exclude applicants from using ICANN accountability measures such as IRP. The reason for this recommendation is that the Board decision in this context would be in relation to the disbursement of funds based on the recommendations of the independent evaluation panel and not as a result of the ICANNÃ¢€™s Board assessment of an indindividual application. This should not necessarily prevent applicants from seeking redress through other means as defined by the mechanism responsible for disbursement of auction proceeds.

CCWG Recommendation #NEW: Applicants should not have access to ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP to challenge a decision from the independent evaluation panel to not approve their application, but applicants [not selected should receive feedback as part of the response to their application outlining the reasons for why their application was not selected] have a mechanism available that allows them to provide additional clarifications to the independent evaluation panel or flag if it is believed that something in the application was misunderstood or missed.

This will be on the agenda for WednesdayÃ¢€™s ¢s meeting so if you have any concerns about the proposed edits, please share these in advance of WednesdayÃ¢€™s meeting.
>

Best regards,

Marika

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds < ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >
Date: Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:22
To: " ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>" < ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>>, Becky Burr <BBurr at hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr at hwglaw.com>>, Judith Hellerstein <judith at jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith at jhellerstein.com> >, "erika at erikamann.com<mailto:erika at erikamann.com>" <erika at erikamann.com<mailto:erika at erikamann.com>>
Cc: John R Levine <johnl at taugh.com<mailto:johnl at taugh.com>>, " ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>" < ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism

My recollection is that we were pretty clear that the existing accountabilty mechanisms would not apply, and that it is possible that a fundamental Bylaw change would be required to do that.
Alan
--
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On August 19, 2019 12:05:18 PM EDT, Becky Burr <BBurr at hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr at hwglaw.com>> wrote:

It will be particularly important that the final report be
clear

that the CCWG does not believe that ICANNÃ¢€™s existinging
accountability

mechanisms (ombuds, Reconsiderations, or IRP) should be available to

challenge an adverse grant decision.  Those mechanisms are not
well

suited to this kind of situation.

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds

<

ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Judith

Hellerstein

<
judith at jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith at jhellerstein.com>

>

Date: Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:14 PM

To: Erika Mann

<erika at erikamann.com<mailto:erika at erikamann.com>>

Cc: John R Levine

<johnl at taugh.com<mailto:johnl at taugh.com>>, CCWG

Auction Proceeds

<

ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>>

Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated

proposal for individual appeals mechanism

Hi Erika

I agree as well. Sylvia made some excellent points. While I like the

idea of an appeals process I can see that it adds an extra layer of

complexity to the grant process

Best

Judith

Sent from my iPhone

Judith at jhellerstein.com<mailto:Judith at jhellerstein.com>

<
<mailto:Judith at jhellerstein.com>

mailto:Judith at jhellerstein.com>

Skype ID:Judithhellerstein

On Aug 17, 2019, at 7:23 AM, Erika Mann

<erika at erikamann.com<mailto:erika at erikamann.com>

<
<mailto:erika at erikamann.com>

mailto:erika at erikamann.com>> wrote:

I believe we have an agreement ... though we had such an agreement

before but then Sam thought we should reconsider our understanding
...

hopefully we can put this item to rest now.

Erika

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 17, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Marilyn Cade

<
marilynscade at hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>

<
<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>

mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:

Wow, are we seeing "general" support for no appeal

mechanism?

Perhaps we can put this sort of to 'bed'?

Add something in our documentation - discussed extensively;

considered; recommend that an appeal mechanism is not needed, and
would

add unneeded complexity, and include a paragraph of explanation, so
that

in the public comment process, the community commenting feels fully

informed?

