[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Dave Kissoondoyal
dave at igf-mu.org
Fri Dec 1 10:24:21 UTC 2017
+1 Martin
Best regards
Dave
On 01/12/2017 14:09, Martin Sutton wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Observing the email exchanges it seems we are diving into some of the
> debates that will be resurfaced during the WT5 process. It would be
> helpful if we could focus back on the primary action of formulating
> the ToR scope before we begin to get into the deeper discussions,
> which we can focus on later.
>
> I applaud the enthusiasm of participants, please don’t let that wain.
> Let’s make sure that enthusiasm and passion is channeled in a positive
> and respectful way as we move forward with our work, encouraging broad
> participation and an appreciation of the different views brought to
> the group.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Martin
>
> *Martin Sutton*
> Co-Leader, WT5
>
>> On 1 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Sir
>> Thanks
>> But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the
>> country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief
>> ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet’s, legend dates, names of its
>> cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used.
>> Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed.
>> Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so
>> In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively
>> few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to
>> respond to those values.
>> What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined
>> them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior
>> collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes
>> aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of
>> repression ( dot talk )
>> Approach.
>> That is not admitted.
>> We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority “ /“
>> minority “ does not apply because the governments that are the
>> stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others
>> I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned.
>> Regards
>> Have a nice time
>> Kavouss
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam at rnaip.com
>> <mailto:aslam at rnaip.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Kavouss
>>>
>>> I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I
>>> also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot
>>> extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans
>>> national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem -
>>> there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a
>>> sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in
>>> personam and rem.
>>>
>>> That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders
>>> and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally.
>>>
>>> *Kind Regards*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate*
>>> *US Business Development*
>>> *Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857>*
>>>
>>> *
>>> <image001.png>
>>> *
>>> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys *
>>> *rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/>*
>>> *
>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh
>>>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Aslam
>>>> Thank for the paper
>>>> However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not
>>>> more than that.
>>>> There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the
>>>> views of their authors and nothing more
>>>> Kavouss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig
>>>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all
>>>>
>>>> As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can
>>>> cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at
>>>> all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those
>>>> names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so.
>>>>
>>>> If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims
>>>> that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a
>>>> very short and fruitless conversation.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Paul Rosenzweig
>>>>
>>>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%28202%29%20329-9650>
>>>>
>>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:%28202%29%20738-1739>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>]
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM
>>>> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
>>>> *Cc:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>; Aslam Mohamed
>>>> <aslam at rnaip.com <mailto:aslam at rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld
>>>> Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms
>>>> of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names
>>>> to include other concepts as well
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in
>>>> the USA
>>>>
>>>> You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to
>>>> have « so called « international law
>>>>
>>>> Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law
>>>> could also be used as a proper reference
>>>>
>>>> You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis
>>>> Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most
>>>> ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran
>>>>
>>>> No person is authorised to use the name in any level without
>>>> the co sent of Iran
>>>>
>>>> Whose who have recognised history understand that
>>>>
>>>> Kavouss
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig
>>>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law
>>>> that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to
>>>> place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such
>>>> expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Paul Rosenzweig
>>>>
>>>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%28202%29%20329-9650>
>>>>
>>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:%28202%29%20738-1739>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM
>>>> *To:* Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
>>>> *Cc:* Aslam Mohamed <aslam at rnaip.com
>>>> <mailto:aslam at rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5
>>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>; Paul Rosenzweig
>>>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5
>>>> Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of
>>>> geo-names to include other concepts as well
>>>>
>>>> Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the
>>>> “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy
>>>> issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it
>>>> really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the
>>>> primacy of governments”).
>>>>
>>>> I agree that we all need to express our views freely.
>>>> However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this
>>>> thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a
>>>> chilling effect on the free expression of views.
>>>> Furthermore, the free expression of differing views
>>>> includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A
>>>> request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain
>>>> from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of
>>>> the members of this group support each other’s views that
>>>> becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In
>>>> the meantime those views need to be dealt with in
>>>> substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
>>>>
>>>> There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the
>>>> issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of
>>>> those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine
>>>> how to balance the contradictions between various
>>>> legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially
>>>> when stacked against the rule of law.
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh
>>>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear All
>>>>
>>>> There is no primacy issue here.
>>>>
>>>> It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of
>>>> their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy
>>>> places legends which must be respected
>>>>
>>>> There should be a respect to all these and no
>>>> commercial interests shall compromise them
>>>>
>>>> If there is supremacy on the table it does not come
>>>> from governments but it from others that which to
>>>> forced governments to give up their national and
>>>> historical heritage
>>>>
>>>> You can support each other’s as many time as you wish
>>>> but that does not deprive any governments from its
>>>> legitimate rights
>>>>
>>>> We need to express our views freely without being
>>>> criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
>>>>
>>>> Tks
>>>>
>>>> Kavouss
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig
>>>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The
>>>> repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in
>>>> the development of rules and policies is
>>>> antithetical to the very concept of the
>>>> multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly
>>>> necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is
>>>> asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian
>>>> models of behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Paul Rosenzweig
>>>>
>>>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%28202%29%20329-9650>
>>>>
>>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:%28202%29%20738-1739>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>>> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>] *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM
>>>> *To:* Aslam Mohamed <aslam at rnaip.com
>>>> <mailto:aslam at rnaip.com>>
>>>> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5
>>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on
>>>> the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion
>>>> of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts
>>>> as well
>>>>
>>>> Robin;
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments,
>>>> with which I wholeheartedly agree.
