[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
Burr, Becky
Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Tue Aug 12 20:27:35 UTC 2014
Not to be a troublemaker, but we all can recall a particular straw poll at the ITU plenipot that was then heralded as a vote.
Becky Burr
Sent from my iPad.
> On Aug 12, 2014, at 4:10 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
>> On 12-Aug-14 15:31, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>> Avri,
>>
>> I would like to better understand why you are against polling with
>> examples of how it has been problematic.
>
> Because as soon as the poll is taken people talk about it as if a vote
> had sort of been taken. Polls tend to have some tendency to harden
> positions.
>
> Often the point becomes one of fighting over the wording of the
> question. When that happens, I think time is wasted.
>
> I think I have had problems with them in every group where they have
> been used. I think they skew the consensus discussion in favor of the
> majority positions, and give it some appearance of 'moral weight of
> majority'
>
> But enough people in GNSO like them, so I have learned to live with them
> but always 'vote' against them.
>
> Also, without any polling,
>> how would you assess the level of consensus on an issue?
>
> WG have been finding the consensus point for a long time without polls.
> One of the tried and true methods is to ask the group and keep circling
> back to the issue until the consensus point is found.
>
> Even a hum works better that a poll because it does not include counting.
>
>
> But is this an issue for the current charter? why is this an issue for
> the current charter? Are you looking to require polls?
>
> avri
>
>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri
>> Doria Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:05 PM To:
>> cwg-dt-stewardship at icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship]
>> Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a different feeling about the times we have used polling in
>> GNSO groups and tend to be against it, and remember arguing against
>> their use in a variety of WGs. So tend to agree with Becky and
>> others on this.
>>
>> But I think the way we have the charter now, leaves it in there as a
>> tool, a tool with a warning. let the chairs argue about it if when
>> they feel it is needs and going to be helpful.
>>
>> I hope what is int the document is a good enough consensus point.
>>
>> BTW< I am fine with the doc as it stands. I made it available to
>> the NCSG discussion list and what little comment I got was praise for
>> being well thought out.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>> On 12-Aug-14 14:38, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>> Becky,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As I think I have tried to communicate already, I fully agree with
>>> you with regard to voting, but I disagree regarding polling. I
>>> have been in multiple WGs where polling was used very effectively
>>> to get a sense of the level of consensus and whether additional
>>> work is needed. It really hasn't been that hard for the chair(s)
>>> to decide the level of consensus. How would you recommend
>>> determining what level of consensus exists? Polling can be as
>>> simple as asking whether there are any who do not support a
>>> position. In the case of the GNSO, polling can be used to
>>> determine what level of support there is from each of its SGs and
>>> constituencies; this is helpful because any recommendations will
>>> ultimately have to be approved by the GNSO Council, where formal
>>> voting will occur. By getting a reasonable sense of the level of
>>> support earlier in the process, the chances are increased that
>>> Council approval will happen without having to go back to the WG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:*Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz] *Sent:* Tuesday,
>>> August 12, 2014 9:03 AM *To:* Marika Konings;
>>> tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn; Duchesneau, Stephanie; Gomes, Chuck;
>>> 'Allan MacGillivray'; 'Julie Hammer' *Cc:*
>>> CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship]
>>> Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think this illustrates how difficult things become when one
>>> attempts to parse "consensus" - which is why I strongly support
>>> efforts to achieve real consensus and avoid polling and voting,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> J. Beckwith Burr
>>>
>>> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>>>
>>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>>>
>>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
>>> becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> /
>>> www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
>>> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>> *Date: *Tuesday, August 12, 2014
>>> at 5:32 AM *To: *"tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn
>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>" <tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn
>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>>, "Duchesneau, Stephanie"
>>> <Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us
>>> <mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us>>, Chuck Gomes
>>> <cgomes at verisign.com <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>, 'Allan
>>> MacGillivray' <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca
>>> <mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>, 'Julie Hammer'
>>> <julie.hammer at bigpond.com <mailto:julie.hammer at bigpond.com>> *Cc:
>>> *"CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>"
>>> <CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>> *Subject: *Re:
>>> [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter
>>> for review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Tijani, all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To share a little bit of background on how the consensus
>>> designation process is typically done in GNSO WGs, the Chair
>>> typically doesn't only look at the numerical make-up of the WG but
>>> also takes into account their affiliation when making an assessment
>>> of which consensus level has been achieved. For example, if all
>>> those objecting to a certain recommendation are from the same
