[Npoc-discuss] Welcoming our New NPOC Members
Arindam Bhattacharya
arindam.bhattacharya at aunetwork.org
Sun Apr 9 23:08:11 UTC 2023
Dear Juan,
I am sending my comments and suggestions about Transfer Policy Review
PDP here, as I am facing some connection problems in editing the
document provided through the link of your mail.
F1) Is additional data needed to support evaluation of the effectiveness
of the TEAC mechanism?
Yes, additional data is needed to support the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the TEAC mechanism.
The TEAC mechanism is an essential part of ensuring the stability and
security of the DNS system in emergencies. While some information is
available on the TEAC mechanism's effectiveness, there is certainly room
for improvement in evaluating its performance.
One key area where additional data could be helpful is in measuring
response time. It would be useful to track how quickly the TEAC
mechanism is activated in response to an emergency situation and how
quickly the relevant parties can provide assistance once they have been
contacted. This information could identify areas where improvements can
be made, such as streamlining the process for activating the mechanism
or improving communication between the parties involved.
Another crucial area to consider is the quality of the response. It
would be helpful to evaluate the effectiveness of the response provided
by the TEAC mechanism in terms of its ability to address the emergency
situation at hand. This could include looking at whether the response
was timely, whether it was effective in mitigating the threat, and
whether any additional support was required.
Finally, it may be helpful to look at the percentage of solitudes made
to evaluate the effectiveness of the TEAC mechanism. This would involve
tracking the number of times that the mechanism was activated but could
not provide adequate support, either due to a lack of available contacts
or other factors. By monitoring this metric, it may be possible to
identify areas where additional resources or support are needed to
improve the mechanism's effectiveness.
Overall, while some data is already available to evaluate the
effectiveness of the TEAC mechanism, there is certainly room for
improvement. By tracking response time, evaluating the quality of
response, and monitoring the percentage of solitudes made, it may be
possible to identify areas where improvements can be made to better
support the stability and security of the DNS system in emergency
situations.
What data is needed?
The data needed to activate the TEAC mechanism, if Registries and
Registrars already have accurate contact information for the
Registration Name Holder, then no additional data is required. If the
contact information is unavailable, the Registration Name Holder's phone
number and e-mail address should be sufficient to activate the TEAC
mechanism.
It is also worth noting that ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the
TEAC mechanism could provide valuable data to inform future improvements
and ensure that the mechanism remains effective in addressing emergency
situations.
F3) To what extent should the 4-hour time frame be revisited in light of
these concerns? Are there alternative means to address the underlying
concerns other than adjusting the time frame?
I suggest that any changes to the 4-hour time frame should be made with
careful consideration of the potential impact on the effectiveness of
the TEAC mechanism, as well as the potential cost and burden on
registries, registrars, and other stakeholders involved in the process.
One alternative means to address the underlying concerns could be to
enhance the quality of the information provided by domain name
registrants at the time of registration. This would enable registries
and registrars to more quickly and accurately identify the appropriate
contacts for the TEAC mechanism, reducing the response time required.
Another alternative means could be to develop more automated tools for
the TEAC mechanism, such as artificial intelligence and machine learning
algorithms that can quickly and accurately identify and contact the
appropriate parties in the event of an emergency.
F4) Section I.A.4.6.2 of the Transfer Policy states that "Communications
to a TEAC must be initiated in a timely manner, within a reasonable
period of time following the alleged unauthorized loss of a domain." The
Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team noted that this timeframe should be
more clearly defined. Is additional guidance needed to define a
"reasonable period of time" after which registrars should be expected to
use a standard dispute resolution process?
Additional guidance is needed to define a "reasonable period of time,"
after which registrars should be expected to use a standard dispute
resolution process. Currently, the Transfer Policy does not provide a
specific timeframe for when a TEAC must be initiated. It is up to the
registrars to determine what is considered a reasonable period of time.
This lack of clarity can lead to inconsistent policy application and
potential abuse.
To address this concern, ICANN could provide more specific guidance on
what constitutes a "reasonable period of time" to initiate a TEAC. This
guidance could consider factors such as the nature of the alleged
unauthorized loss, the complexity of the case, and any extenuating
circumstances that may affect the timing of the TEAC initiation.
