[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Wed Aug 8 20:55:59 UTC 2018
I think ICANN cannot ignore what is going on in the world. There is a
huge sensitivity to cultural appropriation right now. Minority cultures
and peoples are coming forward to reclaim what was taken from them --
and that includes names. Whether we like it or not, it would be very
politically incorrect for us to come forward with a plan that allows any
enterprise/brand to appropriate a name/string that "belongs", in a
cultural sense, to a particular group, especially an indigenous group --
something like Apache, for example.
Marita
On 8/8/2018 7:27 PM, Aslam Mohamed wrote:
> Please reconsider excluding the term Apache from the remit of WT5:
> Apache County was formed during the Tenth Territorial Legislation in
> 1879 out of the eastern section of Yavapai County; officially all land
> east of 119°45′ W.
>
> Best
> Aslam
>
>
> On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Apache is not a geographic term and therefore not within our remit.
>> Can we stick to discussing strings where at least one meaning is
>> geographic? Thanks!
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:07 AM Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com
>> <mailto:javrua at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> All:
>>
>> I think it was Paul that made the point in todays call that this
>> “Apache” question is the type of issue best left to the national
>> law level; but I wonder if it was the other way around: some
>> national US law that forbade the Apache people from applying for
>> and registering a “.apache” string. Should ICANN feel bound here
>> by US Law? Is International Law relevant? What if any
>> preventative or curative policy be put in place, if any?
>>
>> Please all chip in!
>>
>>
>> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>>
>> +1-787-396-6511
>> twitter: @javrua
>> skype: javier.rua1
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>>
>>
>> On Aug 8, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH
>> <ohlmer at dotzon.com <mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Jon,
>>>
>>> but the community objection process does not apply once a string
>>> has been delegated – a community would have to file an
>>> objections before.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Katrin
>>>
>>> DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
>>> Akazienstrasse 28
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>> 10823 Berlin
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>> Deutschland - Germany
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>> Tel: +49 30 49802722
>>> Fax: +49 30 49802727
>>> Mobile: +49 173 2019240
>>> ohlmer at dotzon.consulting <mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.consulting>
>>> www.dotzon.consulting <http://www.dotzon.consulting>
>>>
>>> DOTZON GmbH
>>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
>>> Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
>>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
>>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>> *Im Auftrag von
>>> *Jon Nevett
>>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 8. August 2018 14:41
>>> *An:* Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com <mailto:javrua at gmail.com>>
>>> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
>>> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan &
>>> Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review
>>> before our call.
>>>
>>> And that is why we have a community objection process . . .
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2018, at 5:23 AM, Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:javrua at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure!
>>>
>>> “Thanks Robin!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To continue this interesting conversation, a question
>>> (anyone can of course chip in) how could this hypothetical
>>> be solved preemptively or curatively (a posteriori): What if
>>> 1) an “Apache Helicopter Corp.”, a company that incidentally
>>> has registered US trademarks for the name “Apache
>>> Helicopter”, applied for a “.apache” string; 2) the US
>>> government never objected (or paid any attention) to said
>>> application, and the string was delegated, 3) yet a
>>> representative of the several federally recognized Apache
>>> Tribes, a few months later found about this and objected to
>>> this “appropriation of their cultural identity-the name of
>>> their people”?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> PS: My heart wants the Apaches to prevail... “
>>>
>>> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>>>
>>> +1-787-396-6511
>>>
>>> twitter: @javrua
>>>
>>> skype: javier.rua1
>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:14 AM, Greg Shatan
>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Javier,
>>>
>>> Can you please refresh my (our) recollection of that
>>> fact pattern? Thanks!
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:15 AM Javier Rua
>>> <javrua at gmail.com <mailto:javrua at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thx Greg!
>>>
>>> What would you say to my “Apache Helicopter” fact
>>> pattern?
