[client com] [CWG-Stewardship] Naming Function Agreement
Trang Nguyen
trang.nguyen at icann.org
Thu Sep 8 14:27:03 UTC 2016
ICANN is fine with the proposed edits to Section 4.7 of the Naming
Function Agreement.
Contractor shall apply the policies for the Root Zone Management component
of the IANA Naming Function that have been defined or after the date of
this Agreement are further defined, by:
(a) the Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO²), as appropriate
under ICANN¹s Bylaws and;
(b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO²), as
appropriate under ICANN¹s Bylaws and;
(c) RFC 1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ ("RFC 1591²)
as interpreted by the Framework of Interpretation of Current Policies and
Guidelines Pertaining to the Delegation and Redelegation of Country-Code
Top Level Domain Names, dated October 2014 ("FOI²).
In addition to these policies, Contractor shall, where applicable, consult
the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the
Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains ("GAC 2005
ccTLD Principles"). Contractor shall publish documentation pertaining to
the implementation of these policies and principles on the IANA Website.²
A conforming change would be applicable to A.1.d.iii as well.
-----Original Message-----
From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG
<paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 1:19 PM
To: Christopher Disspain <chris at disspain.id.au>
Cc: "CWG-Stewardship at icann.org" <CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement
>as appropriate under ICANN¹s Bylaws and
>
>Quoting Christopher Disspain <chris at disspain.id.au>:
>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> What are the actual amendments you are suggesting, please?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 7 Sep 2016, at 19:53, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On reflection and following consultation with colleagues I'd like to
>>make a
>> few
>> > small amendments to my earlier statement so 4.7 IMHO should read:
>> >
>> >
>> > "Section 4.7 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders. Contractor
>> > shall apply the policies for the Root Zone Management component of the
>> > IANA Naming Function that have been defined or after the date of this
>> > Agreement are further defined, by:
>> >
>> > (a) the Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO²), as appropriate
>> > under ICANN¹s Bylaws and;
>> > (b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO²), as
>> > appropriate under ICANN¹s Bylaws and;
>> > (c) RFC 1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ ("RFC
>>1591")
>> > as interpreted by the Framework of Interpretation of Current Policies
>> > and Guidelines Pertaining to the Delegation and Redelegation of
>> > Country-Code Top Level Domain Names, dated October 2014 ("FOI").
>> >
>> > In addition to these policies, Contractor shall, where applicable,
>> > consult the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and
>> > Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top
>> > Level Domains ("GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles"). Contractor shall publish
>> > documentation pertaining to the implementation of these policies and
>> > principles on the IANA Website."
>> >
>> > I hope members of the CWG will find this minor correction acceptable
>>and
>> > suitable for adoption tomorrow.
>> >
>> > Best
>> >
>> > Paul
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > correct my earlier
>> >
>> > Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>:
>> >
>> >> I flagged this because I suspected there might be a concern and I
>>didn't
>> want
>> >> there to be any late surprises that might cause unnecessary delays.
>>At
>> the
>> >> same time, let me be clear that this is not my issue so I look
>>forward to
>> >> seeing the resolution.
>> >>
>> >> Chuck
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk]
>> >> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 9:28 AM
>> >> To: Gomes, Chuck
>> >> Cc: Burr, Becky; Mueller, Milton L; Lindeberg, Elise;
>> >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> >> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Chuck (and apologies all once again for being late to the
>>call)
>> >>
>> >> I think we need to qualify 4.7 with regard to ccNSO members and
>> non-members -
>> >> ICANN Bylaws respect the diversity of the ccTLD community and it is
>> >> appropriate that the Naming Functions Agreement does too so ... I'd
>> propose:
>> >>
>> >> "Section 4.7 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders. Contractor
>> shall
>> >> apply the policies for the Root Zone Management component of the IANA
>> Naming
>> >> Function that have been defined or after the date of this Agreement
>>are
>> >> further defined, by:
>> >> (a) the Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") and
>> >> (b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO") in so
>>far as
>> >> they apply to ccNSO members, and;
>> >> (c) RFC 1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ ("RFC
>>1591")
>> as
>> >> interpreted by the Framework of Interpretation of Current Policies
>>and
>> >> Guidelines Pertaining to the Delegation and Redelegation of
>>Country-Code
>> Top
>> >> Level Domain Names, dated October 2014 ("FOI").
