[council] [Ext] FW: [gnso-chairs] Update on SubPro ODP and Policy Question Set #6
Justine Chew
justine.chew.icann at gmail.com
Wed Nov 30 21:02:08 UTC 2022
Hi Anne,
Steve can correct me if I'm mistaken but I understood that the ICANN org
ODP team is running a special webinar just for GNSO Council on 8 Dec at
20:00 UTC, per
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026256.html
While the webinars on 14 Dec are community-wide ones.
Kind regards,
Justine
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 at 04:49, Aikman-Scalese, Anne via council <
council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
> Thanks Steve – there may be a period missing at the end of the first red
> letter paragraph after the word “Guidance.” Could you please let
> Councilors know the non-objection deadline? Will Jeff be able to send this
> next week?
>
>
>
> Justine has kindly let me know the Sub Pro Operational Design Assessment
> webinar occurs during our SPS meeting in Los Angeles:
>
>
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-hosts-community-webinar-on-new-gtld-subpro-oda-22-11-2022-en
>
>
>
> Unfortunate timing given this should be a topic of strong interest to
> Council members.
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> AAikman at lewisroca.com
>
> D. 520.629.4428
>
>
>
> *From:* Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 29, 2022 4:30 PM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lewisroca.com>; COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [Ext] FW: [gnso-chairs] Update on SubPro ODP and Policy
> Question Set #6
>
>
>
> *[EXTERNAL]*
> ------------------------------
>
> Dear Councilors,
>
>
>
> The link to the draft response is below in Jeff’s email forwarded by Anne,
> but also here for your convenience:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18C6Vulnv6V0Akyq3IeehWuSGg1TAHCYJEBGXHrAVRx8/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
> The Word is also attached.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> *From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lewisroca.com>
> *Date: *Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:46 AM
> *To: *"COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Cc: *Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] FW: [gnso-chairs] Update on SubPro ODP and Policy
> Question Set #6
>
>
>
> Please see below from Jeff. He says my changes have been incorporated
> into the Council’s Response to Question Set # 6. STEVE – could you please
> post the final Google link and a Word doc to the Council list for final
> “non-objection” approval by Council members? (I understand Leadership
> will determine the deadline for non-objection.)
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> AAikman at lewisroca.com
>
> D. 520.629.4428
>
>
>
> *From:* Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 28, 2022 8:16 AM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lewisroca.com>; Steve Chan <
> steve.chan at icann.org>; Sebastien at registry.godaddy; dibiase at amazon.com;
> john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-chairs] Update on SubPro ODP and Policy Question Set
> #6
>
>
>
> *[EXTERNAL]*
> ------------------------------
>
> [Removed the Council as that is beyond my posting privileges as the
> liaison]
>
>
>
> Thanks Anne. These have now been incorporated into the draft
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/18C6Vulnv6V0Akyq3IeehWuSGg1TAHCYJEBGXHrAVRx8/edit__;!!PtGJab4!5iVN_MStgHJ-1NyYYmvtZhAZfqymhxPeujmFxTdN9Adxsx7CkEXjSYGcgnxbwHBzDL_9lCOL6I1RNj3mIlEV_4Cl$>.
>
>
>
>
> Council Leadership – How long should we keep this open for comment so that
> I can submit it to ICANN’s ODP Team?
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>
> Founder & CEO
>
> JJN Solutions, LLC
>
> p: +1.202.549.5079
>
> E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com
>
> http://jjnsolutions.com [jjnsolutions.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!PtGJab4!5iVN_MStgHJ-1NyYYmvtZhAZfqymhxPeujmFxTdN9Adxsx7CkEXjSYGcgnxbwHBzDL_9lCOL6I1RNj3mIsKVfOBt$>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lewisroca.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 23, 2022 3:08 PM
> *To:* Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>; Sebastien at registry.godaddy;
> COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG; gnso-secs at icann.org; GNSO-Chairs <
> gnso-chairs at icann.org>
> *Cc:* Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-chairs] Update on SubPro ODP and Policy Question Set
> #6
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> Thanks Steve and Jeff, for the drafting and the further explanation. As
> an active participant on Sub Pro and given that the small team will not be
> convened for this Council response to Question Set #6, I have some
> suggested changes for consideration by the full Council which I believe are
> important procedurally. Those changes are shown in purple in the
> attached document and pasted again below. I summarize the reasons for the
> changes here:
>
>
>
> 1. Council should affirm Org’s stated understanding that if
> Implementation Guidance must be varied, Org should specify the “valid
> reasons” (language from the Sub Pro Final Report) and should consult with
> the IRT regarding appropriate alternatives.
