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

Liz Williams internet.governance at icloud.com
Fri Aug 17 15:26:08 UTC 2018


Hello everyone

I have been following this thread with great interest.  I suggest we come back to first principles here.

The three letter code for the Comoros is COM (https://laendercode.net/en/country/km <https://laendercode.net/en/country/km>).  It is ridiculous to argue that “governments” have the “right” to a three letter ISO code based on the ISO 3166.  That horse has well and truly bolted out of the stable many years ago.  Who would argue that the world’s biggest and most popular gTLD should, in the reverse, be turned over to the Comoros Island’s Government because it happens to be “their” three letter country code.  There are multiple three letter label TLDs that may (or may not!) be representations of a three letter “country” code and we must stop the false premise that “governments own” TLDs.  They do not and cannot.  

And the same problem happens for two letter country codes.  We cannot, on the one hand, argue that two letter “codes” should be reserved for “countries” when that situation is now very clearly a commercial proposition with no relevance at all to the “country”  (.tv is the best example. following closely by .la (for Laos) which has not represented the country of Laos for many years and is the representation of a large US city. ). We cannot continue to be hypocritical and we cannot sustain arguments that privilege a collection of two letters that may (or may not) represent the interests of country code managers who may not be governments, who may be plain old individuals running resources given to them, in good faith, years ago and who may also, perhaps, represent “countries”. 

We are also in the live situation where many traditional country codes managers are now also the operators of gTLDs (for many good reasons about representing other communities in their regions OR because they realise that the business model of a straight ccTLD is not going to survive declining registration volumes, (amongst just two reasons).  Many ccNSO members are now members of the ICANN Registry Stakeholders constituency because they have signed ICANN registry contracts.  The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.  We need to face up to that and stop being so one-eyed about the intricacies of the implementation of TLDs that may serve multitudes of interests.

Let’s be real here.  There is no mechanism in law or in good sense to carve out “preventions”, “bannings”, “reservations”.  Let us focus on the practice of an application process that may yield value to applicants to define and deliver interesting new ways of expressing language, culture, region.  Let us also focus on improving the implementation of policy that minimises conflict and contest and then let the market determine how that works out for end users.  

Continuing the ugly rhetoric does us no favours and cruels the possibilities we have to propose legitimate policies that are respectful, nuanced and practical.  There is no place in this debate for ongoing use of the words that Paul has called out.  I cannot even bring myself to repeat them.  They have no place in our discussions except to highlight a really nasty way of limiting the ongoing evolution of a global Internet.

Liz
….
Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance
M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
S:  lizwilliams1963
 
Important Notice
This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.




