[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June

Kris Seeburn seeburn.k at gmail.com
Sat Jun 9 14:10:31 UTC 2018 

Am fine with that … just need to move forward else we go back to like one other group that has had to be locked down RDAP/WHOIS. So really if we can move something forward is already something. That is my point really. If we move in phases we would also learn more. I sincerely don not see whether we will find a solution or even assume everything. But fair enough.

> On Jun 9, 2018, at 18:05, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
> 
> Hello Kris. Clearly this is a wide ranging topic and there are other issues to resolve. And they can't all be addressed at once unless we break up into subcommittees.  So far I have not seen this group set out the a staging like you describe - i.e. we need to address "this" issue before we address "that" issue. Perhaps I missed it.
> The momentum so far has been on the cities issue and some progress has been made. There have been suggestions on how to resolve the "unique city names in smaller countries" issue. There are suggestions around size. There are suggestions around definitions.  Is this a deterrent to resolving the issues around countries? It has had the effect of delay, which appears to be your concern. It is possible that there is an inherent feeling in the group that cities is going to be one of the more difficult discussions -- because there are so many strings involved, and many more possible conflicts. 
> I hear your "crie de coeur" and if others do, the momentum of the group will go that way. We can park what we have done so far and move to another area -- nothing is lost. Sometimes it is helpful to give some breathing space in this way. 
> 
> Some of your comments below I think are inappropriate -- U.S. gov't takeover?  a reordering of the letters in the word assume? Not necessary to make your point.
> 
> Marita Moll
> 
> On 6/9/2018 12:38 AM, Kris Seeburn wrote:
>> Friends,
>> 
>> Can i please plead we move with a first phase and then start looking at the other bits. That these examples many mention, i had raised before. Rather than give away to the US government and give them good reason to go ahead with undaunted plans for a reversal which an executive order can easy do. Let me again re-state. Let the frst level which is three alphabetical bit which ISO has given out be a first step.
>> 
>> Like i said we need to start somewhere, as is the wise words from Lao Tse “ every journey of a thousand miles starts with a first step” am not saying to stop deliberating on the further details about cities and even culture or what have you. If you guys define cities with 50,000 people. What will happen of small countries or islands which have less people in the main cities. So please and i plead. Let us show that these are issues we have noted and lay it down as issues that we need to address for sure but we can resolve them over time as well. Does that mean all the cities around the world would ask for there geonames is still debatable. But again it will not be coming from GAC or whatever. It will come from the different countries and cities and cultures (culture is not a geoname from my take) but worth considering. 
>> 
>> Let us move the cheese to the first one without language barriers set. Kick off the countries names first. Make a report of consideration and recommendation for the next round. You all have to adjust to one thing, the more we spend time on something the chances of stalling is also leaning against us. Since we all know the bottom up process is starting to falter and we see same in IETF happening as well as within ICANN policies. DO we want another failure to deliver one bit? I say no, let us deliberate and accept the first level countries which are fully noted and onlist with ISO. WHilst stating to ICANN board in a formal report objections etc., that would be my understandable situation. Do we all now what will happen what others will want we dont know. Can we assume we are right about everything. The word assume itself “ASS you and ME”.
>> 
>> Make a first move to strike a difference and make he fist part work. I am again saying it is never going to solve all at this stage. We will learn more and more as we get to it. A standing committee that will look at new eventual situations can be setup and as new issues crop we can all be recalled.
>> 
>> Please people please if we continue more like this it will never come to and end. We need to strike a first and then look at the other bits. Else the number of people complaining we want this and that we will never ever get anywhere. I am not grouchy but i want to see a first level of success which we all agree the ISO geonames. I still think the three letter remains within the bounds of GNSO and not CCNSO right now. Which could eventually move to them as discussion but i know quite a few countries who are hostage held to even get the two letter country code. I would say GNSO keeps the three letter country code at this stage and ensures the countries get there three letter code. Which will prove even to GAC we are trying to do best that countries are the holders of their names. 
>> 
>> Second phase the full country names come into play which could also be up for the countries to decide if they want them or not. Then at another stage we open up to see how towns, cities etc., fair out then decide as towns/cities have exist in many countries with similar names which is where we should be careful. If we set 50,000 or 500,000 as the indicator. What happens even with unique city names in smaller countries. I take Mauritius or even seychelles and various more this represents half of the population size of the country and seychelles for example does not even have a population of over 60,000 as a whole. Don’t they have rights?
>> 
>> T would say this bit is something that we will need to decide when it comes up and then we cross the bridge as it stands. But are we getting anywhere close to a first win. Sorry to say that we are not even close to it. Another WG / WT that will die and ma end up that the board takes its own path eventually.Then i do not see why we would complain.
>> 
>> Kris
>> 
>>> On Jun 9, 2018, at 06:19, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Cordova , Illinois, USA
>>> 
>>> El 8 jun. 2018, a la(s) 21:59, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se>> escribió:
>>> 
>>>> how many of these are there likely to be?
>>>>  
>>>> Between LatAm, California and Spain: a lot!