In addition to providing more guidance, ICANN could consider
implementing a process for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the
Transfer Policy. This could include regular audits of registrar
practices, as well as penalties for non-compliance. By holding
registrars accountable for adhering to the Transfer Policy, ICANN could
help ensure that the TEAC mechanism is used appropriately and promptly.
F5) According to section I.A.4.6.2 of the Transfer Policy, the TEAC may
be designated as a telephone number, and therefore some TEAC
communications may take place by phone. The Transfer Policy Review
Scoping Team flagged this provision as a potential item for further
consideration. Do telephone communications provide a sufficient "paper
trail" for registrars who may later wish to request a transfer "undo"
based on failure by a TEAC to respond? Such a request would require the
Registrar to provide evidence that a phone call was made and not
answered, or a call back was not received within 4 hours. Noting this
requirement, should the option to communicate by phone be eliminated? Is
an authoritative "system of record" for TEAC communications warranted?
If so, what are the requirements for such a system?
The use of telephone communication for TEAC may raise concerns about the
ability to provide a sufficient "paper trail" in case of disputes
between registrars and the TEAC. Registrars may need to provide evidence
that a phone call was made and not answered or that a call back was not
received within 4 hours to request a transfer "undo." Given this
requirement, it is worth considering whether telephone communication is
appropriate for TEAC communications or whether an alternative method
should be used to provide a more evident record of the communication.
An alternative approach could be establishing an authoritative "system
of record" for TEAC communications, for which e-mail is very suitable.
This system could be designed to capture all TEAC communications and
ensure that they are logged in a way that can be used to support
subsequent disputes. The TEAC and the Registrar could use the system to
ensure that all communications are accurately captured and stored, which
could help mitigate any concerns about the sufficiency of telephone
communication as a "paper trail."
Requirements for such a system could include capturing all
communications between the TEAC and the Registrar, including any
relevant metadata such as time and date stamps. The system should also
be designed to ensure that the captured data is tamper-proof and cannot
be altered after the fact. In addition, the system should be easily
accessible to both the Registrar and the TEAC, with appropriate security
controls in place to ensure that only authorized personnel can access
the system.
Using telephone communication for TEAC may not provide a sufficient
"paper trail" for registrars who may later wish to request a transfer
"undo." Given this concern, it may be worth considering alternative
methods of communication, such as establishing an authoritative "system
of record" like e-mail for TEAC communications, which would capture all
TEAC communications and provide a tamper-proof record that could be used
to support subsequent disputes.
f6) The Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team indicated that there are
several factors that make a Registry Operator's obligation to "undo" a
transfer under Section 6.4 of the Transfer Policy challenging:
* Registry Operators do not have access to the designated TEACs for
each Registrar, making validation of an undo request nearly impossible.
* There is no way for Registry Operators to independently verify that
a Registrar did not respond within the required time frame or at all
since Registry Operators are not a party to, or copied on,
communications between the Registrar TEACs.
* Transfer "undo" requests associated with the failure of a TEAC to
respond are unilateral so there is no validation required prior to a
Registry Operator taking action. This has, on occasion, led to a "he
said", "she said" scenario.
* Follow on to f6 iii., if the policy were to be updated to allow for
some level of validation by the Registry Operator prior to taking
action, the requirement to "undo" a transfer within 5 calendar days of
receiving an TEAC undo request leaves little to no time to attempt to
validate the request prior to taking the action
To address these challenges, revisiting the Transfer Policy and
considering potential changes may be necessary. One possible solution
could be to require Registrar TEACs to copy Registry Operators on all
TEAC communications, providing them with visibility into the process and
allowing for better validation of "undo" requests. Another solution
could be establishing an authoritative system of record for TEAC
communications, ensuring that all parties have access to the same
information and reducing the likelihood of a "he said" or "she said"
scenario. Additionally, it may be necessary to revisit the time frame
for "undo" requests and consider whether a more extended period of time
is needed to validate requests properly and avoid erroneous transfers.
F7) To what extent are changes to the policy needed to address these
concerns? Are there other pain points for Registry Operators that need
to be considered in the review of the policy in this regard?