>
>
>
> 1. The Org’s question regarding Recommendation 17.12 in relation to
> the Applicant Support program presents a special case due to the initiation
> of the GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support. I think we need to say
> that in that case, variations to Implementation Guidance should be the
> subject of consultations with the Applicant Support Guidance Team.
>
>
>
> 1. In cases where the IRT is not yet formed and no GNSO Guidance
> Process (or other process outlined in the GNSO Operating Procedures) has
> been initiated, org should specify the reasons for recommending a variation
> to the Implementation Guidance and should seek the opinion of Council, e.g.
> via the procedures applicable to the GNSO Input process. (Presumably the
> last case could theoretically happen after Board review of the Operational
> Design Assessment.)
>
>
>
> I believe the changes below and in the attached draft preserve the
> appropriate role for Council in connection with Implementation as provided
> in the PDP Manual and in the GNSO Guidance Process. This will be
> particularly important in relation to the development of the Applicant
> Support program as the Guidance Process proceeds.
>
>
>
> The recommended changes are pasted below and shown in the attached draft.
> It is good to know (as Steve said yesterday) that there would not be any
> sort of “hold-up” in the expected date for the org’s delivery of the
> Operational Design Assessment based on the requested response to Question
> Set #6. This is an important topic and may require discussion at the
> Council level in our December meeting. (Thank you, Jeff, for offering to
> review this in December.)
>
>
>
> If required, I am noting a formal objection to the initial draft without
> the suggested changes. (Jeff said this doesn’t go on the Council’s agenda
> unless a Councilor objects so I am trying to follow the rules.)
>
>
>
> *AEAS Proposed Changes to the Response to Sub Pro ODP Question Set #6*
>
>
>
> The Council agrees with your understanding that “if something cannot be
> implemented exactly as specified in Implementation Guidance, the org would
> be expected to describe its efforts and rationale for such cases, and to
> work with the IRT to implement an alternative in line with the purpose
> behind the recommended action”. In relation to the GNSO Initiated
> Applicant Support Guidance Process that has been launched in response to
> the question posed by the ODP, the Council believes that alternatives to
> the specified Implementation Guidance should be addressed in the context of
> that GNSO Guidance Process and would expect the org to work with the
> Applicant Support Guidance Team to address any required changes to
> Implementation Guidance.
>
>
>
> In short, implementation guidance remains a strong recommendation as
> opposed to a requirement. As referenced in the Preamble to the Sub Pro
> Final Report, ICANN should specify any “circumstances where there may be
> valid reasons not to take such guidance exactly as described…” In such
> circumstances, Council believes that consultation with the IRT, the
> Guidance Process Team, or the Council itself (e.g. via a request for GNSO
> Input) is in order prior to the adoption of alternatives to the specified
> Implementation Guidance. In all cases, the implementation should be
> accomplished in a manner that achieves the objectives laid out in the
> implementation guidance even if the mechanism of implementation differs
> slightly from that contained in the final report.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> AAikman at lewisroca.com
>
> D. 520.629.4428
>
>
>
> *From:* Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 22, 2022 2:50 PM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lewisroca.com>;
> Sebastien at registry.godaddy; COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG; gnso-secs at icann.org;
> GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs at icann.org>
> *Cc:* Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-chairs] Update on SubPro ODP and Policy Question Set
> #6
>
>
>
> *[EXTERNAL]*
> ------------------------------
>
> Hi Anne, I see your response came in before I completed this response.
> Just noting that I’ve seen it already, but think the response below should
> still hopefully be helpful.
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Anne,
>
>
>
> Let me try and answer your question. The SubPro ODP Team has an
> understanding of how implementation guidance should be treated, which in
> their words is, “a strongly recommended action and that if in some
> circumstances there may be valid reasons not to take such guidance exactly
> as described, this would remain consistent with the Final Report.” This
> understanding comes from the Final Report preamble and was reinforced by
> previous ODP question/answers.
>
>
>
> There is specific phrasing for a handful of recommendations where the
> SubPro ODP Team wants to validate that their understanding of
> implementation guidance, pasted above, still holds true. The reason they
> are asking is because the recommendation language (i.e., “must”) cites the
> implementation guidance in the recommendation language itself, potentially
> creating a relationship requirement between the recommendation and embedded
> implementation guidance. I’ve highlighted an example of the language that
> is causing the potential ambiguity, where it can be construed that the
> implementation guidance in these specific instances, must be fulfilled
> precisely *“as detailed”* in order to meet the requirements of the
> recommendation.
>
>
>
> - Recommendation 17.12: ICANN org must develop a plan for funding the
> Applicant Support Program*, as detailed in the Implementation
> Guidelines below*.
