[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [SPAM] Re: [registration-issues-wg] ALAC Statement regarding EPDP

Tue Aug 7 17:08:45 UTC 2018

Hi Marita,

I think you may be missing the point when you state that "keeping the private info of registrants out of the hands of bad actors protects both parties". The examples that exist in abundance come from registrants who ARE themselves the bad actors, that hide behind either privacy regulations or inaccurate contact information to avoid being held to account for their harm.   

Just as the right to freedom of speech is not absolute -- even in America -- neither is the right to privacy a way to hide accountability for causing demonstrable harm. Augmenting privacy with tiered access is fine so long as it is accessible to victims and effective in execution; that is exactly the balance of which I speak. This won't be easy -- being physically threatened demands a different response to merely being insulted -- but it is vital. Without such checks and balances, absolute privacy is a sure source of far more harm than good. For every whistleblower protected, a dozen others will be scammed out of their life savings, and thousands more will live in fear for their lives because of death threats from those with unchecked anonymity. This is not theory, it is happening. 

In summary, it is both naive and against the global public interest to advocate for privacy without advocating just as strenuously for appropriate protections against bad actors who seek to exploit that privacy to cause harm. At-Large seeks both.

- Evan

PS: I absolutely reject the assertion that it is fear-mongering to simply want to prevent abuse of privacy by some registrants that is both clearly evidenced and ongoing.

