Kind reminder call for policy topics Re: ME Space @ ICANN 66
Nadira Alaraj
Dear all,
Preparing for the ME Space in Montreal, the leading team Tijani Ben Jemaa, and Nadira Al-Araj would like to propose to the MEAC community the following timeline:
Date Days Action August 19 - 30 12 Call for topics September 2 Announcement of the selected Topic September 2 - 13 11 Call for volunteers for the drafting team September 16 Announcement of the drafting team composition September 16 - 30 14 Drafting of the statement (1st draft) September 30 Publishing of the 1st draft for comments Sept. 30 to October 10 10 Comment period for the 1st draft of the statement October 11 - 18 8 Drafting of the final version October 21 Final draft published
We therefore call on you to propose your preferred topic to be addressed at ICANN 66 in Montreal.
The chosen topics should be current and of high interest at ICANN.
Please provide your choice before Friday 30th August 2019 at 23:59 UTC.
Best regards------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BENJEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Telephone: +216 52 385 114
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nadira Alaraj
Hi,I don’t know if this is a topic that community members from the MEAC region might want to address in any way at ICANN66, however, I hope that it is one that at least merits follow-up at some point.Internationalized domain names were meant (in part at least) to reflect the global nature of the Internet, acknowledging that not all Internet users communicate in languages based on Latin/ASCII script. It seems to me that if the DNS is truly going to reflect this; that the end-to-end process of registering a domain name needs to be available to those who do not, or are unable to communicate effectively in English, or other languages using Latin characters. A major part of this is the ability to submit gTLD registration data in local languages/scripts during the domain name registration process.This topic is not a new one at ICANN. An Expert Working Group (EWG) on Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) had previously been formed, and published a Final Report with recommendations back in September 2015. Since this wasn’t a GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG), its recommendations did not result in new obligations on ICANN Contracted Parties.However, the views of the IRD EWG were taken in to consideration in the GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (T&T) PDP WG, largely due to an overlap in membership and close coordination between the two groups, which were running at the same time. Despite having a rather narrow scope of work, the T&T PDP WG produced recommendations, some of which were consistent with the findings of the IRD EWG. These can be found in the T&T PDP WG’s Final Report. These recommendations were subsequently adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, and are now still in the process of being implemented.Later, both of these reports were meant to provide input to the GNSO Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace Whois PDP, however, this PDP was terminated in October 2018. This PDP had a very broad scope, and a very small portion of that scope was later taken on by the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, however, the vast majority is meant to be addressed at some point in the future by another PDP, which will serve as a successor to the terminated Next-Gen RDS PDP. I presume that IRD is meant to be included in that effort, when it commences.Another presumption I have is that, since the MEAC region is one that would be affected by the use of IRD during gTLD domain name registrations; that the community members from the MEAC region might be interested in seeing this someday be dealt with. I know that the topic was captured in previous minutes of meetings of the GNSO Council, but to what extent it is still on their radar, I don’t know.Is this something that might be of interest to those subscribed to this mailing list in preparation for ICANN66? If not, perhaps at some other point in the future?Also, for reference, some correspondence between the ICANN Board and the GNSO Council on the topic:Thanks.Amr
Manal Ismail
Dear Nadira, Tijani and All ..
Apologies for my weak participation on this mailing list, due to work load .. I still follow the discussions though a bit delayed ..
Following your emails I would like to propose “Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model” as a topic for ICANN66 ME Space .. It’s not a policy topic but a topic that has to do with the existing model and current process and aligns with ICANN Strategic Plan 2021-2025 – Strategic Objective #2 on Governance, aiming at improving the effectiveness of ICANN’s multistakeholder model of governance ..