>>>
>>> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>>>
>>> +1-787-396-6511
>>>
>>> twitter: @javrua
>>>
>>> skype: javier.rua1
>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:33 AM, Greg Shatan
>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alexander,
>>>
>>> Your anger and hurt are heard. Thanks for
>>> expressing your feelings so directly.
>>>
>>> Let's turn to the facts.
>>>
>>> There's no "infringement" here. Overheated
>>> rhetoric won't make it so. Words can have more
>>> than one meaning. If a registry sets up a
>>> .brick TLD for use by the brick industry, it
>>> does not "infringe" on any right that Brick, New
>>> Jersey has. There is simply no general principle
>>> that supports the idea that a "geo use" is a
>>> "better" use of a string with multiple meanings
>>> than a "non geo use."
>>>
>>> There are no "vultures" to be protected from.
>>> They are no more real than Bigfoot, the Loch
>>> Ness monster or the monster under the bed when
>>> you were 6 years old.
>>>
>>> Challenge processes (I don't want to use the
>>> "C___ R_____" term you have a knee-jerk reaction
>>> to) are a well-accepted method, in ICANN and
>>> everywhere else. Access to a form of due process
>>> does not translate to "anything goes" or "big
>>> money wins." Quite the opposite -- it is a way
>>> to arrive at a fair result. It may translate to
>>> "Geos don't always win" -- but that's completely
>>> appropriate.
>>>
>>> I can't speak for NCSG or for ALAC, but in my
>>> view from an end-user perspective, a "geo use"
>>> is only one possible use of a multi-meaning
>>> string. Many more end-users may be interested
>>> in a .coupon that is used for getting and using
>>> coupons that a .coupon that is used for Coupon,
>>> Pennsylvania. There is no inherent preference
>>> for "geo uses." "City constituencies" have the
>>> right to apply for appropriate gTLD strings,
>>> whether it's .Budapest or .Bucharest or
>>> .Bridgeport. Nothing we do here will change that.
>>>
>>> As we move toward a series of consensus calls,
>>> it is particularly concerning to see Challenge
>>> Processes rejected out of hand and with such
>>> divisive rhetoric. But it's better to know now
>>> if challenge processes can be part of a
>>> consensus recommendation from this group. I
>>> would hope the answer would be "yes" But, if the
>>> answer is "no" -- as this "call to arms"
>>> suggests -- then we will have to move forward
>>> under those circumstances. I don't think that
>>> will be helpful in reaching consensus on any
>>> recommendation, even some of the so-called
>>> "easy" ones.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:14 PM Alexander
>>> Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin
>>> <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Curative Rights"?
>>>
>>> Geo communities won't even know that
>>> vultures and brands are infringing on their
>>> identities. Especially not once we go into
>>> continuous application mode in a few years.
>>>
>>> GAC members should be VERY ALARMED.
>>> "Curative Rights" is a thinly veiled eulogy
>>> for "anything goes" and "big money wins".
>>> The rights of geo communities and their
>>> constituents will be TRAMPLED on.
>>>
>>> In the 1600s and 1700s Europeans set out to
>>> stake claims in every corner of the world.
>>> Unchallenged. Their prey being vulnerable
>>> and without defense. Colonialism! It wiped
>>> out populations of ENTIRE CONTINENTS (e.g.
>>> North America).
>>>
>>> What is being peddled here is just the same
>>> in the age of claiming DNS land on top level:
>>>
>>> Venture Capital will marry Vulture Culture -
>>> together they will colonize the geo-TLD
>>> world. To make big bucks - on the back of
>>> vulnerable communities.
>>>
>>> Europe, Asia, South America and Africa
>>> should stand up to cyber colonialism. It
>>> cannot be that "their lands" are brute-force
>>> taken AGAIN.
>>>
>>> Sizeable cities are as important (and their
>>> geo gTLDs as impacting for their city
>>> constituents) as small countries. I would
>>> wish we collectively mature up and recognize
>>> that truth. "Curative Rights" ain't enough.