The concerns the Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team raised regarding
the challenges Registry Operators face to "undo" a transfer under
Section 6.4 of the Transfer Policy are significant and require careful
consideration. While it is clear that changes to the policy may be
needed to address these concerns, it is also essential to consider other
pain points for Registry Operators that may arise in the review of the
policy.
One potential solution to address the concerns raised by the Transfer
Policy Review Scoping Team could be to require Registrars to provide
Registry Operators with access to the designated TEACs for each
Registrar. This would enable Registry Operators to validate "undo"
requests and independently verify that a Registrar did not respond
within the required time frame or at all. It would also provide an
authoritative "system of record" for TEAC communications that could be
used as evidence to support transfer "undo" requests.
Another potential solution could be establishing a mechanism for
validation by the Registry Operator before taking action on a transfer
"undo" request. This would help ensure the request is legitimate and
prevent the "he said" or "she said" scenario that sometimes arises.
However, given the tight time frame for "undo" requests (5 calendar
days), it may be challenging to implement a validation mechanism that
does not unduly delay the process.
In addition to these potential solutions, it is essential to consider
other pain points for Registry Operators that may arise in reviewing the
policy. For example, Registry Operators may face challenges related to
the availability of technical resources to manage transfer "undo"
requests or the potential for abuse of the "undo" process by Registrars
who may use it to circumvent legitimate transfers.
Changes to the policy will likely be needed to address the concerns
raised by the Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team. However, it is
important to carefully consider the potential impact of any changes on
all stakeholders, including Registry Operators, Registrars, and domain
name holders, and to work collaboratively to develop appropriate,
effective, and sustainable solutions.
g1) Is there enough information available to determine if the TDRP is an
effective mechanism for resolving disputes between registrars in cases
of alleged violations of the IRTP? If not, what additional information
is needed to make this determination?
The effectiveness of the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP) in
resolving disputes between registrars in cases of alleged violations of
the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is a subject of debate. While
some information is available regarding the TDRP's use and outcomes, it
is unclear whether this is sufficient to determine its overall
effectiveness.
Additional information that may be useful in evaluating the TDRP's
effectiveness includes:
The number of disputes that have been resolved through the TDRP compared
to those resolved through other means, such as court proceedings or
arbitration
The average length of time it takes for disputes to be resolved through
the TDRP
Feedback from registrars and other stakeholders regarding their
experiences with the TDRP, including whether they believe it to be an
effective mechanism for resolving disputes.
Furthermore, it may be beneficial to examine whether any systemic issues
contribute to disputes between registrars and, if so, to identify ways
to address these issues.
While some information regarding the TDRP's use and outcomes is
available, additional data and stakeholder feedback may be needed to
determine its effectiveness.
g2) The ADNDRC reported to the IRTP Part D Working Group that in some of
the cases it processed, appellees and appellants failed to provide
sufficient information to support arbitration. Is this an issue that
needs to be examined further in the context of the policy?
* Are the existing informational materials about the TDRP sufficient
to ensure that registrars understand the process and the requirements
for filing a dispute, including the information they need to give to the
dispute resolution provider
The issue of registrars failing to provide sufficient information to
support arbitration is a concern that may need further examination in
the context of the policy. It may be necessary to evaluate whether the
existing informational materials about the TDRP are sufficient to ensure
that registrars understand the process and the requirements for filing a
dispute, including the information they must provide to the dispute
resolution provider.
If registrars are unaware of the information required to support their
case, it could lead to delays and inefficiencies in the dispute
resolution process. It may be necessary to provide additional guidance
and training to registrars on the TDRP process and the types of
information required to support their claims.
Additionally, it may be necessary to evaluate whether the TDRP rules and
procedures need to be updated to provide more clarity on the types of
information that must be provided by the parties to the dispute. This
could help ensure that all parties have a clear understanding of the
evidence required to support their case and can provide it promptly and
efficiently.
Additional examination and potential updates may be necessary to ensure
that the TDRP is an effective mechanism for resolving disputes between
registrars in cases of alleged violations of the IRTP.
g3) If the TDRP is considered to be insufficient:
* Are additional mechanisms needed to supplement the TDRP?