>
>
>
> Here is a link to Jeff’s draft responses, where you can see that he
> validates the SubPro ODP Team understanding of implementation guidance,
> which holds for these specific recommendations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18C6Vulnv6V0Akyq3IeehWuSGg1TAHCYJEBGXHrAVRx8/edit?pli=1
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/18C6Vulnv6V0Akyq3IeehWuSGg1TAHCYJEBGXHrAVRx8/edit?pli=1__;!!PtGJab4!5iVN_MStgHJ-1NyYYmvtZhAZfqymhxPeujmFxTdN9Adxsx7CkEXjSYGcgnxbwHBzDL_9lCOL6I1RNj3mIs331V6z$>.
> As requested, the draft responses are attached in Word.
>
>
>
> Hopefully this provides a bit of clarity and I certainly welcome Jeff, as
> well as Councilors, to weigh in.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> "Aikman-Scalese, Anne via Gnso-chairs" <gnso-chairs at icann.org>
> *Reply-To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lewisroca.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 9:04 AM
> *To: *"Sebastien at registry.godaddy" <Sebastien at registry.godaddy>, "
> COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <council at gnso.icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <
> gnso-secs at icann.org>, GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs at icann.org>
> *Cc: *Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-chairs] Update on SubPro ODP and Policy Question Set
> #6
>
>
>
> Thanks Sebastien. JEFF – I am a bit confused by the examples presented in
> Question Set 6 from the Sub Pro ODP team. The examples are all labelled
> “Recommendation” and all include the word “must” which has a defined
> meaning in the Sub Pro Final Report. The Implementation Guidance does not
> generally include the word “must”. That word was used consistently in
> connection with Recommendations and Question Set 6 appears to be reciting
> “must” Recommendations but treating them as Implementation Guidance.
>
>
>
> Could you please clarify the question being asked in Question Set 6? (I
> have previously volunteered to join that Sub Pro small team.)
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> AAikman at lewisroca.com
>
> D. 520.629.4428
>
>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Sebastien---
> via council
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 12, 2022 3:10 AM
> *To:* COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG; gnso-secs at icann.org; GNSO-Chairs <
> gnso-chairs at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [council] FW: Update on SubPro ODP and Policy Question Set #6
>
>
>
> *[EXTERNAL]*
> ------------------------------
>
> Dear Council Colleagues,
>
>
>
> Please find below our Council Liaison to the SubPro ODP’s latest updates.
>
> Thank you Jeff for providing these. Please review them ahead of our
> meeting on 17 November (or 16 depending on time zones).
>
>
>
> Kindly,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Sebastien Ducos*
>
> GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
>
> [image: signature_615475152]
>
> +33612284445
>
> France & Australia
>
> sebastien at registry.godaddy
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, 10 November 2022 at 10:30 pm
> *To: *john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>,
> dibiase at amazon.com <dibiase at amazon.com>, Sebastien Ducos <
> sebastien at registry.godaddy>
> *Cc: *Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>, SubPro ODP Mailman List <
> subpro-odp at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Update on SubPro ODP and Policy Question Set #6
>
> Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad at .
>
>
>
> Dear Council Leadership,
>
>
>
> Can you please post this on the GNSO Council List?
>
>
>
> This afternoon I had my November call with the ICANN Org SubPro Team led
> by Karen Lentz. Here is the latest update:
>
>
>
> 1. *On Schedule*. During that call, ICANN org confirmed that they are
> in fact on schedule to deliver the Operational Design Assessment the week
> of December 12th. The team met its deadline for “pens down” which
> was yesterday and the document is undergoing internal review. In addition,
> they are working on an executive summary.
>
>
>
> 1. *Updated Assumptions*. On November 8th, ICANN posted a new
> Assumptions document (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-assumptions-subsequent-procedures-odp-08nov22-en.pdf
> [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.icann.org*2Fen*2Fsystem*2Ffiles*2Ffiles*2Fdraft-assumptions-subsequent-procedures-odp-08nov22-en.pdf&data=05*7C01*7Csebastien*40registry.godaddy*7Ce21657625e724106c3ec08dac3627c19*7Cd5f1622b14a345a6b069003f8dc4851f*7C0*7C0*7C638037126406400846*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&sdata=WDjkCRSUq*2F1YgOFooSvr*2FUi8*2FYrGTChDPKpLQokBXQs*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!PtGJab4!4Stw-jXVq_QBNICX4R3oorIe6ltW0qCjwYnOEUAXWq1KH-ALnx8A0w3FamY8_gnrkmLsLYGuXIiAMtwvjP7TASIaUEjZ$>)
> which contains all of the previous assumptions (in grey) as well some new
> ones (not in grey).
