[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Thu Aug 9 03:49:11 UTC 2018

Well, this just goes to show that just about anything can be a geographic
term, among other things. Apache County is a place, specifically a county
in the State of Arizona.

So "Apache County" is a place and is within the remit of our discussions.
But "Apache" is not a place.

So my point stands.

Best regards,

Greg

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:27 PM Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam at gmail.com>
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> 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> 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> 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
>> 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> *Im
>> Auftrag von *Jon Nevett
>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 8. August 2018 14:41
>> *An:* Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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>
>> Date: 8/7/18 20:02 (GMT+02:00)
>> To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <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> 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 Wilkinson <
>> 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>
>> 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> 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>
>> 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> *On
>> Behalf Of* lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM
>> *To:* Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
>> *Cc:* 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> 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 Wilkinson <
>> 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> 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 email 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180808/9a26f466/attachment-0001.html>