Community discussions identified an initial list of 21 issues that are preventing ICANN’s multistakeholder model from functioning more effectively and efficiently .. The 21 issues were then merged and consolidated to a final list of 11 issues, namely:
1. Prioritization of Work
2. Precision in scoping the work
3. Costs
4. Representativeness + Inclusiveness
5. Consensus
6. Terms
7. Recruitment + Demographics
8. Complexity
9. Efficient Use of Resources
10. Culture + Trust + Silos
11. Roles and Responsibilities + Holistic View of ICANN
Worth noting that, here will be a community discussion on this topic on the Thursday of the Montreal week, per the announced Block Schedule, and I believe it would be a good opportunity if the ME space compiles input on few issues of interest to our region and present it during the session (similar to the excellent intervention on Universal Acceptance in Marrakech, thanks to everyone who was involved) ..
You may find additional information on this page ..
@Baher @Fahd, should this be agreed, appreciate if you can check the exact version of the document that will be discussed in Montreal ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MEAC SWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
icann-meac-sw...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/CAJdpWNDLvz2sfJ-72F1uTJuMQHUrrm14CeySPDSVOjC5MsqGWA%40mail.gmail.com.
Nadira Alaraj
Tijani BEN JEMAA
I fully support Manel's proposal. Evolving ICANN multi-stakeholder model is so important for the future of ICANN.
Nadira Alaraj <nadir...@gmail.com> a écrit :
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi
Dear All,
I find Amr's proposal very interesting, but I also support Manal's proposal. The advancement of the ICANN multistakeholder model effectiveness is only possible through community engagement. The community created a list of issues that it believes must be addressed and a final list of issues was published in June. Keeping in mind that the model needs to evolve without compromising the bottom-up decision making process I support improving the effectiveness of the multistakeholder model being our topic for the ICANN 66 ME Space.
Kind regards
Hadia
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/20190826064323.Horde.oqRNYCqoC-fiQxy9fOvBQT7%40webmail.topnet.tn.
Chokri Ben Romdhane
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/57932b43adf94238b330227a25d6ccdf%40ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG.
Nadira Alaraj
Nadira Alaraj
I join Tijani in supporting Manal’s proposal ..
I also think the topic is important and timely ..
Best
Christine
From: Middle-East <middle-ea...@icann.org> On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 8:43 AM
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi
Dear Chokri and All,
You are correct the community identified issues have been mapped into a work plan document which was developed through conversation with the community, so this is where we are now. If you remember last April ALAC submitted a statement with regard to the evolving multistakeholder Model and the 21 issues as it relates to the interests of the end users. So, I don't believe that the ME Space statement should be only on the issues, as it is already too late for this but I think it should be on the issues as it relates to the work plan. However, I haven't seen a final version of this yet.
Best
Hadia
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/CAApDzdwrHmJbbRwiSbD5_3UMqmBoyyG%2Bhboux0qD%2BxJQMvM2Lg%40mail.gmail.com.
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi
I also support chokri's proposal. The public comments report was published July 30th and we could still have an effective input if we wish.
Best
Hadia
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/CAJdpWNDvxH%2B1z%3DRM8-mO96eXBGv_tKuaDn_1LszB%2B-QQ6wCFZw%40mail.gmail.com.