>
>
>
> 1. *GNSO Council Briefing on ODA.* The ICANN org ODP team would like
> to set up a call with the Council the week of December 5th to give the
> Council a preview of the assessment like they did for the SSAD ODA. They
> will also go over their expectations on timing, and an input mechanism for
> feedback on the ODA. Like the SSAD ODA, there will not be a formal public
> comment period, but there may be opportunities for Q&A and potentially
> providing our own input to the Board.
>
>
>
> 1. *Community Webinar on ODA.* After the ODA is released the week of
> the 12th, ICANN is planning on conducting a webinar for the community
> to discuss the assessment. It will be open to anyone interested in the
> program.
>
>
>
> 1. *Final (?) Question Set.* The ICANN SubPro ODP Team has posted an
> additional question that they would like us to respond to regarding the
> role of Implementation Guidance where a Recommendation incorporates by
> reference such Implementation guidance. They have confirmed that the ODA
> release is not dependent on the timing of our response to Question Set 6
> provided that their view in that question is consistent with ours (which I
> believe is). I have copied the question and am working on a proposed
> response in the following Google Document.
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18C6Vulnv6V0Akyq3IeehWuSGg1TAHCYJEBGXHrAVRx8/edit?usp=sharing
> [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fdocs.google.com*2Fdocument*2Fd*2F18C6Vulnv6V0Akyq3IeehWuSGg1TAHCYJEBGXHrAVRx8*2Fedit*3Fusp*3Dsharing&data=05*7C01*7Csebastien*40registry.godaddy*7Ce21657625e724106c3ec08dac3627c19*7Cd5f1622b14a345a6b069003f8dc4851f*7C0*7C0*7C638037126406400846*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&sdata=ME31m*2F*2BmMuhpNH8*2FqNV4*2F7i0mRSBXMF4RmR7e5JuYtg*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!PtGJab4!4Stw-jXVq_QBNICX4R3oorIe6ltW0qCjwYnOEUAXWq1KH-ALnx8A0w3FamY8_gnrkmLsLYGuXIiAMtwvjP7TAWToioD8$>
>
>
>
> 1. *Council SPS Planning.* We discussed other activities that will
> need to occur after the ODA is delivered to the Board including the
> commencement of two (2) IRPs once the ICANN Board approves the
> recommendations. The Final Report Recommendations include one IRT for
> Applicant Support and a second IRT for everything else. We believe it is a
> good idea to discuss this at the Council SPS in December which involves a
> discussion of the work in the coming year for the Council.
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions or you would like me to go
> over any of this as AOB during the Council meeting on the 17th.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>
> GNSO Liaison to SubPro
>
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>
> Founder & CEO
>
> JJN Solutions, LLC
>
> p: +1.202.549.5079
>
> E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com
>
> http://jjnsolutions.com [nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Fjjnsolutions.com*2F&data=05*7C01*7Csebastien*40registry.godaddy*7Ce21657625e724106c3ec08dac3627c19*7Cd5f1622b14a345a6b069003f8dc4851f*7C0*7C0*7C638037126406400846*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&sdata=S8phyLFjfG*2BoYoJV*2Fn3y5C2zXKR27fomIIwL5IRyj6I*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!PtGJab4!4Stw-jXVq_QBNICX4R3oorIe6ltW0qCjwYnOEUAXWq1KH-ALnx8A0w3FamY8_gnrkmLsLYGuXIiAMtwvjP7TAXMH3Fba$>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael Karakash <michael.karakash at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 10, 2022 2:53 PM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>; SubPro ODP Mailman List <
> subpro-odp at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Policy Question Set #6
>
>
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
>
>
> It was great connecting on today’s call to discuss the latest ODP-related
> developments. As noted, we recently drafted a new Policy Question Set (#6)
> focused on the topic of Implementation Guidance that I am attaching to this
> email.
>
>
>
> Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have questions or need any
> clarification.
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20221201/3415ac82/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20221201/3415ac82/image008-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2031 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20221201/3415ac82/image009-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 225 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20221201/3415ac82/image010-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2032 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20221201/3415ac82/image011-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image012.png
Type: image/png
Size: 67521 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20221201/3415ac82/image012-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image013.png
Type: image/png
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20221201/3415ac82/image013-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image014.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2033 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20221201/3415ac82/image014-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image015.png
Type: image/png
Size: 44608 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20221201/3415ac82/image015-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image016.png
Type: image/png
Size: 67522 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20221201/3415ac82/image016-0001.png>
More information about the council
mailing list