On Aug 7, 2018, 11:55, at 11:55, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>Hello Evan and Allan. I agree with a number of those here how have 
>suggested that the interests of registrants and end-users are not that 
>different. Keeping the private info of registrants out of the hands of 
>bad actors protects both parties. If crimes are committed, having
>tiered 
>access to the info would release that info to validated authorities. As
>
>a registrant, I don't want my private information out there if it isn't
>
>necessary. And I don't see how shielding my private info on WhoIS will 
>endanger my neighbour once tiered access is agreed upon. This is no 
>different from the way the law usually works -- we don't all have to 
>live in glass houses in order to be safe. We need well thought out 
>procedures that protect all of us.
>
>It's just my opinion. I know others have good arguments. But I don't
>buy 
>the scary scenarios being presented by some groups hoping to scuttle 
>this whole thing. If the Europeans don't think the world will come to
>an 
>end once GDPR is enforced, why is the boogey man being unleashed in 
>North America?
>
>http://www.insidesources.com/fake-news-fake-pharmacies-whats-next/
>
>Marita
>
>
>On 8/7/2018 5:09 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> Marita, you cannot take one phrase out of context. If you go back in 
>> the thread (which was not fully copied here) I believe that a major 
>> concern of Holly and Bastiaan was that my statement sounded like it 
>> was trying to get around GDPR, but in fact compliance with GDPR is
>(to 
>> use a Startrek expression) "the prime directive".
>>
>> It is not a simple matter of security vs privacy. If, for instance,
>we 
>> were talking about USER security vs USER privacy, we would have a
>real 
>> challenge in deciding which was more important and I am pretty sure
>we 
>> would not even try in the general case.
>>
>> But that is not what we are taking about here. We are talking about 
>> gTLD REGISTRANT privacy vs USER security. And the ALAC's position has
>
>> previously been that although we care about registrants (and their 
>> privacy and their domains etc) and have put very significant
>resources 
>> into supporting gTLD registrants, the shear number of users makes 
>> their security and ability to use the Internet with relative safety 
>> and trust takes precedence over the privacy of the relative handful
>of 
>> gTLD registrants. That is why ICANN has (and continues to) support
>the 
>> existing WHOIS system to the extent possible.
>>
>> That is the entire gist of the Temporary Spec. - /"Consistent with 
>> ICANN’s stated objective to comply with the GDPR, while maintaining 
>> the existing WHOIS system to the greatest extent possible, the 
>> Temporary Specification maintains....."
>>
>> /And I note with some amusement that some filter along the way has 
>> flagged this entire thread as SPAM.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> At 06/08/2018 12:08 PM, Marita Moll wrote:
>>> I am in agreement with Tijani, Holly, Bastian and Michele. Perhaps
>it 
>>> is unintentional, but the language does send the message that we are
>
>>> looking more carefully at security than privacy. I am also not 
>>> convinced that end-users would want us to do that.
>>>
>>> Marita
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/3/2018 10:30 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>>>> Very interesting discussion. This issue has been discussed several 
>>>> times and the positions didnâ€™t change.
>>>> What bothers me is the presentation of the registrants interest asÂ
>
>>>> oppositeÂ to the remaining users ones. they are not since the 
>>>> registrants are also subject to the domain abuse.
>>>> You are speaking about 4 billion users; these include all: 
>>>> contracted parties, business, registrants, governments, etc. We are
>
>>>> about defending the interest of all of them as individual end
>users, 
>>>> not as registry, registrar, businessman, minister, etc….
>>> > You included theÂ cybersecurity researchers; you know how
>Cambridge
>>>> Analytica got the American data from Facebook? They requested to 
>>>> have access to these data for research, and the result was the 
>>>> American election result impacted.
>>>>
>>>> So, I agree with Bastiaan that we need to be careful and care about
>
>>>> the protection of personal data as well as the prevention of any 
>>>> harmful use of the domain names, both together.
>>>>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>>>> Executive Director
>>>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>>>> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>>>> +216 52 385 114
>>>>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Le 3 aoÃ»t 2018 Ã  07:22, Bastiaan Goslings 
>>>>> <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net <mailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net
>
>>>>> <mailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>>> a Ã©crit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for clarifying, Alan.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a matter of principle I agree with Holly - and Michele. While I
>
>>>>> think I understand the good intent of what you are saying, your 
>>>>> earlier responses almost sound to me like a false â€˜security 
>>>>> versus privacyâ€™ dichotomy. Like, the number of people (users) 
>>>>> that care about security as opposed to those (registrants) that 
>>>>> want their privacy protected to the max is larger. Etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apologies if I am oversimplifying things here, I do not mean to.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this particular EPDP case though I am convinced that we can
>find 
>>>>> a common ground on what the ALAC members and alternates should 
>>>>> bring to the table. In terms of perceived registrantsâ€™ and 
>>>>> general Internet end-usersâ€™ interests. As you rightly state, it 
>>>>> is about being GDPR compliant. So we do not have to be 
>>>>> philosophical about a rather broad term like â€˜privacyâ€™ and 
>>>>> argue about whether it is in conflict with e.g. the interest of 
>>>>> LEAs. Indeed, â€˜Privacy is not absoluteâ€™. However, â€˜due 
>>>>> processâ€™ is a(nother) no brainer, not just because it might be a
>
>>>>> legal requirement. From what I understand the work being done on 
>>>>> defining Access and Accreditation criteria is keeping that 
>>>>> principle in mind, and within in the MS context of the EPDP we can
>
>>>>> together see to it that it does end up properly enshrined in
>policy 
>>>>> and contracts.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Bastiaan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3 Aug 2018, at 01:10, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>
>>>>>> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 