>>> stakeholder group or constituency, while everyone else is in
>>> support, the chair may still label that as consensus, even if there
>>> are 30 members of the same SG/C vs 30 other members - this is to
>>> avoid capture of a WG as otherwise groups might be encouraged to
>>> add more individuals from one SG/C to the WG to swing the level of
>>> support (and why polling / voting is not recommended). So I presume
>>> that is why Chuck meant that numbers do not necessarily matter as
>>> hopefully the chair(s) would follow a similar process here where
>>> they would also look at the support / absence of support of an
>>> SO/AC instead of only counting individual voices when making their
>>> assessment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Marika
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn
>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>> *Reply-To:
>>> *"tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>"
>>> <tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>>
>>> *Date: *Tuesday 12 August 2014 11:03 *To: *"'Duchesneau,
>>> Stephanie'" <Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us
>>> <mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us>>, Chuck Gomes
>>> <cgomes at verisign.com <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>, 'Allan
>>> MacGillivray' <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca
>>> <mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>, 'Julie Hammer'
>>> <julie.hammer at bigpond.com <mailto:julie.hammer at bigpond.com>> *Cc:
>>> *"CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>"
>>> <CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>> *Subject: *Re:
>>> [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter
>>> for review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck and all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You mentioned in the yesterday call that the number of members per
>>> group wouldn't matter since no formal vote will be used for
>>> decision making. I'm afraid I don't agree since the consensus (used
>>> for decision making) will be affected by the number of member per
>>> group. Suppose we are 5 ALAC members with 7 GNSO members on a WG
>>> where there are only ALAC and GNSO as chartering organizations
>>> (total WG members=12). When we have to decide by consensus, the
>>> chair can feel there is a consensus if 7 GNSO members agree and 4
>>> or 3 ALAC members disagree. But if there are as many members from
>>> ALAC as from GNSO, the consensus will be different.
>>>
>>> The only case where the number doesn't matter is a decision by full
>>> consensus.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, I agree with you insisting on avoiding any vote to
>>> make a decision by the CWG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>>>
>>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>>>
>>> Executive Director
>>>
>>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>>>
>>> Phone: + 216 41 649 605
>>>
>>> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
>>>
>>> Fax: + 216 70 853 376
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *De :*cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>>> <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
>>> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *De la part de*
>>> Duchesneau, Stephanie *Envoyé :* lundi 11 août 2014 22:28 *À :*
>>> 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Allan MacGillivray'; Julie Hammer *Cc :*
>>> CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
>>> *Objet :* Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest
>>> version of charter for review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Chuck,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Would the following better address your concerns:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In appointing their members, the chartering organizations should
>>> note that the CWG's decision-making methodologies require that CWG
>>> members act by consensus, and that polling will only be used in
>>> rare instances and with the recognition that such polls do not
>>> constitute votes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Stephanie Duchesneau** **Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager
>>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4^th Floor, Washington, DC 20006
>>> *Office:*+1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax:
>>> *+1.202.533.2623*/*www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>>>
>>> The information contained in this email message is intended only
>>> for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain
>>> confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the
>>> intended recipient you have received this email message in error
>>> and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
>>> message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>>> communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the
>>> original message.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:*Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] *Sent:* Monday,
>>> August 11, 2014 4:24 PM *To:* Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'Allan
>>> MacGillivray'; Julie Hammer *Cc:* CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org> *Subject:* RE:
>>> [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter
>>> for review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Stephanie. The minor edits looks okay to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> With regard to the sentence you crafted below, I personally prefer
>>> it if we directly include a description of what we want them to see
>>> rather than making a reference to because I suspect that some
>>> people will not take the time to go to the reference. If we do it
>>> as you suggest, I suggest we specifically refer to the section in
>>> the charter that contains what we want them to review. What do
>>> others think?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:*Duchesneau, Stephanie
>>> [mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us] *Sent:* Monday, August 11,
>>> 2014 11:42 AM *To:* 'Allan MacGillivray'; Julie Hammer; Gomes,
>>> Chuck *Cc:* CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org> *Subject:* RE:
>>> [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter
>>> for review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Added the following to language regarding Membership criteria:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In appointing members the CWG, the chartering organizations should
>>> note the CWG's decision-making methodologies with respect to
>>> consensus calls and polling.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Have made a few other minor edits throughout reflected in the
>>> attached, which I believe are non-substantive/reflective of
>>> previous group discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>>>
>>> *Stephanie Duchesneau** **Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager
>>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4^th Floor, Washington, DC 20006
>>> *Office:*+1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax:
>>> *+1.202.533.2623*/*www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>>>
>>> The information contained in this email message is intended only
>>> for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain
>>> confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the
>>> intended recipient you have received this email message in error
>>> and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
>>> message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>>> communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the
>>> original message.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:*cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>>> <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardshi
> p-bounces at icann.org]
>>> <mailto:[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]>*On Behalf Of
>>> *Allan MacGillivray *Sent:* Monday, August 11, 2014 11:04 AM *To:*
>>> Julie Hammer; Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org> *Subject:* Re:
>>> [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter
>>> for review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am also comfortable with this wording. Thanks Chuck.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:*Julie Hammer [mailto:julie.hammer at bigpond.com] *Sent:*
>>> August-11-14 11:03 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Allan MacGillivray;
>>> CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest
>>> version of charter for review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Chuck,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think this is better wording and am happy with this. Many
>>> thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers, Julie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 Aug 2014, at 12:53 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com
>>> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Allan. Now I know what the intent was. Would the
>>> following work: "That proposal may include alternativeoptions for
>>> specific features within it, provided that each option carries
>>> comparable support from the CWG. "
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Allan MacGillivray [mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca]
>>> *Sent:* Monday, August 11, 2014 10:44 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Julie
>>> Hammer; CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org> *Subject:* RE:
>>> [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter
>>> for review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck - I worked on this with Julie. The objective here was to
>>> give the CWG the flexibility of providing more than one option, but
>>> not the flexibility to provide dissenting opinions, that is options
>>> on which there is no consensus e.g. 'we are happy with any of these
>>> options because we have achieved the same level of consensus on all
>>> of them'.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Allan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>>> <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
>>> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]
>>> <mailto:[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]> *On Behalf
>>> Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* August-11-14 10:40 AM *To:* Julie Hammer;
>>> CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest
>>> version of charter for review *Importance:* High
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Julie. The second sentence isn't clear to me. If I had to
>>> explain what it means to others, I don't think I could do that.
>>> Can you possibly tweak it some? What do you mean by 'specific
>>> features'? What kind of features? Maybe some examples would help.
>>> Also, what does 'the same level of consensus' mean? Same level of
>>> consensus as what? Do you simply mean 'each option has consensus
>>> support of the group'?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>>> <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
>>> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Julie
>>> Hammer *Sent:* Monday, August 11, 2014 10:09 AM *To:*
>>> CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest
>>> version of charter for review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I propose that the first sentence in the section titled 'Goals and
>>> Objectives' be amended to read:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The primary goal of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an
>>> IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal (CWG) will be to produce a
>>> consolidated transition proposal for the elements of the IANA
>>> Functions relating to the Domain Name System. That proposal may
>>> include options for specific features within it, provided that each
>>> option carries the same level of consensus from the CWG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers, Julie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11 Aug 2014, at 6:44 pm, Jonathan Robinson
>>> <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
>>> <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Marika and CWG Colleagues,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The agenda below is the one I expect we will now follow.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As proposed a little over a week ago and also below, I think the
>>> realistic way to work through the charter in the time allocated for
>>> the call is to seek objections to / concerns with the current
>>> wording.
