<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Thank you, Marita, for your support on the proposed position.<br><br>Dear all, <br><br>The proposed position is tweaked further for added clarity ....<br><br><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><b><span class="gmail_default">The </span>ALAC
                                      has no funding ability beyond that
                                      supplied by ICANN. It is not
                                      feasible for ALAC to raise funds
                                      to finance an appeal<span class="gmail_default">
                                        (or objection)</span> or to bear
                                      costs if <span class="gmail_default">its
                                      </span>appeal is unsuccessful <font color="#0000ff">in the event a "loser-pay" model were to apply</font>. <span class="gmail_default">
                                        Any withholding of ICANN funding
                                        for ALAC to file objections
                                        and/or appeals would be
                                        tantamount to denying ALAC the
                                        ability to fulfill its duty
                                        under the Bylaws as the</span></b><b> <span class="gmail_default">p</span>rimary organisational
                                      constituency for the voice and
                                      concerns of individual
                                      Internet users<span class="gmail_default">.</span> <span class="gmail_default"> </span></b><b><span class="gmail_default">As
                                      to q</span>uantum<span class="gmail_default">
                                      for or </span>limits<span class="gmail_default"> to such ICANN funding <font color="#0000ff">contemplated</font> in <font color="#0000ff">view</font> of
                                      ICANN budgetary constraints, ALAC
                                      believes that<font color="#0000ff"> its funding to file objections and/or any appeals</font></span> <span class="gmail_default">m</span>ust
                                    <span class="gmail_default"></span>commensurate
                                    with the number of applications<span class="gmail_default">
                                      received</span>.</b>  </span><br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Justine</span></font><br>-----</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><span></span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 15:37, Marita Moll <<a href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net" target="_blank">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
  
    
  
  <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi Justine. I am in
        total agreement with your draft position. Your excellent work on
        this difficult file is much appreciated.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Marita</font><br>
    </p>
    <div>On 10/11/2019 5:15 AM, Justine Chew
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Thank you
          very much, Carlton, for your comments.<br>
          <br>
          Might others in CPWG have input on this issue? In any case,
          the plan is to take this up again at next week's CPWG call to
          form a concrete response (if any) <br>
          <br>
          (Apologies for cross-posting)</div>
        <div>
          <div dir="ltr">
            <div dir="ltr">
              <div>
                <div dir="ltr">
                  <div>
                    <div dir="ltr">
                      <div><br>
                        <font face="arial, sans-serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Thanks,<br>
                          </span></font><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Justine</span><br>
                        -----</div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
      <br>
      <div class="gmail_quote">
        <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 22:35,
          Carlton Samuels <<a href="mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com" target="_blank">carlton.samuels@gmail.com</a>>
          wrote:<br>
        </div>
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
          <div dir="ltr">
            <div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">Thanks
              Justine. Another yeoman's task accomplished with aplomb! </div>
            <div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br>
            </div>
            <div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">In
              my view the right to file objections is established and
              the right to file appeals in those cases simply affirms
              the course of natural justice and thusly, should too be
              established.  In similar vein, a right to file an appeal
              on an evaluation decision pertaining community-type
              applications for any ASP booted in the coming round would
              be in the At-Large's interest.</div>
            <div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br>
            </div>
            <div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">That
              the caviling will coalesce around money is inevitable. I
              certainly think that if these were to be privileged via
              the SubPro WG recommendations, then the WG ought to follow
              the lines of the CCT RT Recommendation #35 and referenced
              broadly on Byelaw-mandated responsibilities rather than
              specifying AC's. </div>
            <div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br>
            </div>
            <div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">-Carlton </div>
            <div>
              <div dir="ltr">
                <div dir="ltr">
                  <div>
                    <div dir="ltr">
                      <div><br>
                        ==============================<br>
                        <i><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif">Carlton
                            A Samuels</font></i><br>
                        <font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif"><i>Mobile:
                            876-818-1799<br>
                            <font color="#33CC00">Strategy, Process,
                              Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</font></i></font><br>
                        =============================</div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
            <br>
          </div>
          <br>
          <div class="gmail_quote">
            <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at
              6:38 AM Justine Chew <<a href="mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com" target="_blank">justine.chew@gmail.com</a>>
              wrote:<br>
            </div>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
