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

Mon Aug 20 23:28:02 UTC 2018

Alexander,

No false presumptions here.

First, when I refer to the “city’s” ability, that includes applications by
a city, on behalf of a city or with a city’s cooperation or blessing.  I
was trying not to be length, and thought that would be understood, but I
guess not (at least by some).  Thank you for the opportunity to clarify
that.

Your comparisons are off target.  TV stations and newspapers don’t
represent the city — they are businesses in that city that provide content,
sometimes very much at odds with the Official City.  As for telecom
providers, they are more like a utility and they are quasi-public as they
often operate under tightly regulated license or franchise relationships.
Similarly, it seems that in the case of many .city TLDs the cities were
highly involved.  I hope that you aren’t opposed to cities actually
applying for city TLDs....

As for the other “presumption” — that’s your “paper tiger,” not my
presumption.  What I said was that the cities are fully capable of applying
for a string related to their city name — and that’s true now or 10 years
from now.  We are not erecting any barriers.  If it so happens that one
possible TLD for a city is also a possible TLD for some non-geo use (or for
another city by that name), and that city turns up 10 years from now (or 50
years from now, assuming all of this lasts that long), it can turn to
another TLD string that would be an acceptable variation (if there were two
New York Cities, the second could turn to .newyorkcity, since .nyc is
already taken).

We spend far too little time discussing how TLDs generally and the next
round of TLDs specifically can be publicized to cities.  Raising awareness
and increasing knowledge is a much less “regulatory” approach and one much
more in line with the overall approach to the reservation (or not) of
TLDs.  Many, if not most million-plus cities are acutely aware of branding
and the development of infrastructure to serve citizens — it’s not 1994
anymore, on either side of the dot.

Best regards,

Greg

P.S.  You should have your keyboard checked out; it seems to get stuck on
“all caps” for entire words.....

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 8:45 AM Alexander Schubert
<alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:

> Greg,
>
>
>
> You claim “nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply
> for a string related to their city name”. Which makes literally no sense at
> all as it is based on two false presumptions:
>
> ·         That “cities” were usually the applicant entity for city gTLDs.
> They are NOT in the vast majority of cases; and why would they be? Do they
> run the TV stations of the city? Do they run the newspapers? Do they run
> the telecommunication providers? Of course NOT. It’s just not the JOB for a
> “city” to actually apply and then run a city based gTLD.
>
> ·         The other presumption is, that the constituents of ALL cities
> would detect their need for a city name based gTLD right NOW – in time for
> the next gTLD round. Look at the .com development:
> Imagine you went to the city major’s office, or the city destination
> marketing in 1994 – and told them: “Hey guys, don’t be silly: register your
> city name as .com domain – YOU NEED THAT in the future”.
> What do you think would have been the reaction back in 1994? Right: Nobody
> would have declared themselves authorative, or “in need”. In fact nobody in
> for example Denver would have foreseen that denver.com might be THE city
> destination marketing platform of all!
> Go to the Denver Marketing Office TODAY – and ask them what they would do
> to lay their hands on denver.com: wow! You probably had the major robbing
> on his raw knees in front of you; BEGGING for the domain.
> What I want to say is: Demand develops. It’s an iterative process that
> takes a lot of time over the DNS evolution. We can’t say: “Apply for your
> domain now – or be silent forever”. ESPECIALLY in “developing countries”.
> They might detect the need for city name based gTLD in only 10 years from
> now – and we ought to make sure that Million people cities aren’t “taken”
> by then; at least not without looping in the city at question.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander Schubert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2018 2:21 AM
> *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
>
>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus
> Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
>
>
>
> 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> 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”?
>
> 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
> <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> <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
> *Cc:* Edmon <edmon at dot.asia> <edmon at dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> <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> 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> 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> *On
> Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh
> *Sent:* 10 August 2018 03:35
> *To:* Edmon <edmon at dot.asia>
> *Cc:* leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus
> Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
>
>
>
> 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> wrote:
>
> IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also.
> Edmon
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00
> To: Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org" <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> wrote:
>
> > Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
> >
> > I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check
> > 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>
> > Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00)
> > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se>
> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call
> > on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <
> > 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
> > +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> on
> > behalf of Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
> > *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45
> > *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org" <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]
> > <
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > WT5 Co-Leads
> >
> > Annebeth Lange
> >
> > Javier Rua
> >
> > Olga Cavalli
> >
> > Martin Sutton
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended
> solely
> > for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> > information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not
> > the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message
> > has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender
> by
> > reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are
> > not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
> > dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is
> > strictly prohibited.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> >
> > <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
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180820/feb28f35/attachment-0001.html>