* Should the approach to the TDRP itself be reconsidered?
If the TDRP is found to be insufficient, additional mechanisms may need
to be considered to supplement it. For example, an alternative dispute
resolution mechanism could be developed, or existing tools could be
enhanced. It may also be necessary to reconsider the approach to the
TDRP itself, such as revising the criteria for eligibility to use the
TDRP, providing more detailed guidance on the types of disputes that may
be resolved through the TDRP, or increasing the role of ICANN in the
TDRP process. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the TDRP will depend on
how well it is designed and implemented and whether it adequately
addresses the needs of registrars and the wider community.
g4) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as
specified in the TDRP, compliant with data protection law?
The answer to this question depends on the specific data protection laws
in question, as requirements for processing registration data may vary
by jurisdiction. However, the TDRP does include provisions related to
data protection, such as requiring that all personal data be processed
following applicable laws and regulations and providing for the
redaction of specific personal data in documents submitted during the
dispute resolution process.
If a specific jurisdiction has data protection laws that are more
stringent than those outlined in the TDRP, it may be necessary to make
adjustments to ensure compliance. Additionally, as data protection laws
continue to evolve, it may be required to review and update the TDRP to
ensure ongoing compliance periodically.
Warm regards,
---
Arindam Bhattacharya
Chairman
Stichting Advocacy Unified Network (AUN)
Fluwelen Burgwal 58 * 2511 CJ * The Hague * The Netherlands
E-mail: arindam.bhattacharya at aunetwork.org
Website: www.aunetwork.org [3] * KvK 85838969 * RSIN 863761653
-------------------------
LinkedIn [4] | Twitter [5] | Facebook [6] | Instagram [7] | YouTube [8]
Are you a changemaker looking for connection and collaboration to have a
say in the policy-making system? Become a member of the Advocacy Unified
Network [9]!
On 2023-04-08 13:37, Juan Manuel Rojas wrote:
> Dear Arindam and all,
> Thanks for share your knowledge and work with us. We hope you can work
> together on the topics currently being discussed inside ICANN.
> We are waiting comments about Transfer Policy Review PDP, here: (until
> April 18th)
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H2w9a9FvfSvFaVNeKMwcwKrfH9QcS1fesngxYvq_6Wc/edit
>
> Also we are accepting comments on the Draft about Phase 1 on
> Internationalized Domain Names PDP Initial Report (attached file). Open
> soon.
>
> Another public comment opened is the following:
> IANA Naming Function Review Bylaws Changes:(IFR)
> ICANN is in the middle of Bylaws Amendment Process specifically on
> Articles 18 and 19 of ICANN Bylaws where is defined ICANN obligations
> regarding IANA Function.
>
> You can read the proposed Amendments on this link:
> https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/additional-reviews/proposed-amendments-to-articles-18-and-19-icann-bylaws-08-03-2023-en.pdf
> [1]
>
> In this occasion ICANN is looking for clarification to language to
> avoid any change that could affect IANA Stewardship Transition.
>
> This opportunity will be open until April 18th.
>
> If anyone is interested on any of these topics to write or study a
> topic related please write me back and we will work on this together.
> Also let me invite you to join the GNSO WG opened to participate
> currently.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
> Director - MINKA DIGITAL Colombia
> NPOC Policy Chair - NCSG/GNSO
>
> Master IT candidate, UNAD
> Registered Linux User No.533108.
>
> Cel. +57 301 743 56 00
> Instagram/Twitter: @JmanuRojas [2]
>
> El jueves, 6 de abril de 2023, 04:46:52 p. m. GMT-5, Arindam
> Bhattacharya <arindam.bhattacharya at aunetwork.org> escribió:
>
> Dear Caleb,
>
> Here is the link to the recently uploaded public policy research paper
> titled:
>
> The role of DNS security in mitigating cyber threats: An analysis of
> recent attacks and recommended strategies
>
> https://aunetwork.org/the-role-of-dns-security-in-mitigating-cyber-threats-an-analysis-of-recent-attacks-and-recommended-strategies/
>
> Another one will be posted on Monday.