>> >>
>> >> In addition to these policies, Contractor shall, where applicable,
>> consult
>> >> the
>> >> 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for
>>the
>> >> Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains ("GAC
>> 2005
>> >> ccTLD Principles"). Contractor shall publish documentation
>>pertaining to
>> the
>> >> implementation of these policies and principles on the IANA Website."
>> >>
>> >> Best
>> >>
>> >> Paul
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>:
>> >>
>> >>> Paul,
>> >>>
>> >>> In light of your concerns, are you okay with the following from the
>> >>> paragraph
>> >>> below: "Contractor shall apply the policies for the Root Zone
>> >>> Management component of the IANA Naming Function that have been
>> >>> defined or after the date of this Agreement are further defined, by
>> >>> (a) . . . and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization
>>("ccNSO")"?
>> >>>
>> >>> " Section 4.7 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders.
>>Contractor
>> >>> shall apply the policies for the Root Zone Management component of
>>the
>> >>> IANA Naming Function that have been defined or after the date of
>>this
>> >>> Agreement are further defined, by (a) the Generic Names Supporting
>> >>> Organization ("GNSO") and the Country Code Names Supporting
>> >>> Organization ("ccNSO"), and (b) RFC
>> >>> 1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ ("RFC 1591") as
>> >>> interpreted by the Framework of Interpretation of Current Policies
>>and
>> >>> Guidelines Pertaining to the Delegation and Redelegation of
>> >>> Country-Code Top Level Domain Names, dated October 2014 ("FOI").
>>In
>> >>> addition to these policies, Contractor shall, where applicable,
>> >>> consult the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and
>> >>> Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code
>>Top
>> >>> Level Domains ("GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles"). Contractor shall
>>publish
>> >>> documentation pertaining to the implementation of these policies and
>> >> principles on the IANA Website."
>> >>>
>> >>> Chuck
>> >>>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk]
>> >>> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 5:40 PM
>> >>> To: Burr, Becky
>> >>> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Mueller, Milton L; Lindeberg, Elise;
>> >>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function
>>Agreement
>> >>>
>> >>> Just for clarity.... non-ccNSO members are not bound or impacted
>>by
>> >>> ICANN Policies and this is respected in ICANN's own Bylaws. Also
>> >>> current ccNSO members who disagree with ICANN Policy can cease
>>their
>> >>> membership and not be
>> >>> impacted:
>> >>> From ICANN's Bylaws.....
>> >>> Subject to clause 4(11), ICANN policies shall apply to ccNSO
>>members
>> >>> by virtue of their membership to the extent, and only to the
>>extent,
>> >>> that the policies (a) only address issues that are within scope of
>>the
>> >>> ccNSO according to Article IX, Section 6 and Annex C; (b) have been
>> >>> developed through the ccPDP as described in Section 6 of this
>>Article,
>> >>> and (c) have been recommended as such by the ccNSO to the Board,
>>and
>> >>> (d) are adopted by the Board as policies, provided that such
>>policies
>> >>> do not conflict with the law applicable to the ccTLD manager which
>> shall,
>> >> at all times, remain paramount.
>> >>> In addition, such policies shall apply to ICANN in its activities
>> >>> concerning ccTLDs.
>> >>> (ARTICLE IX, Section 4, Clause 10).
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Most non-ccNSO ccTLDs are content for the ccNSO to develop Polices
>> >>> that best serve their interest and provided that is respected (and
>> >>> there is no attempt to burden non-ccNSO ccTLDs) I learn from ccNSO
>> >>> members that they are content with the amended text proposed and
>> >>> adopted during the CWG call on the 1st September.