              <div dir="ltr">
                <div dir="ltr">
                  <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Just
                    to provide further context,<br>
                    <br>
                    When we speak of "Accountability Mechanism" in
                    SubPro, we are referring to appeals mechanism
                    essentially, and the idea of recommending the
                    establishment of a new appeals mechanism/layer,
                    which would apply strictly to any upcoming New gTLD
                    Program round. Not to be confused with the existing
                    Accountability Mechanism under the ICANN Bylaws, yet
                    considering whether mechanisms like Request for
                    Reconsideration and Independent Review Panels would
                    be applicable to decisions arising under the Program
                    and under what circumstances those would or would
                    not be applicable.<br>
                    <br>
                    I would prefer to keep the question of whether a new
                    appeals mechanism is desirable or not independent to
                    the question of ALAC's right to file Objections and
                    Appeals. The Objections mechanism is still going to
                    be outsourced to third-party Dispute Resolution
                    Service Providers (DRSP) for the new round because
                    of reliance on their expertise, while the right to
                    appeal will be likely involve such DRSP anyway. <br>
                    <br>
                    <b>Now, addressing strictly what applies to
                      ALAC/At-Large in respect of <u>Objections</u></b>,<br>
                    <br>
                    1. In the 2012 round, there effectively wasn't any <u>substantive</u>
                    appeal mechanism available to ALAC (or any objector
                    or applicant, for that matter) to appeal against an
                    unfavourable decision by a third-party Objection
                    DRSP.  Under the 2012 AGB, ALAC was able to file
                    Limited Public Interest Objections or Community
                    Objections with funding provided by ICANN, and as
                    pointed out by Alan, Olivier and Cheryl at the CPWG
                    call of 9 Oct, ALAC filed 3 objections with respect
                    to the .health string.<br>
                    <br>
                    2. In the SubPro Initial Report of 3 July 2018, a
                    question was posed to the community.<br>
                    <br>
                  </div>
                </div>
                <blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
                  <div dir="ltr">
                    <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i>"</i><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">Q.
                        2.8.1.e.10  </span><i>ICANN agreed to fund any
                        objections filed by the ALAC in the 2012 round.
                        Should this continue to be the case moving
                        forward? Please explain. If this does continue,
                        should any limits be placed on such funding, and
                        if so what limits? Should ICANN continue to fund
                        the ALAC or any party to file objections on
                        behalf of others?"</i></div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <div dir="ltr">
                  <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
                    In response, vide its Statement of 3 October 2018
                    (see: <a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=88573813" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=88573813</a>),
                    ALAC said,<br>
                    <br>
                  </div>
                </div>
                <blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
                  <div>
                    <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i>"<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">Yes,
                          the ALAC believes strongly that ICANN should
                          continue to fund all objections filed by us in
                          the future rounds. As ICANN’s primary
                          organisational constituency for the voice and
                          concerns of the individual Internet user, the
                          ALAC bears a responsibility as an established
                          institution to pursue Limited Public Interest
                          and/or Community objections against
                          applications for New gTLDs which it believes
                          does not benefit individual Internet end users
                          as a whole.</span></i></div>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><br>
                      </i></div>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">The
                        existing limits or conditions placed on funding
                        for ALAC objection filing and Dispute Resolution
                        Procedure (DRP) costs already form an arduous
                        “stress test” to not only establish the validity
                        of a contemplated Community objection, but also
                        support for it within At-Large.</i></div>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i><br>
                      </i></div>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i>However,
                        for ALAC objections to have proper effect as
                        intended in the AGB, the ALAC proposes that
                        guidance for DRSP panellists be substantial in
                        respect of adopting definitions of terms – such
                        as “community” and “public interest” – as well
                        as questions on objector standing, in an effort
                        to limit the ‘damage’ resulting from panellists’
                        unfamiliarity with the ICANN Community
                        structure, divergent panellists’ views, even
                        values, on the same, and which conflict with the
                        goals stated in ICANN’s Bylaws or GNSO consensus
                        policy."</i></div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <div dir="ltr">
                  <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
                    3. In the SubPro PDP WG deliberations of all public
                    comments received to the said Initial Report,
                    questions again arose as to whether <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i><b>ICANN</b></i></span><i><b> </b></i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i>(sic)</i> </span>should
                    continue to fund objections to be filed by ALAC in
                    subsequent procedure, and if yes, to what extent.