Nadira Alaraj
Nadira Alaraj
Hi again,I’d like to share a thought on the suggested topics, if I may. First, for the sake of clarification, my proposal is on Internationalized Registration Data (IRD), not Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). This concerns data submitted by registrants upon registering a gTLD (or ccTLD) domain name. I didn’t include any of the substantive policy issues or recommendations in the body of my previous email, but those are all available in the links I shared, for anyone who is interested in reviewing them. I’d also be happy to answer any questions (to the best of my ability) on the issue, so feel free to share them here (probably best on a different thread).All three proposed topics (by Manal, Chokri and myself) are clearly relevant and important, but I’d like to explain why I personally prefer IRD as a topic of at least some focus by the MEAC ICANN community. The “Evolving ICANN Multi-Stakeholder Model” is clearly one that is of great importance, and seemingly one of high priority to ICANN Org. Similarly, the “Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews” topic is one that is of very high interest to the ICANN community as a whole. They are both very deserving of the MEAC’s attention and participation.Having said that, IRD is different in a couple of respects. IRD is a topic on which there is far less interest, even among stakeholders who are regularly engaged in gTLD policy development. It might be presumptuous of me to make that statement, but at a minimum, there has been little-to-no progress on this issue in years now. On the other hand, the main beneficiaries of resolution of policy development on this topic are those communities around the world whose languages/scripts are not based on the Latin alphabet, such as those who are from the MEAC region. Allowing registrants the option to submit registration data in local languages/scripts is something I personally believe should be afforded, provided that there is a practical way to get this done. This view seems to be shared by the IRD EWG, and is reflected in their recommendations.IMO, this topic also requires a champion(s); a part of the community that will keep an eye on this, and continue to remind the broader ICANN community that it merits serious attention and follow-up. Right now is probably not the best time for the GNSO, and other SOs and ACs to start this, but it is important that it doesn’t become a topic that is completely forgotten because of other events taking place that are understandably overwhelming the community’s bandwidth and resources. It seems to me that the MEAC ICANN community is one such group that should be all over this. If we don’t or are unable to emphasize the importance of policy issues that are of regional significance to us, then we shouldn’t really expect the rest of the community to take on this role on our behalf.Still…, this topic is not as time-sensitive as other high-interest ones, like the ones Manal and Chokri proposed. It’s one that can wait, and isn’t absolutely necessary to raise at ICANN66. If this is something the rest of this group would like to take a little more time becoming familiar with, that is also fine by me. For my part, my intention was really just to bring it to the attention of subscribers to this mailing list.Thanks again.Amr
Manal Ismail
Many thanks Amr and Chokri for your proposals .. I take your points .. I believe the 3 topics are important and of interest .. So maybe some guidance on:
- where each process stands,
- what’s expected from the community in Montreal and beyond,
- ….
Would guide our discussions and help us prioritize the topics, decide what would be timely and influential if submitted in Montreal, and maybe consider the remaining 2 topics in following meetings if their timelines allow ..
I’m totally flexible and look forward to hearing what everyone thinks ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: Middle-East [mailto:middle-ea...@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 3:37 PM
To: Nadira Alaraj
Cc: MEAC-SWG; middl...@icann.org
Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] [MEAC SWG] Kind reminder call for policy topics Re: ME Space @ ICANN 66
Hi again,
I’d like to share a thought on the suggested topics, if I may. First, for the sake of clarification, my proposal is on Internationalized Registration Data (IRD), not Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). This concerns data submitted by registrants upon registering a gTLD (or ccTLD) domain name. I didn’t include any of the substantive policy issues or recommendations in the body of my previous email, but those are all available in the links I shared, for anyone who is interested in reviewing them. I’d also be happy to answer any questions (to the best of my ability) on the issue, so feel free to share them here (probably best on a different thread).
All three proposed topics (by Manal, Chokri and myself) are clearly relevant and important, but I’d like to explain why I personally prefer IRD as a topic of at least some focus by the MEAC ICANN community. The “Evolving ICANN Multi-Stakeholder Model” is clearly one that is of great importance, and seemingly one of high priority to ICANN Org. Similarly, the “Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews” topic is one that is of very high interest to the ICANN community as a whole. They are both very deserving of the MEAC’s attention and participation.
Having said that, IRD is different in a couple of respects. IRD is a topic on which there is far less interest, even among stakeholders who are regularly engaged in gTLD policy development. It might be presumptuous of me to make that statement, but at a minimum, there has been little-to-no progress on this issue in years now. On the other hand, the main beneficiaries of resolution of policy development on this topic are those communities around the world whose languages/scripts are not based on the Latin alphabet, such as those who are from the MEAC region. Allowing registrants the option to submit registration data in local languages/scripts is something I personally believe should be afforded, provided that there is a practical way to get this done. This view seems to be shared by the IRD EWG, and is reflected in their recommendations.