>>>>
>>>> It is important for all participants to acknowledge
>>>> that the views of each participant carry equal
>>>> weight and each participant participates on an
>>>> equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s
>>>> comments as “personal views” seems intended to be
>>>> dismissive. All views here are equally “personal”
>>>> as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace
>>>> version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are
>>>> equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be
>>>> cautious about claiming to speak for other
>>>> stakeholders without express authorization to do
>>>> so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the
>>>> importance of one’s own views by claiming they are
>>>> the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine
>>>> dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts
>>>> to minimize the views of others.
>>>>
>>>> We are each here to represent the views and
>>>> concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder
>>>> communities who do not and cannot participate
>>>> directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is
>>>> fundamentally important to the success of the
>>>> multistakeholder process.
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed
>>>> <aslam at rnaip.com <mailto:aslam at rnaip.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Kavouss
>>>>
>>>> I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy
>>>> for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in
>>>> your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below.
>>>> However I would like to meet you sometime or
>>>> offline and till then emphasize that in a multi
>>>> stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to
>>>> modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy
>>>> in the decision making process. Hence I would
>>>> suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a
>>>> spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the
>>>> Board and that the GAC would accept this
>>>> position as and when it arises.
>>>>
>>>> *Kind Regards*
>>>>
>>>> *Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate*
>>>>
>>>> *US Business Development*
>>>>
>>>> *Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857>*
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> <image001.png>*
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys *
>>>>
>>>> *rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> *
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss
>>>> Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Robin Gross via
>>>> <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en>
>>>> icann.org <http://icann.org/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> within the lines
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All, I wish to comment on comments
>>>> made by Robin
>>>>
>>>> to gnso-newgtld-w.
>>>>
>>>> I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5
>>>> call, so thought I’d send my comments
>>>> directly to the list today about the
>>>> proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
>>>>
>>>> /Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to
>>>> include an “approval" model as something
>>>> this group will make recommendations on,
>>>> that presumptively moves away from the
>>>> model that the GNSO and Board created in
>>>> the last round, which intentionally and
>>>> explicitly did not require a
>>>> permission-based model for names. It is
>>>> simply inappropriate for this fundamental
>>>> policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms
>>>> of Reference before we begin our work. We
>>>> would be ill-advised to “put the cart
>>>> before the horse”, but this bracketed
>>>> language does exactly that./
>>>>
>>>> Reply
>>>>
>>>> This is your views,
>>>>
>>>> Views of many GAC MEMBER//is entirely /in
>>>> line with draft /The course of action
>>>> mentioned by the Board is before 2016
>>>> there were two procedure either seeking
>>>> agreement or apply the mitigation. Several
>>>> GAC//members opposed to the second option
>>>> /.There are/ /several GAC ADVICE IN THIS
>>>> REGARD/
>>>>
>>>> / ./
>>>>
>>>> /Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a
>>>> cultural significance" and "names with
>>>> economic significance" are outside the
>>>> scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding
>>>> geo-names, so adding-on two additional
>>>> types of names into the ToR is an
>>>> inappropriate expansion of the scope of
>>>> this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on
>>>> defining what “geo-names” are, rather than
>>>> including other concepts into the ToR --
>>>> that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to
>>>> work on geo-names, the chartering
>>>> organizations agreed to participate under
>>>> the understanding that it would be limited
>>>> to geo-names, so we need to stick to our
>>>> mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT/
>>>>
>>>> Reply
>>>>
>>>> Again this is your personal views as many
>>>> GAC members associate crucial importance to
>>>> these two criteria
>>>>
>>>> While I support giving significant
>>>> consideration to risks in our analysis,
>>>> let's flesh this concept out more and also
>>>> include benefits in the analysis, rather
>>>> than being singularly focused on risks. We
>>>> are in danger of having a wholly “negative”
>>>> analysis that won’t consider “positives” as
>>>> well. We may wish to recognize that some
>>>> risks are worth taking and consider some
>>>> element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in
>>>> order to be more complete in our own
>>>> evaluation. Our analysis should recognize
>>>> that some issues create risks to one part
>>>> of ICANN community while simultaneously
>>>> creating benefits to other parts of the
>>>> ICANN community — we need to consider how
>>>> we will handle such mixed outcomes and
>>>> viewpoints in our analysis. So I think
>>>> this can be a highly useful approach, but
>>>> needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and
>>>> nuanced a bit further in light of the
>>>> complexities.