                    This is because there were public comments which
                    basically questioned why ALAC should have "special
                    rights" (standing versus funding) to file
                    objections. <br>
                    <br>
                    In my opinion, <b>the question of ALAC's standing
                      should not be considered in SubPro deliberations</b>
                    -- that is a question for ALAC itself (considered
                    through ALAC's INTERNAL process for determining
                    whether an objection should be filed) and a question
                    for the Objection DRSP (it has been the ground of
                    dismissal for ALAC's prior objections ie "ALAC
                    having no standing to object").<br>
                    <br>
                    <b><u>On the question of funding, we now have a
                        choice whether to reinforce the ALAC statement
                        (as presented above) or consider recanting ie
                        giving up the fight to keep the right to file
                        objections in new rounds</u></b>.     </div>
                  <div>
                    <div dir="ltr">
                      <div dir="ltr">
                        <div>
                          <div dir="ltr">
                            <div>
                              <div dir="ltr">
                                <div><u><br>
                                  </u>
                                  <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><b>And <span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">addressing strictly what
                                        applies to ALAC/At-Large in
                                        respect of </span><span style="text-decoration-line:underline;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">Appeals</span></b><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">,<br>
                                       </span></div>
                                  <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">4.
                                    In the SubPro PDP WG deliberations a
                                    consequent question was raised in
                                    mooting the recommendation for a new
                                    appeals mechanism -- if ICANN were
                                    to fund objections to be filed by
                                    ALAC in the new round, should ICANN
                                    also fund the costs of appeals to be
                                    filed by ALAC against any decision
                                    rendered that was unfavourable to
                                    ALAC (on a loser-pay model)?<br>
                                    <br>
                                    5. This is where the discussion in
                                    the CPWG call of 9 Oct has
                                    progressed to.  I noted that there
                                    is support for the retention of
                                    right to file objections which ought
                                    be accompanied by the right to file
                                    appeals. Therefore, a draft position
                                    was presented and which I have now
                                    refined for feedback / further
                                    refinement ...<br>
                                    <br>
                                  </div>
                                  <b><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">The </span></span><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">ALAC
                                      has no funding ability beyond that
                                      supplied by ICANN. It is not
                                      feasible for ALAC to raise funds
                                      to finance an appeal<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">
                                        (or objection)</span> or to bear
                                      costs if <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">its
                                      </span>appeal is unsuccessful. <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">
                                        Any withholding of ICANN funding
                                        for ALAC to file objections
                                        and/or appeals would be
                                        tantamount to denying ALAC the
                                        ability to fulfill its duty
                                        under the Bylaws as the</span></span></b><b><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"> </span><span class="gmail_default" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">p</span><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">rimary organisational
                                      constituency for the voice and
                                      concerns of the individual
                                      Internet user<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">.</span> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"> </span></span></b><b style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">As
                                      to q</span>uantum<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">
                                      for or </span>limits<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">
                                      to such ICANN funding in light of
                                      ICANN budgetary constraints, ALAC
                                      believes that it</span> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">m</span>ust
                                    <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"></span>commensurate
                                    with number of applications<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">
                                      received</span>.</b><br>
                                  <br>
                                  <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">6.
                                    An aside note -- the notion of
                                    appeals would also be available to
                                    appeal against <u>evaluation</u>
                                    decisions, such as the ones made by
                                    panels for the Applicant Support
                                    Program and CPE. </div>
                                  <br>
                                  <font face="arial, sans-serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Apologies
                                      for the long email and thank you
                                      for your attention.<br>
                                    </span><br>
                                    Justine </font><br>
                                  -----</div>
                              </div>
                            </div>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                  <br>
                </div>
                <br>
                <div class="gmail_quote">
                  <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 10 Oct 2019
                    at 00:11, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>>
                    wrote:<br>
                  </div>
                  <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                    <div>
                      I would like to raise the issue of the ALAC
                      ability to object to applications as well as its
                      ability to appeal such judgements.<br>
                      <br>
                      In the last round, the ALAC filed three objections
                      with one of them later being withdrawn. All were
                      to
                      <u>.health</u>.<br>
                      <br>
                      <u>I believe that the ALAC needs to formally
                        determine if it wants such objection rights in
                        future gTLD rounds</u>. If we do want that
                      right, I believe that we also need the right to
                      appeal and in both cases, if we are not funded by
                      ICANN, then the right is meaningless.<br>
                      <br>
                      I do not have copies of the objections we filed,
                      but for the two cases where there were judgements
                      (against us), they can be found at:<br>
                      <br>
                      <a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-1-1489-82287-en.pdf" target="_blank">https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-1-1489-82287-en.pdf</a>
                      ;<br>
                      <a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-1-1684-6394-en.pdf" target="_blank">https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-1-1684-6394-en.pdf</a>
                      .<br>
                      <br>
                      I believe that the ALAC decsiion should be based
                      on the past history and on whether we truly
                      believe that we will allocate appropriate
                      resources to such a future action.<br>
                      <br>
                      In aid of that, I suggest the CPWG, and more
                      importantly the ALAC, be quickly briefed by
                      Olivier (who as ALAC Chair was the point person in
                      the earlier objections) on the history and efforts
                      associated with the three .health objections.<br>
                      <br>
                      I may be on today's call but if so, only for part
                      of it.<br>
                      <br>
                      Alan<br>
                      <br>
                      At 06/10/2019 11:00 AM, Justine Chew wrote:<br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">Dear all, <br>
                        <br>
                        Reference is made to the <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/6a_jBg" target="_blank"><b>SubPro
                            Updates workspace</b></a>.    