>>> Where are ALAC or the NCSG? It would be
>>> THEIR job to defend city constituencies. Do
>>> they even know what's playing out here?
>>>
>>> Btw: I wish we could stop calling it
>>> "governmental support". For many that sounds
>>> like FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Nothing could be
>>> more wrong. It's the CITY'S representatives
>>> who are tasked to provide support. They know
>>> the needs of their city best - they have
>>> been ELECTED to represent the city's
>>> constituent's interests.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Alexander
>>>
>>> Sent from my Samsung device
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>>> Date: 8/7/18 20:02 (GMT+02:00)
>>> To: 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] WT5
>>> Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on
>>> Country & Territory Names - Please review
>>> before our call.
>>>
>>> I agree with Greg and would add that many of
>>> us would be far less resistant to the
>>> concept of “geo names” if the underlying
>>> right/privilege provided was a curative
>>> right (rather than preventative). For some,
>>> the biggest problem we have with “geo names”
>>> is the presumption of restrictions (in this
>>> case a “veto power” to a single actor) so
>>> moving discussion towards curative rights
>>> could be a very useful way of working toward
>>> an ultimate consensus.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> On Aug 7, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Greg Shatan
>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Christopher,
>>>
>>> You can’t just throw the word
>>> “politically” into the middle of an
>>> unsupported claim and expect to be
>>> persuasive (or even understood). I don’t
>>> see any reason or reasoning where would
>>> find “all geographic names” to be
>>> subject to any rules, much less
>>> preventative rules. Quite the contrary.
>>> Can you explain your use of
>>> “politically” and what that implies?
>>> Where do you see politics coming into
>>> the ICANN policy-making process, and
>>> which politics are you referring to?
>>>
>>> Curative procedures have been
>>> successfully invoked since the dawn of
>>> ICANN (and long, long before, in a
>>> multitude of settings) to allow someone
>>> to assert a claim against another
>>> party’s actions on the basis of
>>> agreed-upon standards. To write off the
>>> entire concept as “unsuitable,” again
>>> without support, seems both extreme and
>>> premature. New curative procedures were
>>> created for the 2012 round, and we could
>>> adapt those or create something
>>> different if we wanted to. On a policy
>>> level, there’s absolutely no reason for
>>> curative procedures to be “unsuitable.”
>>> Indeed, for reasons I very recently
>>> stated, they are far more suitable than
>>> preventative rights for the vast
>>> majority of terms with geographic
>>> meanings. Helping them work
>>> appropriately is an implementation-level
>>> concern that should not impede good
>>> policy-making.
>>>
>>> As a group trying to reach consensus, we
>>> should not put all of our eggs into the
>>> one basket of preventative measures — no
>>> matter how much some participants want
>>> us to do so. I understand the allure of
>>> preventative processes over curative
>>> processes — you don’t need to watch
>>> anything, you don’t need to initiate
>>> anything, you don’t need to prove
>>> anything, and you don’t even need to
>>> explain anything. It’s a completely
>>> one-sided approach — which is good for
>>> one-sided, slam-dunk situations.
>>> Conversely, they are not particularly
>>> good where there are two sides to the
>>> story. Perhaps there is a concern that
>>> in a “curative” process over terms with
>>> geographic meanings, the “objectors”
>>> will not be able to succeed very often —
>>> that often there really is no basis for
>>> a claim. If that is the case, it is
>>> even more critical that we identify and
>>> agree upon the bases for these claims —
>>> whether they are exercised
>>> preventatively or curatively. We can’t
>>> put (or keep) a preventative privilege
>>> in place without clear-cut reasons that
>>> this privilege exists, and clear-cut
>>> reasons that the claim must be granted
>>> preventative status.
