[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Martin Sutton martin at brandregistrygroup.org
Fri May 4 07:08:50 UTC 2018


For clarification, would the national laws referred to would only be applicable to an entity in that jurisdiction that applied for a city name, irrespective of whether it was intended for non-geo purpose (such as a generic word, brand or industry group) where the term has multiple uses?

That would seem to provide the National government the ability to have control over if/who/how a geo TLD could be operated by a local entity. It would not, however, have the


Sent from my iPhone

On 4 May 2018, at 07:38, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone at ebu.ch<mailto:mazzone at ebu.ch>> wrote:

Just for your information. The same protection that Jorge mentioned for Switzerland exists also in Italy for the geographic names. This is the sentence of the High court that stated on this matter.
Cass. n. 16022/2000
In tema di marchi, per verificare se l'uso di un nome geografico possa ritenersi o meno indebito deve farsi riferimento non alla tutela riservata dalla legge ai diritti della personalità (art. 7 c.c.), bensì alla disciplina specifica che la legge riserva a tali «segni distintivi» nell'ambito del diritto commerciale, ossia quella dell'art. 21 della legge n. 929 del 1942 (la S.C. ha così confermato la sentenza che, nella controversia instaurata dal Comune di Capri contro una casa produttrice di sigarette, aveva escluso che l'utilizzo del marchio «Capri» potesse ledere la fama, il credito o il decoro della municipalità dell'isola).

Usually it is the elected body (the mayor, the president of the regional council) of the corresponding name that could act in justice to protect the interest of the community it represents.
The fact that such legislation doesn’t exist in the US, not necessarily means that doesn’t exist at all.

Giacomo

http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/denominazioni-geografiche-e-indicazioni-di-provenienza_(Diritto-on-line)/

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
Sent: vendredi 4 mai 2018 08:13
To: gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Greg

They may have rights in a specific jurisdiction, regarding specific goods and services. They have no right on the name as such. Much less globally.

Sandwich may be a hard case and perhaps it would make sense to ask the corresponding city governments what they think...
But what do you think about Shanghai?

Best

Jorge

Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Mai 2018 08:08
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>; liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Of course Lucerne Foods has a right on Lucerne.  More precisely, they have legitimate interests in and a legal right to Lucerne.  And they have trademark registrations for LUCERNE.  As with any registration they specify goods and services. That doesn’t make their rights less valid.

Can you clarify if you believe that the hypothetical applicant for .sandwich should be required to get letters of support or nonobjective from Sandwich, Mass and Sandwich, England? Thank you.

Greg

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 1:43 AM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Greg

Thanks for your reply. “Lucerne Foods” has no right on “Lucerne” – it most probably just has a trademark for “lucerne foods” in very specific categories of products and services (food related I guess).

In Switzerland (“Lucerne” as such) would in fact be barred from registration as a business name (as I have said). And the city of Lucerne has a right on its name pursuant 29 Civil Code, so it has clearly a good legal ground to challenge the delegation of the unique resource “.lucerne”.

But beyond the Swiss legal system, the delegation of the unique resource which is a city’s name will give rise to political sensitivities, whatever the “intended use”. You need that city government on board. Otherwise you will have a political problem – which is quite natural as city governments have responsibilities, and the name of their city is their main identifier.

Best

Jorge

Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Mai 2018 07:36
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>

Cc: Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Uniqueness does not convey primacy upon governments.

TLDs may be unique, but that does not mean that governments should get a "Trump Card" to block any use of a string with (among other things) a geographic meaning.  I can understand why governments think the rights of governments come first, but that's not going to get us very far.

"Use" is absolutely important -- it goes to whether a legitimate right is being exercised or infringed.

If Lucerne Foods (www.lucernefoods.com<http://www.lucernefoods.com>), one of the world's largest food producers, wants to apply for .lucerne, they should have the right to do so, without interference from Luzern.  (I assume they have lucernefoods.com<http://lucernefoods.com> because www.lucerne.com<http://www.lucerne.com> was already taken.)

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 1:23 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Greg and all,

„Sandwich“ may be a nice example, but fact is that, as I explained, the “use” is not really important, as we only have one string with that city name – TLDs are unique.