>
> Best regards,
>
> ---
> Arindam Bhattacharya
> Chairman
> Stichting Advocacy Unified Network (AUN)
> Fluwelen Burgwal 58 * 2511 CJ * The Hague * The Netherlands
> E-mail: arindam.bhattacharya at aunetwork.org
> Website: www.aunetwork.org [3] * KvK 85838969 * RSIN 863761653
>
> -------------------------
> LinkedIn [4] | Twitter [5] | Facebook [6] | Instagram [7] | YouTube [8]
>
> Are you a changemaker looking for connection and collaboration to have
> a say in the policy-making system? Become a member of the Advocacy
> Unified Network [9]!
>
> On 2023-04-06 12:46, Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele wrote:
>
> @Arindam,
>
> An interesting body of work you are doing. Please note that we have a
> Policy Committee and a Chair @Juan Manuel Rojas whom we can all work
> together and make some policy comments on some of the work you are
> doing.
>
> Find on this URL interesting Public comments you can contribute to.
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment?sort-param=upcoming-date&sort-direction=asc&upcoming-sort-param=upcoming-date&upcoming-sort-direction=desc&open-sort-param=open-closed-date&open-sort-direction=asc&pending-sort-param=pending-report-due-date&pending-sort-direction=desc''
>
> Caleb Ogundele
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 11:33 AM Arindam Bhattacharya
> <arindam.bhattacharya at aunetwork.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Caleb Ogundele,
>
> I hope this email finds you well. I am writing on behalf of Advocacy
> Unified Network to express our gratitude for the warm welcome extended
> to us as new members of NPOC. We are honored to join the community of
> like-minded individuals who are dedicated to advocating for the
> interests of non-commercial organizations in Internet governance.
>
> As the Chairman of Advocacy Unified Network, I would also like to take
> this opportunity to share with you and the Membership Committee about
> our ongoing policy research works. We believe that these topics are
> important and timely, and we hope that they will contribute to the
> broader discussions on Internet governance.
>
> Our policy research works include:
>
> * The role of DNS security in mitigating cyber threats: An analysis of
> recent attacks and recommended strategies
> * Assessing the impact of DNS over HTTPS (DoH) on privacy and security
> * Balancing user privacy and law enforcement access in DNS Records
> retention policies
> * The ethical implications of DNS manipulation for political purposes
>
> We look forward to sharing our findings with the NPOC community and
> engaging in productive discussions with fellow members.
>
> Thank you once again for welcoming us to NPOC. We look forward to
> collaborating with you and other members in advancing the interests of
> non-commercial organizations in Internet governance.
>
> Best regards,
>
> ---
> Arindam Bhattacharya
> Chairman
> Stichting Advocacy Unified Network (AUN)
> Fluwelen Burgwal 58 * 2511 CJ * The Hague * The Netherlands
> E-mail: arindam.bhattacharya at aunetwork.org
> Website: www.aunetwork.org [3] * KvK 85838969 * RSIN 863761653
>
> -------------------------
> LinkedIn [4] | Twitter [5] | Facebook [6] | Instagram [7] | YouTube [8]
>
> Are you a changemaker looking for connection and collaboration to have
> a say in the policy-making system? Become a member of the Advocacy
> Unified Network [9]!
>
> On 2023-04-05 19:13, Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele via Npoc-discuss wrote:
>
> Dear NPOC Members,
>
> On behalf of the NPOC Executive Committee, Please join me in welcoming
> our new members below.