>>>
>>> Preventative rights are equivalent to
>>> “guilty until proven innocent,” except
>>> that there’s no forum for such proof —
>>> it is entirely at the discretion of the
>>> privilege-holder. Curative rights, on
>>> the other hand, are “innocent until
>>> proven guilty,” with a forum and a
>>> process for that determination to be
>>> made by an uninterested
>>> entity/person(s). I tend to prefer
>>> “innocent until proven guilty” as a
>>> general concept.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:22 AM
>>> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
>>> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
>>> Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
>>> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Greg:
>>>
>>> I expect that we shall find that,
>>> politically, all geographical names
>>> will be subject to preventative
>>> rules, at least in the first instance.
>>>
>>> The existing 'curative' procedures
>>> appear to me to be quite unsuitable
>>> for global application at the level
>>> of disagregation that we are
>>> currently considering.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Christopher
>>>
>>> El 7 de agosto de 2018 a las
>>> 7:46 Greg Shatan
>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Carlos wrote:
>>>
>>> I just don't agree that the sole
>>> recommendation of WT5 that is
>>> going to be measure is a
>>> negative one: to restrict
>>> delegation of most geographic
>>> names. In my
>>> view recommendations should be
>>> framed in a positive manner, if
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> This reminded me that we have so
>>> far talked almost exclusively
>>> about what are generally called
>>> "preventive" processes (reserve
>>> lists, permission requirements,
>>> blocking lists, etc.), and very
>>> little about what are generally
>>> called "curative" processes
>>> (objections, dispute resolution
>>> processes, challenge processes,
>>> etc.). By doing so, we've taken
>>> half the tools out of the toolkit.
>>>
>>> I just finished working on the
>>> reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive
>>> Rights WG where we were dealing
>>> (at this point) with
>>> reserving/restricting national
>>> Red Cross/Red Crescent society
>>> names. In this case, a
>>> preventive rights approach made
>>> sense -- the names of the
>>> various national societies are
>>> essentially unique, identified
>>> only with that one entity, third
>>> party uses are almost certainly
>>> done in bad faith and with bad
>>> intent, and there's no real
>>> underlying policy disagreement.
>>> In some cases (e.g., name
>>> collisions, certain reserved
>>> names) there is also a strong
>>> technical component. This is how
>>> preventive rights have generally
>>> been used in ICANN policy -- for
>>> "slam-dunk" cases.
>>>
>>> There are few, if any,
>>> "slam-dunk" cases in our work.
>>> A good case can be made for
>>> 2-letter letter-letter
>>> combinations. Perhaps a good
>>> case can be made for some of the
>>> remaining classifications in
>>> this first set or potential
>>> recommendations. However, as we
>>> move "down the list", so to
>>> speak, we get further away from
>>> "slam-dunk" situations. We could
>>> potentially make more headway on
>>> some of the classifications of
>>> names if we considered
>>> "curative" processes, instead of
>>> being so intensely focused on
>>> "preventive" rights. This tends
>>> to turn our discussions into
>>> "all or nothing" choices -- but
>>> this is a false menu, since
>>> there are other options aside
>>> from the binary "all/nothing"
>>> that should be on the menu.
>>>
>>> Let's keep this in mind as we
>>> move forward.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM
>>> Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with Paul and think
>>> we should declare agreement
>>> where we have it, and build
>>> on that to find other
>>> agreement down the line.
>>> The process is supposed to
>>> involve incremental steps
>>> and building blocks along
>>> the way, and that is how we
>>> will eventually arrive at a
>>> consensus. To take the
>>> “nothing until everything”
>>> approach will keep us
>>> spinning our wheels
>>> indefinitely, cause
>>> confusion, and risks
>>> unexpected results, which is
>>> in no one’s interest.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16
>>> PM, McGrady, Paul D.
>>> <PMcGrady at winston.com
>>> <mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’m a little concerned
>>> with the “Nothing is
>>> agreed until everything
>>> is agreed” approach.