Therefore, whatever the intended use (a can of worms on its own btw), the unique TLD with the “city name” would be delegated. Think on “.shanghai” delegated for a “non geo-use”. Who would say that would have no implications, that would not arise no political sensitivities?

But getting back to my country, if “.luzern” were to be applied for, intending a “non-geo use”, I would very well understand that this would bring about not only political issues but also legal challenges in our country (based on Art. 29 civil code).

All this is avoided if you acknowledge the facts (TLDs are unique and political sensitivities are there) and try to put everyone at the table. The non-objection letter does that. It may be improved, based on factual issues detected in the 2012 round – btw: we should of course consult all parties in those issues and get first-hand information from the applicants and public authorities involved – just basing our analysis on hearsay, opinions or third-party reports would not be appropriate (Greg, you will remember that in the “jurisdiction Subgroup” of the CCWG Accountability we followed the same path of only looking at first hand evidence…).

Best regards

Jorge

Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Mai 2018 07:07
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<http://kom.admin.ch>>
Cc: Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>

Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

The burden of non-objection is "fairly" put on the applicant (if at all) only if the intended use of the gTLD is as a "geo TLD."  If the applied-for string is going to be used for other purposes, there should be no opportunity for a non-applicant to block an application.  (If the "place" is another applicant, that's an entirely different situation that I am not covering in this email.)

Consider an application for .sandwich as a gTLD geared toward domains for sandwich restaurants, sandwich recipe sites, sandwich fans, sandwich historians, sellers of sandwich ingredients (meats, cheeses, breads, condiments, etc.) or sandwich implements (panini presses, toaster ovens, etc.).  Sandwich, England and Sandwich, Mass. (and the Earl of Sandwich) should have no say in the matter.

This is analogous to the treatment of brands.  If Delta Faucets applies for .Delta, Delta Van Lines has no basis for an objection -- because Delta Faucets has a legitimate right.  Delta Van Lines option is to apply or not to apply (even if it is only a "defensive application").  This is a practical and time-tested model that we should use for strings with geographic and other meanings, at least where the gTLDs use is not as a "geo TLD".

Greg

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 12:56 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Liz

The burden to obtain the non-objection is fairly put on the applicant, who has, as you also say, a direct interest in avoiding objections.

The city governments of this world (we have 2000+ in tiny Switzerland), whose name is applied to by an applicant in a widely unknown setting which is ICANN cannot be expected to be privy to such procedures and to be monitoring the rounds of applications. This is of course much more difficult for developing and large countries, whose cities may realize one day that their name was taken as a TLD in a process they did not know, because they did not „object“.

To the larger point: you argue/assert that the non-objection letter should not be continued. Alas you have produced no factual basis that would warrant that, beyond one case (africa) where the problems were of an unrelated character, another (amazon) that did NOT fall under the non objection rule, which leaves us with one case (tata) where issues may be analyzed and addressed without changing the system and putting the incentive structure completely upside-down.

More broadly speaking, ICANN cannot just ignore the political sensitivities, which are backed by different policies, laws etc. depending on the corresponding country. You need their representatives at the table and non-objecting if you want to avoid protracted issues. These kinds of issues only would grow if you gerrymander those public authorities out of the game.

best regards

Jorge



________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>
Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 00:48:00 MESZ
An: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Hello everyone

This thread has brought out some really interesting ideas.  I may have a simpler solution because what we are really talking about, in many cases, is backward looking difficult history from which we need to move on.  We should not be satisfied with a 2007 policy and a 2012 implementation if it continues to “allow” bad policy to chase “poor” implementation.

I may have a solution though because what we are essentially talking about also is how a interested stakeholder can express “objection” to something.  I would like to see the end of the “non-objection” process all together, for reasons explained in other posts.  However, “objecting to an application" is still a legitimate course of action for someone to take if they don’t want something to happen.  Here are the steps.

1.  If you support something, say so.  This is really up to an applicant to do the footwork to demonstrate in an application that this has taken place.  We can then think on implementation elements of what that could look like.

2.  If you don’t object to something, allow it to happen.  If you change your mind, you must do it within agreed strict time parameters see point 3. (Non-Objection letters will be a thing of the past).

3.  If you do object, make an appropriately framed objection whoever you are.  Within that objection process, refer to international law, domestic law, ISO standards and so on that are relevant to the applicant & the application.   This takes out the endless discussion here about what should be referred to which causes such trouble.