>>>
>>> To the extent that members are OK with the wording, we'll take that
>>> as read.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Many thanks to those who have contributed to getting this in such
>>> good shape over a relatively short time,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Talk with you all at 13h00 UTC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>>> <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
>>> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marika
>>> Konings *Sent:* 08 August 2014 12:22 *To:*
>>> CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
>>> *Subject:* [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version
>>> of charter for review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for Monday's DT meeting,
>>> subject to revisions by the co-chairs and input from the DT. Having
>>> discussed this with Jonathan, we would like to encourage you to
>>> identify any other items beyond those listed in agenda item 2 that
>>> in your view need to be further discussed by the DT - we will
>>> operate under the assumption that apart from those items already
>>> identified and additional items that may get flagged prior to the
>>> meeting, the current language / proposed edits as in the latest
>>> version of the charter as attached are acceptable by all and do not
>>> need further discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please note that in the attached version (based on the version that
>>> Julie sent earlier today), I've added some proposed wording to the
>>> 'additional resources required' section to highlight that this is
>>> something the CWG should preferably focus on at an early stage as
>>> it is unlikely that the DT at this point in time will be in a
>>> position to identify what additional resources the CWG may need.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you have any comments and/or questions, please share those with
>>> the list.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Marika
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Proposed Agenda - DT Meeting - Monday 11 August at 13.00 UTC*
>>>
>>> 1. Welcome & roll call 2. Draft Charter - Review open items
>>> (membership, no consensus, additional resources - DT members to
>>> identify which other sections / items need further review ahead of
>>> the meeting) 3. Confirm deadline for final edits / comments with
>>> aim to have DT Chairs submit charter to all SO/ACs by 14 August at
>>> the latest for consideration 4. Any next steps for the DT while
>>> SO/ACs consider the charter for approval? 5. AOB 6. Closure
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship
>>> mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=m6k6BbmXZbRB9MC38Ka4cGwStWOyAFggUrdo%2Bw1B6TY%3D%0A&s=2738c8c880645188d5f2e3581fc245e276c189b246f5f86a079854c86f7596c5
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailm
> an/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=RwK
>>> IM8ABPpWRsMQbOZ%2BGU03rJv9LI3HVmugPbVx18rI%3D%0A&m=R2MFGAO8TWz4spoqmWs
> UjlrYVAhlNkp4WANpC1AuiPk%3D%0A&s=4336acc7f6b1b0434e02fb9db39d3ed91d0da
>>> 8ae916b626d8f6ff9375d346272>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.avast.com/&k=lQ
> 50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHow
>>> OGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=5oMOc94Hn3vSLhIopEY7765OI%2FX745xMkS%2B9KXzo0nE%3D%0A&
> s=55fae77cfb31a29b01fe7c9afe5e94809ddf9eb1972c5167d7fe391be4eee00b>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel
>>> malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.avast.com/&k=lQ
> 50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHow
>>> OGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=5oMOc94Hn3vSLhIopEY7765OI%2FX745xMkS%2B9KXzo0nE%3D%0A&
> s=55fae77cfb31a29b01fe7c9afe5e94809ddf9eb1972c5167d7fe391be4eee00b>
>>> est active.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship
>>> mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=m6k6BbmXZbRB9MC38Ka4cGwStWOyAFggUrdo%2Bw1B6TY%3D%0A&s=2738c8c880645188d5f2e3581fc245e276c189b246f5f86a079854c86f7596c5
>> _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship
>> mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=m6k6BbmXZbRB9MC38Ka4cGwStWOyAFggUrdo%2Bw1B6TY%3D%0A&s=2738c8c880645188d5f2e3581fc245e276c189b246f5f86a079854c86f7596c5
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=m6k6BbmXZbRB9MC38Ka4cGwStWOyAFggUrdo%2Bw1B6TY%3D%0A&s=2738c8c880645188d5f2e3581fc245e276c189b246f5f86a079854c86f7596c5
More information about the CWG-DT-Stewardship
mailing list