>
> Organizational Members:
>
> * Advocacy Unified Network- NCSG, NPOC represented by Bhattacharya
> Arindam
> * Africa Media and Information Technology Initiative- NCSG,
> NPOC-represented by Ibrahim Haruna Gazzali
> * Cyber Crime Awareness Foundation (CCA Foundation) - NCSG, NPOC
> represented by Mohammad Mostafizur Rahaman AP
> * Digital Agenda for Tanzania Initiative- NCSG, NPOC-represented by
> Peter Mmbando
> * Finnish Internet Association (NCSG/NPOC)-represented by Julf
> Helsingius
> * Fundacao Estudar- NCSG, NPOC-represented by Cindyneia Cantanhede
> * India Internet Foundation NCSG, NPOC represented by Anupam Agrawal
> * Internet Society Cameroon Chapter- NCSG, NPOC represented by Esther
> Sandrine Ngom AF
> * Internet Society Ghana Chapter- NCSG, NPOC-represented by Francis
> Acquah Amaning
> * ISOC Benin Chapter- NCSG, NPOC-represented by Harold Adjaho
> * ISOC Palestine (NCSG/NCUC)-represented by Zaher Qasssrawi
> * ISOC Uganda (NCSG/NPOC)-represented by Joan Katambi
> * Lebanese Cyberspace Association-NCSG, NPOC-represented by Amin Hacha
> AP
> * Libyan Internet society- NCSG, NPOC- represented by Omar Shuran AF
> * Media Rights Agenda (MRA)-NCSG, NPOC-represented by Idowu Adewale
> * Nigerian Youth IGF-NCSG, NPOC-represented by Morisola Alaba
> * Organization for Digital Africa- NCSG, NPOC- represented by Nazarius
> Kirama AF
> * PPDC (NCSG/NPOC)-represented by Simeon Favour
> * West Africa ICT Action Network (NCSG/NPOC)-represented by Peterking
> Quaye
> * Women in Technology (WITIN)- NCSG, NPOC-represented by Martha Alade
>
> As you are aware, Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
> (NPOC), is the home for not-for-profits which have a domain name and
> want to participate in the making of policy that influences the current
> internet infrastructure.
>
> As the Membership Committee Chair, I am happy to provide any necessary
> help for our new and old members to become fully engaged within our
> Constituency and our Stakeholder Group to facilitate the onboarding
> process into our community - and you will find many members willing to
> do the same!
>
> To better understand how to do that, you need to first understand
> ICANN´s complex structure. As you already know from the application
> process, NPOC is part of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG),
> which means that we represent the non-commercial interests of the
> internet community. Specifically, those of non-for-profits.
>
> We believe that non-for-profits have to play a central role in
> creating, discussing, and reviewing top-level domain names policy and
> so have outlined some key steps you can take to familiarize yourself
> with the process and get involved:
>
> 1. Understand what a domain name is: Learn more about the domain name
> system (DNS) and the problems, challenges, and opportunities they bring
> to the operation of organizations like yours. (Suggestion: read the
> Beginners Guides [10])
>
> 2. Read the NPOC toolkit: Learn more about NPOC's work within ICANN,
> the NPOC structure, current working groups, the role of the NPOC
> Executive Committee (ExCom), including a glossary of acronyms, which we
> know can be very tricky! (Suggestion: read NPOC Beginners Guide [11])
>
> 3. Learn about the policy-making process: Understand how to help create
> and review policy, via the online working groups, public comments and
> open discussions; or at the ICANN Meetings that take place three times
> every year (Suggestion: Watch Policy Development Process Video [12]]
>
> 4. Get to know the other non-for-profits members of NPOC: You never
> know what opportunities for collaboration and conversation exist. (See
> our Members [13])
>
> 5. Understand the ICANN complex structure: start by checking the
> organizational structure [14] for more information about the ICANN
> hierarchy, then go through ICANN free-of-charge certified courses,
> available on ICANN Learn [15].
>
> We also encourage you to follow our activity online:
>
> *
>
> NPOC website: www.npoc.org [16]
> *
>
> NPOC DISCUSS list: https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss
> [17]
> *
>
> NPOC Twitter: @NPOC_ICANN - Follow us and stay tuned!
> *
>
> NPOC Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/txAQAg [18]
>
> Besides this, here are a list of other resources which may be useful:
>
> *
>
> ICANN acronyms:
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/glossary-2014-02-03-en[icann.org]
> [19]
> *
>
> How to get involved:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/How+To+Get+Involved[community.icann.org]
> [20]
> *
>
> List of working groups and their members:
> *
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Getting+Involved+in+Working+Groups[community.icann.org]
> [21]
> *
>
> Policy comments and statements:
> *
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Policy+Development[community.icann.org]
> [22]
> *
>
> A one-stop page about ICANN's policy efforts:
> *
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm[gnso.icann.org]
> [23]
> *
>
> To catch up with ongoing discussion see the mailing list archive:
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/ [24]
>
> I know that this can be overwhelming, so allow me to invite you to a
> short introductory discussion or our next membership meeting when the
> call is announced, where you can ask all your questions and discuss how
> you can get involved.