The applicant takes responsibility for ensuring that they submit an application which addresses those points and avoids an objection (all applicants are highly motivated to avoid objections).  An objector must use those standards;  pay for making the objection and submit it within appropriate time frames.  Evaluators then take those objections into account in evaluation.  An objector (whoever they are) must accept that their objection may be discarded by evaluators.

Then we can close off the endless circular differences between jurisdictions and we focus on the real work that takes place for an applicant in an application process.

I look forward to hearing more from colleagues because this could apply to a) any application and b) geographic terms in particular.   Our policy recommendation then comes around to open process, objective criteria, assumption of compliance with law, competition and innovation.  The points above are then implementation guidelines that improve an AGB.

Liz


….
Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
.au Domain Administration Ltd
M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
E: liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au><http://www.auda.org.au>

Important Notice
This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

On 4 May 2018, at 4:50 am, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>> wrote:

Maybe Staff can help compile any such laws and cases related to domains?  We should deal with concrete examples, as I have given re 4 TLD applications from the last round.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Mike
There are similar laws in other countries. For Switzerland you can look it up online quite easily (in various languages). There is case-law but I guess the court decisions will be in German and French.
Besides, limits to register solely city names and other geographic terms as such as trademarks or business names are also common...
On the other hand, as said before, rights on brands are limited to specific categories of products and services...
In the end, as said, you have different interests converging on a single string, where in our opinion the public interest is paramount.
Best
Jorge



________________________________

Von: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>>
Datum: 3. Mai 2018 um 19:26:08 MESZ
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>
Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>, mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>> <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto: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><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>>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

I would like to see the text of such laws, and any cases that apply them to domain names.  I guess there might be one in France too, but I haven't dug into the particulars of the French legal proceedings re France.com<http://France.com><http://France.com>.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:19 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear Mike
I mentioned some, eg in Switzerland cities have rights to protect their names under the civil code (art. 29), and provisions prevent the registration of business names and trademarks that solely consist of city names.
best
Jorge



________________________________

Von: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>>>
Datum: 3. Mai 2018 um 19:06:27 MESZ
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>>
Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>, 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>>> <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>>>>, 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>>>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Jorge, what law provides for governments to claim superior rights to geographic (or any other) domain names?  I am not aware of any, so am eager to be enlightened if they exist.

Thanks,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>>> wrote:
Dear Mike

Thanks for your input.

In the end we have different bodies, entities etc. holding interests on one single string. In our view (Swiss perspective), public interest provides for clear limits to private monopolization over geographic names such as city names – this is reflected in law.

Best regards

Jorge


Von: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>>>]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 09:49
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>>>
Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>>; 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>>><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<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>>; 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>>><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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Governments also have infinite, obvious alternatives to <.city> TLDs, such as <.citygovernment>, <.citycouncil>, <.citytourism>, etc.  Perhaps surprisingly, governments have managed to survive for the past 30 years even though they have not had the legal the right to "their" <city.com<http://city.com><http://city.com/><http://city.com<http://city.com/>><http://city.com<http://city.com/>>> or even <city.ccTLD> second level domain names.  They still have no such legal right at any level of the DNS.  Some governments' fantasy to own such rights is just that, fantasy.

To be sure, ICANN is not the proper body to grant governments such a right.  But unfortunately, ICANN went far too far in the last round kowtowing to governments, and requiring the "non-objection" letter.  That led to outright extortion by such well known geographic areas as SPA and BAR, among others, who had nothing more that a fantasy to control TLD rights to that name, plus ICANN's ill-advised, non-community-consensus requirement of the non-objection letter.  As I recall (and I could be wrong and will eat my shoe), that was an ICANN Staff implementation gift, not part of the consensus policy passed by GNSO and the Board.  Even if it was, it was ill-advised then, and should be eliminated for future rounds.

Country codes have been given special status in the DNS with ccTLDs and correspondent restrictions at the second level of the New gTLDs.  That was an original gift to national governments, extended stupidly to the second level by ICANN in the last round, solely to appease government obstructionists in that last round.  Subsidiary governments need to get over this; they don't have further rights to "their" name in the DNS.  Period.