IMO, this topic also requires a champion(s); a part of the community that will keep an eye on this, and continue to remind the broader ICANN community that it merits serious attention and follow-up. Right now is probably not the best time for the GNSO, and other SOs and ACs to start this, but it is important that it doesn’t become a topic that is completely forgotten because of other events taking place that are understandably overwhelming the community’s bandwidth and resources. It seems to me that the MEAC ICANN community is one such group that should be all over this. If we don’t or are unable to emphasize the importance of policy issues that are of regional significance to us, then we shouldn’t really expect the rest of the community to take on this role on our behalf.
Still…, this topic is not as time-sensitive as other high-interest ones, like the ones Manal and Chokri proposed. It’s one that can wait, and isn’t absolutely necessary to raise at ICANN66. If this is something the rest of this group would like to take a little more time becoming familiar with, that is also fine by me. For my part, my intention was really just to bring it to the attention of subscribers to this mailing list.
Thanks again.
Amr
On Aug 26, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Nadira Alaraj <nadir...@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
Chokri Ben Romdhane
Hi again,I’d like to share a thought on the suggested topics, if I may. First, for the sake of clarification, my proposal is on Internationalized Registration Data (IRD), not Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). This concerns data submitted by registrants upon registering a gTLD (or ccTLD) domain name. I didn’t include any of the substantive policy issues or recommendations in the body of my previous email, but those are all available in the links I shared, for anyone who is interested in reviewing them. I’d also be happy to answer any questions (to the best of my ability) on the issue, so feel free to share them here (probably best on a different thread).All three proposed topics (by Manal, Chokri and myself) are clearly relevant and important, but I’d like to explain why I personally prefer IRD as a topic of at least some focus by the MEAC ICANN community. The “Evolving ICANN Multi-Stakeholder Model” is clearly one that is of great importance, and seemingly one of high priority to ICANN Org. Similarly, the “Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews” topic is one that is of very high interest to the ICANN community as a whole. They are both very deserving of the MEAC’s attention and participation.Having said that, IRD is different in a couple of respects. IRD is a topic on which there is far less interest, even among stakeholders who are regularly engaged in gTLD policy development. It might be presumptuous of me to make that statement, but at a minimum, there has been little-to-no progress on this issue in years now. On the other hand, the main beneficiaries of resolution of policy development on this topic are those communities around the world whose languages/scripts are not based on the Latin alphabet, such as those who are from the MEAC region. Allowing registrants the option to submit registration data in local languages/scripts is something I personally believe should be afforded, provided that there is a practical way to get this done. This view seems to be shared by the IRD EWG, and is reflected in their recommendations.IMO, this topic also requires a champion(s); a part of the community that will keep an eye on this, and continue to remind the broader ICANN community that it merits serious attention and follow-up. Right now is probably not the best time for the GNSO, and other SOs and ACs to start this, but it is important that it doesn’t become a topic that is completely forgotten because of other events taking place that are understandably overwhelming the community’s bandwidth and resources. It seems to me that the MEAC ICANN community is one such group that should be all over this. If we don’t or are unable to emphasize the importance of policy issues that are of regional significance to us, then we shouldn’t really expect the rest of the community to take on this role on our behalf.Still…, this topic is not as time-sensitive as other high-interest ones, like the ones Manal and Chokri proposed. It’s one that can wait, and isn’t absolutely necessary to raise at ICANN66. If this is something the rest of this group would like to take a little more time becoming familiar with, that is also fine by me. For my part, my intention was really just to bring it to the attention of subscribers to this mailing list.Thanks again.
Amr
On Aug 26, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Nadira Alaraj <nadir...@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Middle-East mailing list
Middl...@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/middle-east
_______________________________________________
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.
Manal Ismail
Dear All ..
Following our discussion, kindly note that ICANN org has now opened the public comment period on how to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model ..
This may provide more information and help colleagues to decide whether to comment in Montreal or at a following meeting ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/67a8691554bf4fa295ae3f595b14a4f1%40ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG.