>> >>>
>> >>> (sorry for being late to the call and I hope this enables us to move
>> >>> forward)
>> >>>
>> >>> Best
>> >>>
>> >>> Paul
>> >>>
>> >>> Quoting "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I will defer to Paul on that
>> >>>> J. Beckwith Burr
>> >>>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>> >>>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>> >>>> Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
>> >>>> neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes
>> >>>> <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
>> >>>> Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:23 PM
>> >>>> To: Becky Burr
>> >>>> <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>,
>> >>>> "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>,
>> >>>> "Lindeberg, Elise"
>> >>>> <elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no>>,
>> >>>> "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>"
>> >>>> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
>> >>>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function
>> >>>> Agreement
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This looks fine to me Becky but I do have a totally different
>> >>>> question. Will the non-ccNSO member ccTLD registries have problem
>> >>>> with the inclusion of ccNSO developed policies? As you know, I am
>> >>>> out of my realm here but I am aware of the concerns Paul Kane has
>> >>>> been expressing and am curious if they are comfortable with this.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Chuck
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 1:52 PM
>> >>>> To: Gomes, Chuck; Mueller, Milton L; Lindeberg, Elise;
>> >>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> >>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function
>> >>>> Agreement
>> >>>>
>> >>>> How about the following:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Section 4.7 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders.
>>Contractor
>> >>>> shall apply the policies for the Root Zone Management component of
>> >>>> the IANA Naming Function that have been defined, or after the date
>> >>>> of this Agreement are further defined, by (a) the Generic Names
>> >>>> Supporting Organization ("GNSO") and the Country Code Names
>> >>>> Supporting Organization ("ccNSO"), and (b) RFC
>> >>>> 1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ ("RFC 1591")
>>as
>> >>>> interpreted by the Framework of Interpretation of Current Policies
>> >>>> and Guidelines Pertaining to the Delegation and Redelegation of
>> >>>> Country-Code Top Level Domain Names, dated October 2014 ("FOI").
>>In
>> >>>> addition to these policies, Contractor shall, where applicable,
>> >>>> apply the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and
>> >>>> Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code
>>Top
>> >>>> Level Domains ("GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles"). Contractor shall
>> >>>> publish documentation pertaining to the implementation of these
>> >>>> policies and principles on the
>> >>> IANA Website.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> J. Beckwith Burr
>> >>>> Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>> >>>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>> >>>> Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367
>> >>>> /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes
>> >>>> <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
>> >>>> Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 1:49 PM
>> >>>> To: "Mueller, Milton L"
>> >>>> <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>,
>> >>>> Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>,
>> >>>> "Lindeberg, Elise"
>> >>>> <elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no>>,
>> >>>> "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>"
>> >>>> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
>> >>>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function
>> >>>> Agreement
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It definitely should not be listed as a policy. Any reference to
>> >>>> them would have to avoid any implication that they are policy.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Chuck
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>>From:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce
>> >>>> s@ icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
>> >>>> Of Mueller, Milton L
>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 11:14 AM
>> >>>> To: Burr, Becky; Lindeberg, Elise;
>> >>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> >>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function
>> >>>> Agreement
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It is important. I think the best solution would be to remove the
>> >>>> GAC principles from the list of applicable policies, since it is
>>not
>> >>>> an ICANN policy
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>> >>>> Professor, School of Public
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>Policy<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__spp.gatech.edu_
>&d=DQMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WD
>DkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT6-5RqZdXQjReQ&s=UGPIljPlrovfxu2PtWi
>IFwEdA6lWGvBi9GEiDFAeFaM&e=>
>> >>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>> >>>> Internet Governance Project
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>http://internetgovernance.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=
>http-3A__internetgovernance.org_&d=DQMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJF
>Oifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT6-5
>RqZdXQjReQ&s=OfTBX8dRLVEfPtfPtAeajH_Q7Xyncu8iKVRZl3vBx44&e=>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>>From:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce
>> >>>> s@ icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
>> >>>> Of Burr, Becky
>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 11:08 AM
>> >>>> To: Lindeberg, Elise
>> >>>> <elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no>>;
>> >>>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>;
>> >>>> trang.nguyen at icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org>;
>> >>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> >>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function
>> >>>> Agreement
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I want to step back and explain why this change was offered and
>>why
>> >>>> it is important. There is a fundamental problem with the
>>reference
>> >>>> to the GAC Principles in Section 4.7 of the Naming Functions
>>Agreement.
>> >>>> Section 4.7 lists the "policies" that IANA is required to apply.
