[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 21:08:20 UTC 2018
I think ICANN would be dealing with a whole lot of .amazon type
disputes. I thought our role was to try to avoid that.
Mariat
On 8/8/2018 2:23 PM, Javier Rua 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
> 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/20180808/6353faf0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list