Hadia El Miniawi
Although the other two suggested topics are good as well, Amr's proposal though very important may be lost now amidst all the other hot topics and as for choukri's proposal, though we still have the time to make an impact, but the public comment period is actually closed and we now have the opportunity to tackle an actually open one. As said above, I would suggest that we read the above document and if we find that we would like to provide feedback, then lets go ahead and make our ICANN 66 statement about the next steps to improve the effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model (The development of the work plan)
Nadira Alaraj
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Dear all,
I find the ME Space at ICANN 66 the best opportunity to give our region community opinion on this very topic. The resulting consensus statement would be our region's comment in the public comment platform. it will also be sent to the ICANN Board as usual.
So, again, Evolving ICANN Multi-Stakeholder Model is my preference. It's not that I don't agree to address the IDR which is in my opinion an excellent topic for our region, but this is the exact good time for evolving the ICANN MSM.
Tijani
Nadira Alaraj <nadir...@gmail.com> a écrit :
Dear MEAC Community members,
Fahd Batayneh
Dear All,
Just to flag a new blog posted by Brian Cute who is leading the Evolving ICANN's Mutlistakeholder Model (MSM) process >> https://go.icann.org/2UavLIk.
Thank you,
Fahd
From: <icann-m...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Tijani Ben Jemaa <tijani....@topnet.tn>
Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:55 PM
To: Nadira Alaraj <nadir...@gmail.com>
Cc: "middl...@icann.org" <middl...@icann.org>, MEAC-SWG <icann-m...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [ME ICANN] [MEAC SWG] Kind reminder call for policy topics Re: ME Space @ ICANN 66
Dear all,
I find the ME Space at ICANN 66 the best opportunity to give our region community opinion on this very topic. The resulting consensus statement would be our region's comment in the public comment platform. it will also be sent to the ICANN Board as usual.
So, again, Evolving ICANN Multi-Stakeholder Model is my preference. It's not that I don't agree to address the IDR which is in my opinion an excellent topic for our region, but this is the exact good time for evolving the ICANN MSM.
Tijani
Nadira Alaraj <nadir...@gmail.com> a écrit :
Dear MEAC Community members,
Greetings to all,
I would like to thank the valued input from our active community members.
If you noticed that as lead to the ME Space we paused our input to the vibrant discussions, in the hope of hearing from you.
I'm trust that there are more among us have their perspective that we would like to hear. It could be in the form of supporting the proposed topics, discussing the issue or suggesting new one.
Looking forward to more community input within the proposed timeline.
Best wishes
Nadira AL-Araj
I
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 03:07 Hadia El Miniawi <hadiam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks Manal
Dear All,
Now that we have the document about the "Next steps to improve the effectiveness of ICANN's multi-stakeholder model" open for public comment, I would suggest to take a look at it and see if we would like to provide a statement. You can find the PDF at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/multistakeholder-model-next-steps-20aug19-en.pdf [icann.org]
The document addresses phase two which is about developing the work plan.
The work plan will focus on four things:
1. The issues to be addressed.
2. Which entity or process will take on the task of developing and proposing a solution or approach to address the issue (e.g. Advisory Committee, Supporting Organization, Community, ICANN Board, ICANN organization)?
3. The projected time frame when the owner of that task will deliver a proposed solution or approach within fiscal years 2021-2025; and
4. The estimated resources the issue owner will need to develop and propose a solution or approach to address the issue.
According to the document what you will need to do is to review the description of each issue and the impact it is having on ICANN’s MSM. Next the document identifies and provides links to potential solutions that are being developed through other work streams in ICANN. You are asked to review the potential solution that is being developed to determine if you think the work will solve the problem. The questions which will need to be answered in the public comment are:
1. Is there an existing solution or a solution being developed in other work streams that could sufficiently address the issue? If yes, comment on how you think it will sufficiently address the issue. If there is an existing or potential solution being developed in the community that is not identified in this document, please identify that solution and explain whether it will sufficiently address the issue. If you have your own solution to an issue that you would like to suggest, please do so.
2. If there isn’t a solution that will sufficiently address this issue, who should take on the task of developing a solution (e.g. Advisory Committee, Supporting Organization, community, ICANN Board, ICANN organization)? Please be specific about which entity or which community process should take on the task.
