[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 - how some institutions are handling this contentious issue systematically.

Fri Dec 1 11:01:41 UTC 2017

Dear All
I am not comfortable with any such list even if maintained neutrally 
This is an issue on which each country would have the right to react
I am not in favour of involving any third country at all
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Dec 2017, at 04:24, Aslam Mohamed <aslam at rnaip.com> wrote:
> 
> This link might be helpful to understand how geo Names are being grappled with in an organised and professional manner:
> 
> Information about foreign geographic feature names can be obtained from the GEOnet Names Server (GNS), developed and maintained by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). The GNS database is the official repository of foreign place-name decisions approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names. 
> 
> Trent Palmer
> US BGN Executive Secretary, Foreign Names
> National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
> 7500 GEOINT Drive Mail Stop N62
> Springfield, VA 22150-7500
> Phone/fax: (571) 557-7028 / (571) 558-3113
> E-mail:  Trent.C.Palmer at nga.mil
> 
> 
> Kind Regards 
> 
> Aslam Mohamed. Advocate 
> US Business Development 
> Ph: +1 646 243 9857
> 
> 
> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys.
> rnaip.com 
> 
> On 30 Nov 2017, at 22:09, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Following the thread, i must say that each person is right to some
>> extent. I also agree that we have to appreciate and respect diverse
>> viewpoint as has been rightly stated. That said we should take
>> cognisance of the fact that International law has not evolved at the
>> same pace as innovation. This is especially so in the global south
>> where most countries are still battling bread and butter issues and
>> are only starting to get used to the value attached to the global real
>> estate known as the Internet. It therefore behoves us to consider both
>> the letter and the spirit of the law even though as i understand the
>> business of gNSO is business. If we consider the spirit of the law
>> then we might want to consider the evolving nature of the ISO 3166
>> Standard and possibly reflect on the philosophy of RFC 1591 with
>> respect to countries territories. Of course we also have names of
>> Cities and towns that are shared globally.
>> 
>> A purely legalistic point of view will result in a stale mate in this
>> conversation.
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> 
>>> On 12/1/17, Aslam Mohamed <aslam at rnaip.com> wrote:
>>> Very well articulated Greg. That’s exactly the point I was trying to make.
>>> That Heather’s thesis is so lucid that dismissing it on emotion does not
>>> fly. And it needs to be countered by reason which in my research there is
>>> none.
>>> 
>>> Kind Regards
>>> 
>>> Aslam Mohamed. Advocate
>>> US Business Development
>>> Ph: +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857>
>>> 
>>> [https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPO/MessageImages/e8c178193df6475281bb991a2e32c8d7.png]
>>> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys.
>>> rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/>
>>> 
>>> On 30 Nov 2017, at 21:41, Greg Shatan
>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Is there a paper with reasoned analysis that differs from the "views" so
>>> well laid-out by Prof. Forrest?  Is there any reason that the views in this
>>> paper are not valid?  Clearly, the fact that this paper (or any paper or
>>> position) represents the views of its author is merely a statement of fact,
>>> and cannot refute the logic or validity of any position.  Since that goes
>>> without saying, there's no point in saying it, except as a rhetorical
>>> attempt to dismiss differing views without dealing with their merits.
>>> 
>>> Of course, the multistakeholder model depends on discourse and persuasion
>>> dealing with the merits of differing viewpoints.  As such, the email above
>>> contributes nothing to the conversation (except to the extent it can be
>>> construed as an admission that there are no reasoned and logical ways to
>>> oppose the merits of Prof. Forrest's paper).
>>> 
>>> And, if (as was stated) there are thousands of papers that are consistent
>>> with Professor Forrest's paper, and none that are consistent with your
>>> dismissal of that paper, then that is very telling indeed.  Thus, until we
>>> see papers, etc. refuting this analysis, we must accept it.
>>> 
>>> As for claims that "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"?  This is clearly an argument, not a statement of fact.  And it is
>>> clearly not, in fact, the case, see, e.g.:
>>> 
>>> http://www.persepolisnewyork.com/
>>> https://www.facebook.com/savannahpersepolis/
>>> http://www.persepolis-restaurant.de/
>>> http://foratasteofpersia.co.uk/
>>> https://www.perspolispizzasubs.com/
>>> https://www.facebook.com/persepolis.cuisine/
>>> https://www.yelp.com/biz/persepolis-leoben
>>> http://www.restaurantpersepolis.de/
>>> https://www.zomato.com/montreal/brochetterie-persepolis-montr%C3%A9al
>>> https://www.facebook.com/sherbrooke.ca/
>>> http://www.persepolisgrill.com/
>>> https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/160890/persepolis-by-marjane-satrapi/9780375714573/
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_(film)
>>> http://www.cafepress.com/+persepolis+gifts
>>> http://www.persepolisorientalrug.com/
>>> http://www.persepolis-shop.com/en/index.html
>>> https://www.havertys.com/furniture/persepolis-rug
>>> https://www.booking.com/hotel/fr/le-persepolis.html
>>> https://www.just-eat.co.uk/restaurants-persepolis-g42/menu
>>> https://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2014/09/29/whats-new-restaurants-persepolis-sanlitun
>>> https://www.booking.com/hotel/it/persepolis-rome.html
>>> http://www.deltatravel.ro/bucharest-hotels/persepolis.php
>>> 
>>> And, for your listening pleasure, "Persepolis" by Iannis Xenakis:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-GEbbgT5Io
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Greg
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:26 PM, 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>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [cid:image001.png at 01D2730D.4FCB7A70]
>>> 
>>> 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:(202)%20329-9650>
>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%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:(202)%20329-9650>
>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739>
>>> 
>>> From: Greg Shatan [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:(202)%20329-9650>
>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739>
>>> 
>>> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [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)
>>> [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]
>>> 
>>> [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]
>>> [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] within the lines
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
>>> to gnso-newgtld-w.
>>> [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>> 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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Barrack O. Otieno
>> +254721325277
>> +254733206359
>> Skype: barrack.otieno
>> PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
> 
> 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
> 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/abc183c6/attachment-0001.html>