>
> If you have any questions, comments, concerns,s or feedback please
> don't hesitate to contact me directly, we will gladly help you!
>
> Let's start working together!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Caleb Ogundele
>
> Membership Committee Chair
>
> on behalf of the Executive Committee Team
> --
>
> Caleb Ogundele
> Email: muyiwacaleb at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> Npoc-discuss mailing list
> Npoc-discuss at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
--
Caleb Ogundele
Email: muyiwacaleb at gmail.com
Links:
------
[1]
https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/additional-reviews/proposed-amendments-to-articles-18-and-19-icann-bylaws-08-03-2023-en.pdf
[2] http://www.twitter.com/jmanurojas
[3] http://www.aunetwork.org
[4] https://www.linkedin.com/in/aunetwork/
[5] https://twitter.com/AUNetwrk
[6] https://www.facebook.com/AUNforSDGs
[7] https://www.instagram.com/aunetwrk/
[8] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmqDJZy8O-pzvbwj-FnkoUA
[9] https://aunetwork.org/aun-membership/
[10]
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/beginners-guides-2012-03-06-en
[11] https://www.npoc.org/about/what-is-npoc/beginners-guide-to-npoc/
[12]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPS_0Ut2FRk&list=PLQziMT9GXafXm-5MHQ5YIcRNy5rdUCRhS&index=1
[13] https://npoc.org/our-membership/
[14] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/chart-2012-02-11-en
[15] https://learn.icann.org/#/catalog
[16] http://www.npoc.org/
[17] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss
[18] https://community.icann.org/x/txAQAg
[19]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_glossary-2D2014-2D02-2D03-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=1A9IIOkJia11FXDmJ1R4Jn7wGT4ExHiVuBF89mvNt_Q&m=DvBRafDDAtjFpYQDM-xp4-IVyEeOl0sDz7XZ84bTg5w&s=M1SYxWzomMsJ94D9Xc4rCHI3IRpgz7mdASXzXbCIJS4&e=
[20]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_gnsononcomstake_How-2BTo-2BGet-2BInvolved&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=1A9IIOkJia11FXDmJ1R4Jn7wGT4ExHiVuBF89mvNt_Q&m=DvBRafDDAtjFpYQDM-xp4-IVyEeOl0sDz7XZ84bTg5w&s=ZGye3ScZvDCzwSKMYT8FfKr198LmaP46qRbA77AwQP0&e=
[21]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_gnsononcomstake_Getting-2BInvolved-2Bin-2BWorking-2BGroups&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=1A9IIOkJia11FXDmJ1R4Jn7wGT4ExHiVuBF89mvNt_Q&m=DvBRafDDAtjFpYQDM-xp4-IVyEeOl0sDz7XZ84bTg5w&s=sgSsWs6sMytnPmA695XvfrQhAeY_qLKq5BprsyyD4IM&e=
[22]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_gnsononcomstake_Policy-2BDevelopment&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=1A9IIOkJia11FXDmJ1R4Jn7wGT4ExHiVuBF89mvNt_Q&m=DvBRafDDAtjFpYQDM-xp4-IVyEeOl0sDz7XZ84bTg5w&s=W7BdpcxSvy820uRO6nvUlJoRNOJUAEcaiBlMnDltY_o&e=
[23]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=1A9IIOkJia11FXDmJ1R4Jn7wGT4ExHiVuBF89mvNt_Q&m=DvBRafDDAtjFpYQDM-xp4-IVyEeOl0sDz7XZ84bTg5w&s=LWV48H1hFEteHNRjrDFaj-XQH1Ma5bWGPPSx18hFa60&e=
[24] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20230409/77413f6b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 8ebb0771.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 32612 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20230409/77413f6b/8ebb0771.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 8ebb0771.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 32612 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20230409/77413f6b/8ebb0771-0001.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 8ebb0771.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 32612 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20230409/77413f6b/8ebb0771-0002.jpeg>
More information about the Npoc-discuss
mailing list