3. How would you prioritize the issue?
Although the other two suggested topics are good as well, Amr's proposal though very important may be lost now amidst all the other hot topics and as for choukri's proposal, though we still have the time to make an impact, but the public comment period is actually closed and we now have the opportunity to tackle an actually open one. As said above, I would suggest that we read the above document and if we find that we would like to provide feedback, then lets go ahead and make our ICANN 66 statement about the next steps to improve the effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model (The development of the work plan)
Best
Hadia
Dear All ..
Following our discussion, kindly note that ICANN org has now opened the public comment period on how to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model [icann.org] ..
Amr
As for your topic: "Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews [icann.org]"
It is noted and I hope it will gain the community support.
Nadira
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 12:54 Chokri Ben Romdhane <chok...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Manal and all,
Personaly , I would like to support Manal proposal since the effectiveness of the ICANN MSM is crucial issue in which we should get involved ,
but from what I know the next stage of this work , as announced during ICANN65 by the independent team managing this job , is to assigne to every issue the corespondent constituencies or actors that will be responsible for its evolvement , I don't know if It will be useful for us to trigger a statement about this assignment?
if not I would like to propose another crucial topic: "Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews [icann.org]" .
Friendly
Chokri
Le dim. 25 août 2019 à 23:50, Manal Ismail <ma...@tra.gov.eg> a écrit :
Dear Nadira, Tijani and All ..
Apologies for my weak participation on this mailing list, due to work load .. I still follow the discussions though a bit delayed ..
Following your emails I would like to propose “Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model” as a topic for ICANN66 ME Space .. It’s not a policy topic but a topic that has to do with the existing model and current process and aligns with ICANN Strategic Plan 2021-2025 [icann.org] – Strategic Objective #2 on Governance, aiming at improving the effectiveness of ICANN’s multistakeholder model of governance ..
Community discussions identified an initial list of 21 issues [icann.org] that are preventing ICANN’s multistakeholder model from functioning more effectively and efficiently .. The 21 issues were then merged and consolidated to a final list of 11 issues [icann.org], namely:
1. Prioritization of Work
2. Precision in scoping the work
3. Costs
4. Representativeness + Inclusiveness
5. Consensus
6. Terms
7. Recruitment + Demographics
8. Complexity
9. Efficient Use of Resources
10. Culture + Trust + Silos
11. Roles and Responsibilities + Holistic View of ICANN
Worth noting that, here will be a community discussion on this topic on the Thursday of the Montreal week, per the announced Block Schedule, and I believe it would be a good opportunity if the ME space compiles input on few issues of interest to our region and present it during the session (similar to the excellent intervention on Universal Acceptance in Marrakech, thanks to everyone who was involved) ..
You may find additional information on this page [icann.org] ..
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/CAJdpWNDLvz2sfJ-72F1uTJuMQHUrrm14CeySPDSVOjC5MsqGWA%40mail.gmail.com [groups.google.com].
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MEAC SWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to icann-meac-sw...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/57932b43adf94238b330227a25d6ccdf%40ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG [groups.google.com].
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MEAC SWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to icann-meac-sw...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/CAJdpWNDvxH%2B1z%3DRM8-mO96eXBGv_tKuaDn_1LszB%2B-QQ6wCFZw%40mail.gmail.com [groups.google.com].
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MEAC SWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to icann-meac-sw...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/67a8691554bf4fa295ae3f595b14a4f1%40ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG [groups.google.com].
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MEAC SWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to icann-meac-sw...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/b662d3da6d72410696fa3875e405f84c%40ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG [groups.google.com].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BENJEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Telephone: +216 52 385 114
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MEAC SWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to icann-meac-sw...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/20190828095518.Horde.dfTkldM7Km4Nev12851IPFK%40webmail.topnet.tn [groups.google.com].
Chokri Ben Romdhane
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/20190828095518.Horde.dfTkldM7Km4Nev12851IPFK%40webmail.topnet.tn.
Nadira Alaraj
Zakir Syed
Nadira Alaraj
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/1848556625.1465005.1567491730677%40mail.yahoo.com.