________________________________

From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds

<

ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>

<
<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>

mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of

Vanda Scartezini

<vanda at scartezini.org<mailto:vanda at scartezini.org>

<
<mailto:vanda at scartezini.org>

mailto:vanda at scartezini.org>>

Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 12:12 AM

To: Rudolph Daniel

<rudi.daniel at gmail.com<mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com>

<
<mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com>

mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com>>

Cc: John R Levine

<johnl at taugh.com<mailto:johnl at taugh.com>

<
<mailto:johnl at taugh.com>

mailto:johnl at taugh.com>>; CCWG Auction Proceeds

<

ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>

<
<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>

mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>>

Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated

proposal for individual appeals mechanism

Make sense to me too. I was against an appeal as I said early on

since that is the way all R&D grants here works and the
independent

panel and their report make the not appeal alternative accountable to
the

society. Not having appellation makes the process quicker allowing
the

start up of the projects while it makes sense due the development of
the

technology in the ICT field as is the case of DNS related issues

Vanda Scartezini

Sent from my iPad

Sorry for any typos and misspellings

On 17 Aug 2019, at 00:02, Rudolph Daniel

<rudi.daniel at gmail.com<mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com>

<
<mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com>

mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com>> wrote:

"That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected,

should be requested to fill out a survey with their input being used
for

the annul review of the program."

End quote.

This makes a lot of sense to me, given the the independent nature of

the grant process being tabled.

The strength of the selection process should be of sufficient

integrity to forgo the additional cost of an appeals procedure which

could be quite detrimental to the expected outcome and purpose of
the

grants.

My view currently is to stay away from appeal procedures of all

kinds; and fine tune the mechanisms to ensure that grant awards stay
well

within pre established control lines. There are already review

mechanisms, designed to keep the process in line with ICANN's mission
and

purpose. I am thinking that in the context of an independent body,
and

the relative size of the fund, and the advice of others on this d
list,

no appeal process is going to be "very light weight" .

I think, we should keep it out of the equation if at all possible.

Each funding call should be drafted with this in mind...

RD

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 22:21 Alan Greenberg

<
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>

<
<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>

mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:

I agree with John. I do not think that we should have an appeal

process. That being said, if we MUST have one it should:

- be VERY light weight;

- there must be VERY tight time requirements for submission

- go to the manager of the selection group with the final result

being final;

- the final result being the project is accepted or still rejected.

Specifically, there should be no "reason" given (as has

recently been

suggested).

Note that we may end up rejecting perfectly good projects. But they

may not, in the view of the evaluators, have a sufficiently high

benefit:cost ration. Or we may simply have used up all of our funds

for that period on projects that were better!

As John mentions, cost is an issue. If there is an appeal process,

and the cost is minimal or zero, it will be used by pretty much

everyone who is rejected, significantly increasing the cost of the

program with little positive outcome.

That being said, grant applicants, both accepted and rejected,

should

be requested to fill out a survey with their input being used for

the

annul review of the program.

Alan

At 16/08/2019 09:46 PM, John R Levine wrote:

Are we going to just ignore the input from people who actually

run

such grant making organizations @Sylvia

Cadena<
<mailto:sylvia at apnic.net>

mailto:sylvia at apnic.net

<
<mailto:sylvia at apnic.net>

mailto:sylvia at apnic.net>> has weighed in on this with some

factual statements that we seem to have just glossed over?

I am a trustee of the Internet Society, where we have recently
set

up

an actual captive grant making foundation with no appeal process, so

no, we are not. It's a bad idea.

R's,

John

At 15/08/2019 09:32 AM, John R Levine wrote:

Following on from the last CCWG call and the input received on

the individual

appeals mechanism, please find attached an updated proposal for your

review.

Please share any comments, concerns or suggestions you may have in

advance of

the next CCWG meeting which has been scheduled for Wednesday 21

August.

It's OK to have an appeal process but this leaves some rather

important

questions open, e.g.

* Who pays for the appeal?  Is it like UDRP where the parties

split

the cost, or

is it all ICANN?

* I expect that no matter what we say, most appeals will in fact be

applicants

who are unhappy that they didn't get funded.  Is there a way to

dispose of

obviously bogus appeals efficiently?  Obviously bogus means

things like not

identifying any process failure other than saying no.