>> >>>> Simply put, the GAC Principles are important GAC Advice - but they
>> >>>> are not ICANN policy. They have never been considered by any of
>>the
>> >>>> policy development bodies authorized in the ICANN Bylaws, and they
>> >>>> have not been adopted by the ICANN Board. The ccTLD participants
>> >>>> who offered the revised wording attempted to address the problem
>> >>>> adding a clear
>> >>> link back to the GAC's own language in Section 1.3.
>> >>>> Alternatively, you could simply remove the GAC Principles from the
>> >>>> list of applicable "policies."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> J. Beckwith Burr
>> >>>> Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>> >>>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>> >>>> Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367
>> >>>> /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: <Lindeberg>, Elise
>> >>>> <elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no>>
>> >>>> Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 9:33 AM
>> >>>> To:
>>"Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>"
>> >>>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>,
>> >>>> "trang.nguyen at icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org>"
>> >>>> <trang.nguyen at icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org>>,
>> >>>> "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>"
>> >>>> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
>> >>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function
>> >>>> Agreement
>> >>>>
>> >>>> +1, Jorge
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Elise
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>Fra:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann
>.org>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]
>> >>>> På vegne av
>> >>>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
>> >>>> Sendt: 1. september 2016 09:21
>> >>>> Til: trang.nguyen at icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org>;
>> >>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> >>>> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks for this info.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> May we be informed why the solution offered to the discussion on
>>4.7.
>> >>>> (how to best refer to the 2005 GAC Principles) apparently ignores
>> >>>> the comments made by several members and participants of this
>>group,
>> >>>> while it takes up the suggestions made by other participants?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks and regards
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Jorge
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>>Von:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces
>> >>>> @i cann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag
>> >>>> von Trang Nguyen
>> >>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. September 2016 05:49
>> >>>> An: CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> >>>> Betreff: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] Naming Function
>> >>>> Agreement
>> >>>>
>> >>>> All,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Forwarding email from Sidley regarding the the Naming Function
>> >>>> Agreement for your review.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Trang
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From:
>> >>>>
>><cwg-client-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org>>
>> >>>> on
>> >>> behalf of "Hofheimer, Joshua T."
>> >>>> <jhofheimer at sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer at sidley.com>>
>> >>>> Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:32 PM
>> >>>> To: Client <cwg-client at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>>,
>> >>>> "jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>"
>> >>>> <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>, 'Lise
>>Fuhr'
>> >>>> <lise.fuhr at difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk>>
>> >>>> Subject: [client com] Naming Function Agreement
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Dear Client Committee,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the Naming Function
>> >>>> Agreement, marked against the version ICANN put out for public
>> >>>> comment. This draft reflects the negotiation of various items
>> >>>> between ICANN and Sidley, as well as ICANN's response to the
>> >>>> comments provided previously by Paul Kane, Becky Burr and other
>>CWG
>> >>>> participants. ICANN has prepared an chart reflecting a number of
>> >>>> items for which it is seeking confirmation from the CWG Client
>> >>>> Committee that the particular item may be considered closed out.
>> >>>> Although the chart appears lengthy,
>> >>> that is merely because it contains the historical context of
>> >>>> discussion for each item. ICANN plans to review these items on
>>the
>> >> call
>> >>>> tomorrow, and for our part, Sidley has no further edits to request
>> >>>> if the CWG is satisfied with ICANN's proposed handling of the
>> >>>> matters on the
>> >>> chart.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thank you,
>> >>>> Josh
>> >>>>
>> >>>> JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER
>> >>>> Partner
>> >>>>
>> >>>> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
>> >>>> +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct)
>> >>>> +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct)
>> >>>> +1 323 708 2405 (Cell)
>> >>>> jhofheimer at sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer at sidley.com>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>www.sidley.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sid
>ley.com&d=DQMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdY
>ahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=FPQR1Kinldf2JW141QOgAICaJbdCiJtDYLdhqqPGM2A&s=5BeRy1BHtwrv
>C2TIKe2dYjVBBZajZZqkESlWtHuAYBU&e=>
>> >>>> [SIDLEY]
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>**************************************************************************
>**************************
>> >>>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that
>> >>>> is privileged or confidential.
>> >>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail
>>and
>> >>>> any attachments and notify us immediately.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>**************************************************************************
>**************************
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
More information about the Cwg-client
mailing list