>>>>>> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Holly, the original statement ends with "All within the 
>>>>>> constraints of GDPR of course."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know how to make that clearer. We would be absolutely 
>>>>>> FOOLISH to argue for anything else, since it will not be 
>>>>>> implementable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That being said, if through the EPDP or otherwise we can help
>make 
>>>>>> the legal argument for why good access for the folks we list at 
>>>>>> the end is within GDPR, more power to us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GDPR (and eventually similar legislation/regulation elsewhere) is
>
>>>>>> the overall constraint. It is equivalent to the laws of physics 
>>>>>> which for the moment we need to consider inviolate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So my statement that "other issues trump privacy" is within that 
>>>>>> context. But just as proportionality governs what GDPR will
>decree 
>>>>>> as private in any given case, so it will govern what is not 
>>>>>> private. It all depends on making the legal argument and 
>>>>>> ultimately in needed convincing the courts. They are the
>arbiters, 
>>>>>> not me or anyone else in ICANN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the US, there is the constitutional right to freedom of
>speech, 
>>>>>> but it is not unconstrained and there are limits to what you are 
>>>>>> allowed and not allowed to say. And from time to time, the courts
>
>>>>>> and legislatures weigh in and decide where the line is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At 02/08/2018 06:42 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Alan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have concerns with your statement - and since your reply
>below, 
>>>>>>> with our statement of principles for the EPDP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I suggested in my email of 1 August, we need to be VERY clear
>
>>>>>>> that we are NOT arguing against implementation a policy that is 
>>>>>>> compliant with the GDPR. Â We are arguing for other issues that 
>>>>>>> impact on users - WITHIN the umbrella of the GDPR. Â And if we
>do 
>>>>>>> not make that very clear, then we look as if we are not prepared
>
>>>>>>> to operate within the bounds of the EPDP - which is all about 
>>>>>>> developing a new policy to replace the RDS requirements that
>will 
>>>>>>> allow registries/registrars to comply with their ICANN contracts
>
>>>>>>> and operate within the GDPR framework.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So your statement below that Â‘yes, other issues trump privacyÂ’
>
>>>>>>> - misstates that. Â What we are (or should be) arguing for is a 
>>>>>>> balance of rights of access that - to the greatest extend 
>>>>>>> possible - recognises the value of RDS to some constituencies 
>>>>>>> with legitimate purposes - WITHIN the GDPR framework. That 
>>>>>>> implicitly accepts that people/organisations that once had free 
>>>>>>> and unrestricted access to the data will no longer have that
>open 
>>>>>>> access.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And for ALAC generally, I will repeat what I said in my 1 August
>
>>>>>>> email - our statement of principles must be VERY clear that we 
>>>>>>> are NOT arguing for a new RDS policy that goes outside of the
>GDPR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Holly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3 Aug 2018, at 1:29 am, Alan Greenberg 
>>>>>>> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 
>>>>>>> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At 02/08/2018 10:37 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jonathan / Alan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the clarifications.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3 - I don't know how you can know what the interests of a user
>
>>>>>>>>> are. The assumption you seem to be making is that due process 
>>>>>>>>> and privacy should take a backseat to access to data
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Privacy is not absolute but based on various other issues. So 
>>>>>>>> yes, we are saying that in some cases, the other issues trump 
>>>>>>>> privacy. Perhaps we differ on where the dividing line is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4 - Same as 3. Plenty of ccTLDs never offered PII in their 
>>>>>>>>> public whois and there weren't any issues with security or 
>>>>>>>>> stability.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Skipping due process for "ease of access" is a very slippery 
>>>>>>>>> and dangerous slope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both here and in reply to #3, the term "due process" tends to
>be 
>>>>>>>> used in reference to legal constraints associated with law 
>>>>>>>> enforcement actions as sanctioned by laws and courts. That is 
>>>>>>>> one path to unlocking otherwise private information. A major 
>>>>>>>> aspect of the GDPR implementation will be identifying other
>less 
>>>>>>>> cumbersome and restricted processes for accessing WHOIS data by
>
>>>>>>>> a variety of partners. It will not be unconstrained nor will it
>
>>>>>>>> be as cumbersome as going to court (hopefully).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Michele
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon
>>>>>>>>> Blacknight Solutions
>>>>>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>>>>>>>>> https://www.blacknight.com/ <https://www.blacknight.com/>
>>>>>>>>> https://blacknight.blog/ <https://blacknight.blog/>
>>>>>>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 Â 9183072
>>>>>>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>>>>>>>>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
>>>>>>>>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside
>Business 
>>>>>>>>> Park,Sleaty
>>>>>>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Â Company No.:
>370845
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ã¯Â»Â¿On 02/08/2018, 15:03, "Jonathan Zuck" 
>>>>>>>>> <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Thanks Michele!
>>>>>>>>> Â Â 3. Where there appears to be a conflict of interest
>between 
>>>>>>>>> a registrant and non-registrant end user, we'll be endeavoring
>
>>>>>>>>> to represent the interests of the non-registrant end user.
>>>>>>>>> Â Â 4. Related to 3. This is simply an affirmation of the 
>>>>>>>>> interests of end users in a stable and secure internet and it 
>>>>>>>>> is those interests we'll be representing. We've included law 
>>>>>>>>> enforcement because efficiencies regarding their access may 
>>>>>>>>> come up. Just because there's always a way for them to get to 
>>>>>>>>> data doesn't mean it's the best way.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Make sense?