>>> This isn’t a contract
>>> negotiation, it is a
>>> consensus building
>>> exercise. If we have to
>>> wait until every topic
>>> has been discussed and
>>> we think we have 100%
>>> agreement on all topics
>>> before we take a
>>> consensus call on
>>> individual topics, this
>>> WG will never find an
>>> end point.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
>>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>*On
>>> Behalf
>>> Of***lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
>>> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>Wilkinson
>>> *Sent:*Monday, August 6,
>>> 2018 4:09 PM
>>> *To:*Martin Sutton
>>> <martin at brandregistrygroup.org
>>> <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>>
>>> *Cc:*gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>> *Subject:*Re:
>>> [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5]
>>> WT5 Agenda, Work Plan &
>>> Consensus Call on
>>> Country & Territory
>>> Names - Please review
>>> before our call.
>>>
>>> Dear Co-Leads and Martin:
>>>
>>> I disagree with the
>>> method proposed.
>>>
>>> 1. It is premature to
>>> start consensus calls on
>>> certain restricted
>>> topics when other more
>>> critical topics have not
>>> yet been discussed.
>>>
>>> 2. Nothing is agreed
>>> until everything is agreed.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> CW
>>>
>>> El 6 de agosto de
>>> 2018 a las 21:06
>>> Martin Sutton
>>> <martin at brandregistrygroup.org
>>> <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>>
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> Hi Christopher,
>>>
>>> In order to progress
>>> the building of the
>>> Initial Report, the
>>> agenda is designed
>>> to focus on how we
>>> will achieve this
>>> and begin to gather
>>> recommendations
>>> where we find
>>> consensus. Item 4
>>> was raised on the
>>> last call and
>>> members were
>>> requested to
>>> continue discussions
>>> over the email list,
>>> although this has
>>> been somewhat quiet
>>> probably due to
>>> holiday periods.
>>>
>>> We encourage you to
>>> use the email list
>>> for elaborating on
>>> non-AGB categories,
>>> this will then help
>>> towards further
>>> discussions on the
>>> call. By experience
>>> of the discussions
>>> relating to
>>> non-capital cities,
>>> please provide a
>>> sound
>>> argument/rationale
>>> for any suggestions
>>> for the group to
>>> consider, rather
>>> than simply stating
>>> a request.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 Aug 2018, at
>>> 15:25,lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
>>> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>Wilkinson
>>> <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
>>> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Co-Leads:
>>> May I request
>>> that point 4 of
>>> the proposed
>>> agenda be moved
>>> up to point 1.
>>>
>>> Some
>>> participants,
>>> including
>>> myself, have
>>> only persevered
>>> with WT5
>>> in-order to
>>> discuss the
>>> non-AGB terms.
>>>
>>> These include :
>>>
>>> - all other
>>> geographical terms
>>>
>>> - geographical
>>> indications
>>>
>>> - several
>>> groups of
>>> regional,
>>> cultural,
>>> economic and
>>> linguistic names.
>>>
>>> Thankyou and regards
>>>
>>> Christopher
>>> Wilkinson
>>>
>>> El 6 de
>>> agosto de
>>> 2018 a las
>>> 14:42 Martin
>>> Sutton
>>> <martin at brandregistrygroup.org
>>> <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>>
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> Dear Work
>>> Track members,
>>>
>>> Please find
>>> below the
>>> proposed
>>> agenda for
>>> the WT5 call
>>> on Wednesday
>>> 8 August at
>>> 13:00 UTC:
>>>
>>> 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
>>> 2. Review of Consensus Call Process
>>> and Work Plan
>>> 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names
>>> 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms
>>> 5. AOB
>>>
>>> On our
>>> upcoming
>>> call, the
>>> leadership
>>> team will
>>> introduce a
>>> work plan
>>> aimed at
>>> wrapping up
>>> WT5’s work
>>> and
>>> delivering
>>> an Initial
>>> Report by
>>> the end of
>>> September.