Regards,

John Levine,

johnl at iecc.com<mailto:johnl at iecc.com>

<
<mailto:johnl at iecc.com>

mailto:johnl at iecc.com>, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet

for Dummies",

Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

<https://jl.ly/>

https://jl.ly

[jl.ly]<https://jl.ly/>

<
<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119694986707&sdata=V%2Bl7mZ3kPaK7iXq2Fs0CwUh%2BHrGQyWPJdLko%2BS9uoPw%3D&reserved=0>

https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119694986707&sdata=V%2Bl7mZ3kPaK7iXq2Fs0CwUh%2BHrGQyWPJdLko%2BS9uoPw%3D&reserved=0

[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjl.ly&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119694986707&sdata=V%2Bl7mZ3kPaK7iXq2Fs0CwUh%2BHrGQyWPJdLko%2BS9uoPw%3D&reserved=0>>

________________________________

Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list

Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>

<
<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>

mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>

<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

<
<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119694996718&sdata=Ixv7Nn7h%2BBb9evLTSVEP6jzYTG4KX5stLTk8Ma%2F%2Fj1w%3D&reserved=0>

https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119694996718&sdata=Ixv7Nn7h%2BBb9evLTSVEP6jzYTG4KX5stLTk8Ma%2F%2Fj1w%3D&reserved=0

[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119694996718&sdata=Ixv7Nn7h%2BBb9evLTSVEP6jzYTG4KX5stLTk8Ma%2F%2Fj1w%3D&reserved=0>>

________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing

of

your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list

accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy

(
<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>

https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy

[icann.org]<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>

<
<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695006723&sdata=kRiYGP3HWbBl4zenJs4jsj32EHBVi%2FFl6BnrGAv%2FhdQ%3D&reserved=0>

https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695006723&sdata=kRiYGP3HWbBl4zenJs4jsj32EHBVi%2FFl6BnrGAv%2FhdQ%3D&reserved=0

[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695006723&sdata=kRiYGP3HWbBl4zenJs4jsj32EHBVi%2FFl6BnrGAv%2FhdQ%3D&reserved=0>>) and the website
Terms

of

Service

(
<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>

https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos

[icann.org]<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>

<
<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695016734&sdata=%2FqodieXY9MTAfgnU9QGi88a06AbOzHM7OjrHaTByuCI%3D&reserved=0>

https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695016734&sdata=%2FqodieXY9MTAfgnU9QGi88a06AbOzHM7OjrHaTByuCI%3D&reserved=0

[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695016734&sdata=%2FqodieXY9MTAfgnU9QGi88a06AbOzHM7OjrHaTByuCI%3D&reserved=0>>). 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.

________________________________

Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list

Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>

<
<mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>

mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>

<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

<
<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695026739&sdata=jBT%2F%2FioVe50vvEH1YOC0UQi5mTkOYZU16%2BYK1EIB8Rc%3D&reserved=0>

https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695026739&sdata=jBT%2F%2FioVe50vvEH1YOC0UQi5mTkOYZU16%2BYK1EIB8Rc%3D&reserved=0

[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695026739&sdata=jBT%2F%2FioVe50vvEH1YOC0UQi5mTkOYZU16%2BYK1EIB8Rc%3D&reserved=0>>

________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing

of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing
list

accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy

(
<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>

https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy

[icann.org]<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>

<
<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695036744&sdata=%2BHd6PW6seoZXuxm8gLTG7wAJClmTVKJ6Cj4jVXMaizo%3D&reserved=0>

https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695036744&sdata=%2BHd6PW6seoZXuxm8gLTG7wAJClmTVKJ6Cj4jVXMaizo%3D&reserved=0

[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695036744&sdata=%2BHd6PW6seoZXuxm8gLTG7wAJClmTVKJ6Cj4jVXMaizo%3D&reserved=0>>) and the website
Terms

of Service

(
<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>

https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos

[icann.org]<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>

<
<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695046755&sdata=YSxHm4OjnyOYz2av7pWAPZWQpJgooA3uQ%2F1orzvor1E%3D&reserved=0>

https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695046755&sdata=YSxHm4OjnyOYz2av7pWAPZWQpJgooA3uQ%2F1orzvor1E%3D&reserved=0

[eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0335de880ab40abc37608d722c929a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637016119695046755&sdata=YSxHm4OjnyOYz2av7pWAPZWQpJgooA3uQ%2F1orzvor1E%3D&reserved=0>>). You can visit the