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        The Subsequent Procedures PDP WG has started
                        deliberating on public comments received on the
                        topic of Accountability Mechanism on 1 Oct 2019.
                        Deliberations will continue on its next call on
                        7 Oct at 15:00 UTC. 
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        Here is an <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/01.%20SubPro%20Accountability%20Mechanism%20%5BAppeals%5D%20as%20at%205.10.2019%20for%20CPWG.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1570370108344&api=v2" target="_blank">
                          <b>update on the topic of Accountability
                            Mechanism as at 5 Oct 2019</b></a>. <br>
                        <br>
                        Please note that while "Accountability
                        Mechanism" is better associated with mechanism
                        per the Bylaws, namely Request for
                        Reconsideration, Independent Review Process and
                        ICANN Ombudsman, within the SubPro context,
                        "Accountability Mechanism" is about appeals for
                        the new gTLD Program --  looking at rights and
                        forms of appeals to decisions made during
                        evaluation, objections, either by ICANN
                        Org/Board, external evaluators, external third
                        party Dispute Resolution Service Providers
                        (DRSPs), as well as in respect of
                        post-delegation dispute resolution procedures.<br>
                        <br>
                        CCT Recommendation #35 is picked up under this
                        topic, specifically sub-recommendation (3) "<i>Introducing
                          a post dispute resolution panel review
                          mechanism</i>".<br>
                        <br>
                        As I alluded to at the CPWG call of 26 Sep under
                        the topic of Objections, there were public
                        comments which suggested that ALAC's ability to
                        file Objections in subsequent procedures be
                        explicitly limited on account of budgetary
                        constraint.<br>
                        <br>
                        Along the same lines, a question was raised
                        during the last SubPro WG call as to whether
                        AC's should be funded by ICANN to file appeals.
                        This is something which may require addressing
                        either through a position relayed to SubPro WG
                        momentarily and/or in any statement in response
                        to the call for public comments to SubPro WG's
                        final report in due course.<br>
                        <br>
                        On that note, I wish you a pleasant week ahead.<br>
                        <br>
                        <font face="arial">Justine Chew </font><br>
                        -----<br>
                        <br>
                        _______________________________________________<br>
                        CPWG mailing list<br>
                        <a href="mailto:CPWG@icann.org" target="_blank">CPWG@icann.org</a><br>
                        <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg</a><br>
                        <br>
                        _______________________________________________<br>
                        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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" target="_blank">
                          https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and
                        the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" target="_blank">
                          https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.<br>
                        _______________________________________________<br>
                        GTLD-WG mailing list<br>
                        <a href="mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
                        <a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg</a><br>
                        <br>
                        Working Group direct URL: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs</a><br>
                        _______________________________________________<br>
                        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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" target="_blank">
                          https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and
                        the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" target="_blank">
                          https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</blockquote>
                    </div>
                  </blockquote>
                </div>
                <br>
              </div>
              _______________________________________________<br>
              CPWG mailing list<br>
              <a href="mailto:CPWG@icann.org" target="_blank">CPWG@icann.org</a><br>
              <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg</a><br>
              <br>
              _______________________________________________<br>
              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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
              and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>).
              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._______________________________________________<br>
              registration-issues-wg mailing list<br>
              <a href="mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
              <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg</a><br>
              <br>
              _______________________________________________<br>
              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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
              and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>).
              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.</blockquote>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset></fieldset>
      <pre>_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
<a href="mailto:CPWG@icann.org" target="_blank">CPWG@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg</a>

_______________________________________________
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</pre>
    </blockquote>
  </div>

</blockquote></div><br></div>