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> Â Â From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> On
>
>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 12:34 PM
>>>>>>>>> Â Â To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>; CPWG 
>>>>>>>>> <cpwg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg]
>ALAC 
>>>>>>>>> Statement regarding EPDP
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Alan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â 1 - good
>>>>>>>>> Â Â 2 - good
>>>>>>>>> Â Â 3 - I don't understand what that means
>>>>>>>>> Â Â 4 - Why are you combining law enforcement and private 
>>>>>>>>> parties? Law enforcement can always get access to data when 
>>>>>>>>> they follow due process.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Regards
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Michele
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â --
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Mr Michele Neylon
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Blacknight Solutions
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>>>>>>>>> Â Â https://www.blacknight.com/ <https://www.blacknight.com/>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â https://blacknight.blog/ <https://blacknight.blog/>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Intl. +353 (0) 59 Â 9183072
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
>>>>>>>>> Â Â -------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside 
>>>>>>>>> Business Park,Sleaty
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Â Company No.: 
>>>>>>>>> 370845
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â On 01/08/2018, 17:27, "registration-issues-wg on behalf of
>
>>>>>>>>> Alan Greenberg" 
>>>>>>>>> <registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on 
>>>>>>>>> behalf of alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Yesterday, the EPDP Members were asked to present
>a 
>>>>>>>>> 1-3 minute
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â summary of their groups position in regard to the 
>>>>>>>>> EPDP. The following
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â is the statement agreed to by me, Hadia, Holly and
>
>>>>>>>>> Seun.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â 1. Â Â The ALAC believes that the EPDP MUST
>succeed 
>>>>>>>>> and will be working
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â toward that end.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â 2. Â Â We have a support structure that we are 
>>>>>>>>> organizing to ensure
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â that what we present here is understood by our 
>>>>>>>>> community and has
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â their input and support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â 3. Â Â The ALAC believes that individual 
>>>>>>>>> registrants are users and we
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â have regularly worked on their behalf (as in the 
>>>>>>>>> PDP that we
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â initiated to protect registrant rights when their 
>>>>>>>>> domains expire), if
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â registrant needs differ from those of the 4
>billion 
>>>>>>>>> Internet users
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â who are not registrants, those latter needs take 
>>>>>>>>> precedence. We
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â believe that GDPR and this EPDP are such a
>situation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â 4. Â Â Although some Internet users consult WHOIS 
>>>>>>>>> and will not be able
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â to do so in some cases going forward, our main 
>>>>>>>>> concern is access for
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â those third parties who work to ensure that the 
>>>>>>>>> Internet is a safe
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â and secure place for users and that means that law
>
>>>>>>>>> enforcement,
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â cybersecurity researchers, those combatting fraud 
>>>>>>>>> in domain names,
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â and others who help protect users from phishing, 
>>>>>>>>> malware, spam,
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â fraud, DDoS attacks and such can work with minimal
>
>>>>>>>>> reduction in
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â access to WHOIS data. All within the constraints
>of 
>>>>>>>>> GDPR of course.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â CPWG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â CPWG at icann.org
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg 
>>>>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â registration-issues-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â 
>>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Â Â CPWG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Â Â CPWG at icann.org
>>>>>>>>> Â Â https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg 
>>>>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Â Â GTLD-WG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Â Â GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>>>>> Â Â https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Working Group direct URL: 
>>>>>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> CPWG mailing list
>>>>>>>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg 
>>>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> registration-issues-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> CPWG mailing list
>>>>>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>>
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg 
>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CPWG mailing list
>>>>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>>
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg 
>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CPWG mailing list
>>>> CPWG at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg 
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CPWG mailing list
>>> CPWG at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg 
>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg 
>>> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>
>>>
>>> Working Group direct URL: 
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs 
>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>CPWG mailing list
>CPWG at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>GTLD-WG mailing list
>GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>
>Working Group direct URL:
>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180807/1a7ff3ae/attachment-0001.html>