>>>> /Reply/
>>>>
>>>> /While I disagree to start with risk based
>>>> approach at the begining of the process , I
>>>> disagree with you catégorisions it as negative/
>>>>
>>>> /Regards/
>>>>
>>>> Kavouss
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin
>>>> Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org
>>>> <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for sending through your
>>>> comments. We will combine your
>>>> comments on the ToR with those provided
>>>> on the call and subsequent submissions
>>>> from WT5 members, so we can review on
>>>> next week’s call.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the risk approach, I
>>>> over-simplified the slides in order to
>>>> focus attention on drawing out the
>>>> risks as a primary goal before leading
>>>> us into assessing the risks. At that
>>>> stage we must look at whether the risks
>>>> themselves warrant any specific
>>>> controls (beyond the monitoring and
>>>> enforcement mechanisms for a live
>>>> registry) and how these could impact
>>>> any positive elements of enabling new
>>>> gTLDs relating to geographic terms.
>>>> This is an important aspect of the
>>>> process and needs to balance the risks
>>>> we are concerned about with the level
>>>> of controls applied. Back to my
>>>> physics days, every action has an equal
>>>> and opposite reaction - so as we move
>>>> the dial of controls, we do need to
>>>> appreciate the impact of such changes
>>>> with the aim of achieving an acceptable
>>>> balance. I should have made that
>>>> clearer and I note that some of the
>>>> comments in the chat I have
>>>> subsequently read picked up on this
>>>> point as well.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> *Martin Sutton*
>>>>
>>>> Executive Director
>>>>
>>>> Brand Registry Group
>>>>
>>>> martin at brandregistrygroup.org
>>>> <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
>>>>
>>>> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin
>>>> Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I didn’t have audio on last night’s
>>>> WT5 call, so thought I’d send my
>>>> comments directly to the list today
>>>> about the proposed Terms of
>>>> Reference revealed yesterday.
>>>>
>>>> Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate
>>>> to include an “approval" model as
>>>> something this group will make
>>>> recommendations on, that
>>>> presumptively moves away from the
>>>> model that the GNSO and Board
>>>> created in the last round, which
>>>> intentionally and explicitly did
>>>> not require a permission-based
>>>> model for names. It is simply
>>>> inappropriate for this fundamental
>>>> policy change to be slipped-in to
>>>> the Terms of Reference before we
>>>> begin our work. We would be
>>>> ill-advised to “put the cart before
>>>> the horse”, but this bracketed
>>>> language does exactly that.
>>>>
>>>> Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with
>>>> a cultural significance" and "names
>>>> with economic significance" are
>>>> outside the scope of this PDP. This
>>>> is a PDP regarding geo-names, so
>>>> adding-on two additional types of
>>>> names into the ToR is an
>>>> inappropriate expansion of the
>>>> scope of this group’s mandate.
>>>> Let’s focus on defining what
>>>> “geo-names” are, rather than
>>>> including other concepts into the
>>>> ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP
>>>> was set-up to work on geo-names,
>>>> the chartering organizations agreed
>>>> to participate under the
>>>> understanding that it would be
>>>> limited to geo-names, so we need to
>>>> stick to our mandate and our
>>>> agreement in setting up the WT.
>>>>
>>>> While I support giving significant
>>>> consideration to risks in our
>>>> analysis, let's flesh this concept
>>>> out more and also include benefits
>>>> in the analysis, rather than being
>>>> singularly focused on risks. We
>>>> are in danger of having a wholly
>>>> “negative” analysis that won’t
>>>> consider “positives” as well. We
>>>> may wish to recognize that some
>>>> risks are worth taking and consider
>>>> some element of a risk-to-benefit
>>>> analysis in order to be more
>>>> complete in our own evaluation. Our
>>>> analysis should recognize that some
>>>> issues create risks to one part of
>>>> ICANN community while
>>>> simultaneously creating benefits to
>>>> other parts of the ICANN community
>>>> — we need to consider how we will
>>>> handle such mixed outcomes and
>>>> viewpoints in our analysis. So I
>>>> think this can be a highly useful
>>>> approach, but needs to be fleshed
>>>> out, balanced, and nuanced a bit
>>>> further in light of the complexities.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email
>>>> and attachments are confidential and may be
>>>> subject to legal privilege. Copying or
>>>> communicating any part of it to others is
>>>> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not
>>>> the intended recipient you must not use, copy,
>>>> distribute or rely on this email and should
>>>> please return it immediately or notify us by
>>>> telephone. While we take every reasonable
>>>> precaution to screen out computer viruses from
>>>> emails, attachments to this email may contain
>>>> such viruses. We cannot accept liability for
>>>> loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The
>>>> integrity of email across the Internet cannot
>>>> be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability
>>>> for any claims arising as a result of the use
>>>> of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are
>>> confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or
>>> communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be
>>> unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use,
>>> copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it
>>> immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every
>>> reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails,
>>> attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept
>>> liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The
>>> integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA
>>> will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the
>>> use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171201/281a1ead/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list