[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
Mon Aug 20 06:09:58 UTC 2018
Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the
non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be
available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about
cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an
authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved
as capital cities.
The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are
involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as
an unreasonable compromise.
Marita
On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both
> prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit
> on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior
> round.
>
> From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use
> is superior to any other possible use of a given string.
>
> From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability
> of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are
> just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice
> when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving
> “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name
> space. That would truly be outside our remit.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net
> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>> <http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt>) 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-
>> > gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org
>> <http://gnso.icann.org>]
>> >
>> <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=>
>> > .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> > <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
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>> >
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180820/26f1492c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list