> On 17 Aug 2018, at 2:55 pm, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Alexander.  There are a lot of heated words in this post – “attack”, “pollute”, “enemy”, “shame”, “vulture”,etc.  I wonder if you might try again and distill the arguments you are trying to make down to their essence.  I’m afraid whatever point you are trying to make is getting lost in the rhetoric.  I’d truly like to understand.  Also, if you are willing, is it possible to dispense with the false dichotomy of governments and brand owners?  There are lots of non-brand owners who value speech free from governmental control and their voice needs to be heard here as well; otherwise, we are just having 2/3rds of the conversation we need to have.
>  
> 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 Alexander Schubert
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 7:10 AM
> To: 'leonard obonyo via 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.
>  
> Dear WT,
>  
> Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money.
> 
> And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): 
> That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand.
>  
> Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective:
> 
> People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue).
> 
> I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). 
> 
> I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them.
> 
> And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern.
>  
> But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF.
> 
> Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved:
> What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples:
> ·        A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”?
> o   Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them.
> ·        A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S.  city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here!
> o   As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE!
>  
> City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries?
> 
> We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even  if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc).
> 
> Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city:
> If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in?
> 
> We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
>  
> Alexander
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Arasteh
> Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35
> To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>
> Cc: Edmon <edmon at dot.asia <mailto:edmon at dot.asia>>; leonard obonyo via 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.
>  
> Dear All
> Yes they are valuable for those countries too
> There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes
> Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution 
> Regards
> Kavouss .
>  
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>> wrote:
> 
> That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason.  Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries.  And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.  
>  
> It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
>  
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466305992&sdata=6t2NfjLjKSIOho7U0upl5EjOvUAkt6LN7b96zQEFdh8%3D&reserved=0> 
>  
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith at nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith at nominet.uk>> wrote:
> Hi Mike
>  
> Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
>  
> Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. 
>  
> If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
>  
> I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
>  
> Best wishes
> Nick
>  
> 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 Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35
> To: Edmon <edmon at dot.asia <mailto:edmon at dot.asia>>
> Cc: leonard obonyo via 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.
>  
> Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites:  "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
>    does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
> Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix.  That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
>  
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466305992&sdata=6t2NfjLjKSIOho7U0upl5EjOvUAkt6LN7b96zQEFdh8%3D&reserved=0> 
>  
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon at dot.asia <mailto:edmon at dot.asia>> wrote:
> IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also.
> Edmon
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>
> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00
> To: Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>
> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>" <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.
> 
> What purpose does that distinction serve anyone?  I think it is meaningless
> and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable
> two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466316000&sdata=eJI9P9jT1BZsSj7aAxZVifq2GulUwmnBWNCF2ANNLhM%3D&reserved=0>
> 
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert <
> alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
> >
> > I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check
> > ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Frfc%2Frfc1591.txt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466326008&sdata=8LbQrifnsUXw5KfHPR2xTVGJy6mldEuXX3RTJrdHMek%3D&reserved=0>) cemented the one and only real differentiator
> > in the DNS:
> > That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority  (which may be
> > deligated like in .tv)  of countries/nations. And that these are two
> > character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
> >
> > If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working)
> > BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character
> > gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
> >
> > The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be
> > uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alexander
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Samsung device
> >
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
> > From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange at norid.no>>
> > Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00)
> > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se>>
> > 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.
> >
> > Hi Carlos
> >
> > Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some
> > 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically
> > be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had
> > from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Annebeth
> >
> >
> > Annebeth B Lange
> > Special Adviser International Policy
> > UNINETT Norid AS
> > Phone: +47 959 11 559
> > Mail: annebeth.lange at norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange at norid.no>
> >
> >
> >
> > 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <
> > carlosraul at gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se>>:
> >
> > My comments to today's call:
> >
> > 1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process
> > should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested
> > parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and
> > territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a
> > forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if
> > it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW
> > suggested.   A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How
> > about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties,
> > such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future
> > countries or territories.”  Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL
> > two character letter letter” combinations-  can be enhanced.  I wonder if
> > it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential
> > combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I
> > can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could
> > tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to
> > move forward.
> >
> > 2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo
> > names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear
> > rationale is added to the recommendation
> >
> >
> > 3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion
> > has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and
> > other social  elements, ,like Apache Nation
> >
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> > carlosraul at gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se>
> > +506 8837 7176
> > Aparatado 1571-1000
> > COSTA RICA
> >
> >
> >
> > El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
> >
> > Dear Work Track members,
> >
> >
> >
> > Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations
> > shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes
> > clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more
> > substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Emily
> >
> >
> >
> > *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 Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>>
> > *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45
> > *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
> > *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call
> > on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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- <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466326008&sdata=M4cP1ZGPoyVQ6HZFQIVYckJ0IcKkWlecd%2BR%2FUzoKiVw%3D&reserved=0>
> > gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466336012&sdata=VLaoVaZRZBmxy38%2BYe7c7%2B3MCpnAOJ8eRRM%2BbwCv3B4%3D&reserved=0>]
> > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e= <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%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466336012&sdata=AKpuwGWyTdhX7IFhiIPAkWirSCjkvTC7WtY%2BknMlGwo%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 <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%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466346029&sdata=aISlo6DrcqaUtErQH8NrNlyPmuERjMm7zCAHkllU1RE%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> > <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
> >
> > <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466356037&sdata=HlQnE5%2BpkUGHCQkH7vPl4sGJswCs2%2Ftk1FZLH%2BtFlsg%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%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466356037&sdata=HlQnE5%2BpkUGHCQkH7vPl4sGJswCs2%2Ftk1FZLH%2BtFlsg%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%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466366041&sdata=cSxtJKC%2BPA7fkAhwBVpHkhCabpYg2jK9YrapnS7Okhs%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 <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/20180817/4566df9f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list