[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
Fri Aug 17 19:29:14 UTC 2018


Well, I was thinking that it would have be very proactive to be fair. 
Someone would have to contact each city possibly implicated and explain 
the situation.

Marita


On 8/17/2018 9:24 PM, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
>
> Thanks Marita.
>
> How is it not practical for cities to pass laws?  They pass laws all 
> the time on issues that are important to them.
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
> *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On 
> Behalf Of *Marita Moll
> *Sent:* Friday, August 17, 2018 12:54 PM
> *To:* 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 totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large 
> cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants.
>
> It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out 
> a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be 
> disadvantaged, if it came to a contest.
>
> I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very 
> practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we 
> should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the 
> world.
>
> Marita
>
> On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
>     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”?
>
>     oRight 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!
>
>     oAs 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] *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%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=w5rzt6NGILsV5npsz7cKC8CF91r5%2FbiAwiRpsSVIT4M%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%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=w5rzt6NGILsV5npsz7cKC8CF91r5%2FbiAwiRpsSVIT4M%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%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=w5rzt6NGILsV5npsz7cKC8CF91r5%2FbiAwiRpsSVIT4M%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%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=NYZfpjCWbnekGZGpslE%2FU5yyFMlpw4C2UaBm3OOLpjc%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%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=3gta36xAYRl30A%2BujoVRVBqmZ5kWBAH1Nt8zIg%2F9iiY%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%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=%2FJMicMW7Er2nYqoMEKtdXTcPmg67RpexfoVkVdv%2Fpqw%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%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=VLJbQgi2IDqKODRfExLR%2BRYAwFb%2FioGm6ELBVsIcDSk%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%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=zSwszsN8Nfwed%2B5naoaYj3NPKr0BjG0ZhMFyJoM4h8Y%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%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=zSwszsN8Nfwed%2B5naoaYj3NPKr0BjG0ZhMFyJoM4h8Y%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%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=zSwszsN8Nfwed%2B5naoaYj3NPKr0BjG0ZhMFyJoM4h8Y%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%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=zSwszsN8Nfwed%2B5naoaYj3NPKr0BjG0ZhMFyJoM4h8Y%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%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531480335&sdata=GpXz8zrj51Pi8W20Zb%2BfHjo4FRx5Yge%2BnCmfVcReN0A%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. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180817/b73e45a7/attachment-0001.html>


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