>>>> 
>>>> El 2018-06-08 18:49, Marita Moll escribió:
>>>> 
>>>>> Interesting example -- Cordoba (Spain/Argentina). 
>>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>>>> 
>>>> Well, maybe, in cases like that, age trumps size. I could live with that because really, how many of these are there likely to be?
>>>>> Marita Moll
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 6/8/2018 4:17 PM, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>>>>>> Cordoba Spain actually dates back to Roman times ;-)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As to definitions of city in Switzerland there is a good explanation here: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-releases.assetdetail.38628.html <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-releases.assetdetail.38628.html>
>>>>>> <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-releases.assetdetail.38628.html> <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-releases.assetdetail.38628.html>(according to which there are 162 cities in Switzerland)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> best
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jorge
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Von: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se> <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se>
>>>>>> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 22:09:03 MESZ
>>>>>> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
>>>>>> Cc: maureen.hilyard at gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>, mmoll at ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net> <mmoll at ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>, 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>
>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm in agreement with Jorge!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We should consider a relative definition of the local laws, like considering each of the Swiss Cantons having its own capital city, however tiny (Luzern 'watch my spelling´ with 81,057 inhabitants (2015).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If afterwards, Córdoba Spain (inhab. 326,609 (2016) but founded 784 A.D.) happens to be smaller than Córdoba Argentina (inhab. 1.391 million (2010) we can talk......
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> El 2018-06-08 13:48, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> escribió:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>> As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city.
>>>>>> Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here.
>>>>>> The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty.
>>>>>> hope this helps
>>>>>> Jorge
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com><mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>>
>>>>>> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ
>>>>>> An: Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>
>>>>>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1 Marita
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marita Moll
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>>>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Risking to repeat myself:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> •        The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> •        The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> •        The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> •        So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> •        The ONLY other "category" was "cities"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> •        And for these there is a non-geo use provision
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1.      Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2.      OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alexander.berlin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest
>>>>>> Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16
>>>>>> To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear WT5 colleagues,
>>>>>> I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions.
>>>>>> In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection.
>>>>>> Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.'  (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pdf>)
>>>>>> Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision.
>>>>>>  Best wishes,
>>>>>> Heather Forrest
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew at icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew at icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew at icann.org> <mailto:terri.agnew at icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew at icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew at icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew at icann.org> <mailto:terri.agnew at icann.org>>>
>>>>>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM
>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018
>>>>>> To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>
>>>>>> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>" <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Agenda wiki page:   https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>> if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mp3:  https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/ <https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/><https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045> <https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Main wiki page:  https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw <https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Terri
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>_______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Kris Seeburn
>> seeburn.k at gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com>
>> www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
>> 
>> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
>> 
>> <KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5





Kris Seeburn
seeburn.k at gmail.com
www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>

"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180609/ed44284b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 51490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180609/ed44284b/KeepItOn_Social_animated-0001.gif>

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