>>> In
>>> maintaining
>>> this
>>> timeline,
>>> the
>>> leadership
>>> is seeking
>>> to ensure
>>> that Work
>>> Track 5
>>> inputs can
>>> be
>>> effectively
>>> integrated
>>> into the
>>> work of the
>>> broader New
>>> gTLD
>>> Subsequent
>>> Procedures
>>> PDP Working
>>> Group in
>>> time for
>>> delivery of
>>> the PDP’s
>>> Final
>>> Report. A
>>> copy of the
>>> work plan is
>>> attached.
>>>
>>> As outlined
>>> in the work
>>> plan, the
>>> leadership
>>> team will be
>>> holding a
>>> series of
>>> consensus
>>> calls on
>>> potential
>>> recommendations
>>> to include
>>> in WT5’s
>>> Initial
>>> Report.
>>> These will
>>> be
>>> introduced
>>> in clusters,
>>> with the
>>> first set of
>>> recommendations
>>> focusing on
>>> country and
>>> territory
>>> names. The
>>> draft
>>> recommendations,
>>> which will
>>> be discussed
>>> on
>>> Wednesday,
>>> are
>>> attached.*Work
>>> Track
>>> members are
>>> encouraged
>>> to review
>>> and provide
>>> feedback on
>>> these draft
>>> recommendations
>>> prior to the
>>> call on
>>> Wednesday*.
>>> The
>>> leadership
>>> team will
>>> officially
>>> open the
>>> consensus
>>> call on this
>>> topic
>>> following
>>> Wednesday’s
>>> call. For
>>> more
>>> information
>>> on the
>>> consensus
>>> call process
>>> that will be
>>> followed,
>>> please see
>>> the GNSO
>>> Working
>>> Group
>>> Guidelines,
>>> Section
>>> 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472632128&sdata=me4M2xocdDENZhUf8U%2FfsplZO3q09h%2FivOZ%2FOORwgPE%3D&reserved=0>.
>>>
>>> If you need
>>> a dial out
>>> for the
>>> upcoming
>>> call or
>>> would like
>>> to send an
>>> apology,
>>> please
>>> emailgnso-secs at icann.org
>>> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> WT5 Co-Leads
>>>
>>> Annebeth Lange
>>>
>>> Javier Rua
>>>
>>> Olga Cavalli
>>>
>>> Martin Sutton
>>>
>>> The contents
>>> of this
>>> email
>>> message and
>>> any attachments
>>> are intended
>>> solely for
>>> the addressee(s)
>>> and may
>>> contain
>>> confidential and/or
>>> privileged
>>> information
>>> and may
>>> be legally
>>> protected
>>> from
>>> disclosure.
>>> If you
>>> are not the
>>> intended
>>> recipient of
>>> this message
>>> or their
>>> agent, or if
>>> this message
>>> has
>>> been addressed
>>> to you in
>>> error,
>>> please immediately
>>> alert the
>>> sender by
>>> reply
>>> email and
>>> then delete
>>> this message
>>> and
>>> any attachments.
>>> If you are
>>> not the
>>> intended recipient,
>>> you are
>>> hereby
>>> notified
>>> that
>>> any use,
>>> dissemination,
>>> copying, or
>>> storage
>>> of this
>>> message or
>>> its
>>> attachments
>>> is
>>> strictly prohibited.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> The contents of this
>>> message may be
>>> privileged and
>>> confidential. If this
>>> message has been
>>> received in error,
>>> please delete it without
>>> reading it. Your receipt
>>> of this message is not
>>> intended to waive any
>>> applicable privilege.
>>> Please do not
>>> disseminate this message
>>> without the permission
>>> of the author. Any tax
>>> advice contained in this
>>> email was not intended
>>> to be used, and cannot
>>> be used, by you (or any
>>> other taxpayer) to avoid
>>> penalties under
>>> applicable tax laws and
>>> regulations.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180808/deac83dc/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list