[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