Paris, France has no greater rights to .PARIS than Paris, Texas.  Or Paris Hilton.  Period.  But I would love to hear them fight out that issue.  ICANN certainly should not have predetermined it in favor of France or Texas, to the detriment of Ms. Hilton (and so many other legitimate users of the word Paris).  All three of those parties (at least) had equal rights to that TLD, and should have been put into a contention set to resolve it.

In substantial part, governments continue to rehash arguments made by IGOs in the various IGO Names policy discussions.  Those IGOs get nowhere with the broader GNSO community because they only have fantasy rights to "their" names (in many cases) and acronyms (in almost all cases).  So they scream to the Board and have delayed finality in those discussions for half a decade already.  But the GNSO is never going to agree with them, and the GNSO has primary TLD policy responsibility under the Bylaws, not the GAC.  Eventually, the Board must side with the GNSO, though they will put that off forever if they can, as they have done with IGO Names issues.

This GNSO group ought not be considering government pressure or fantasy rights.  If the Board wants to do so, that is their prerogative.  We need to develop policy in the real world, where governments coexist with businesses and other users of "their" names.  They have done so for 30 years.  I am confident in stating that not a single government has fallen, nor even been harmed, by the ability of absolutely anyone to register "their" name at the second level or at the top level.  Until any such harm is shown, why are we even discussing this?  What problem are we trying to solve, exactly?



Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>>> wrote:
Dear all

The fundamental flaw with such an approach is that it forgets that TLDs are unique. There can be only one TLD with a given city name. there can be only one delegation of such a string.

City governments have political, social, historical, economic and legal responsibilities over their cities, and have (at least in Switzerland and other countries) rights on the names of their cities. There might be several cities with the same name, but under the 2012 AGB you had to obtain the non-objection from all of them if that was the case.

As for brands there may be unlimited numbers of business names and trademarks that use a given city name, usually as part of their names (e.g. City “insurances”, City “salami”, City “whatever”…) and with figurative elements beyond the name as such (the color, the font, symbols, etc.). For instance in Switzerland you are not allowed to register a city name as such as a business name – because this would mean that a private business is monopolizing that geographic name.

Hence the crux, resolved in 2012 by the non-objection letter, was that several interests (public interests of a wide spectrum represented by the cities, community interests and multiple commercial interests in the form of brands) may converge on one string, one city name, one TLD.

The non-objection letter was and is in our view a good way to get the more specific interests backing one application to a table with those who represent the corresponding city (and its public policy interests), in order to try to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution…

Best regards

Jorge

Von: 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>><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>>><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>><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>>>>] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 06:27
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>><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<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>>>>>
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>><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<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>>>>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

We need to distinguish between two major groups of potential use cases that arise when there is an application for a string that (among other things) is a geographic term:

1.  The Geo Case:  The case where a new gTLD applicant want to operate the gTLD as a "geographic" TLD (e.g., .berlin, .nyc, .africa)
2.  The Non-Geo Case: The case where a new gTLD wants to operate the gTLD as something other than a geographic TLD -- a .brand, a generic gTLD, a restricted gTLD (e.g., .tata, .spa, .amazon, .patagonia)

For the Geo Case, it may be that there are few instances where support/non-objection letters caused problems in the 2012 round.  One "problem" instance is .africa.  One would have to look at the universe of cases to determine whether all the rest worked well or not.

For the Non-Geo Case, it is clear that there were multiple instances where support/non-objection letters or similar exercises of power did cause problems.  We can start with all four of the examples I've cited above.  I would be curious to know if there were Non-Geo Cases that didn't have problems.

I think we have to consider these use cases separately.  The considerations that apply when a TLD will be operated as a geo TLD (e.g., Roma for Romans) do not apply when the TLD will be operated for other purposes (e.g., .sandwich for a food-related TLD -- Sandwich, MA was incorporated in 1639 and named after Sandwich, England, which is obviously older).  Blending them together just obscures the issues.

Greg



On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 12:30 PM, 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>>><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<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>>> wrote:

Yes, cities can have long history in older cultures -- wars were fought and people died over them.



In Canada, municipal governments are subdivisions of their province. While they have autonomy on most decisions, all by-laws passed are subject to change by the provincial government at any time. So cities exist at the pleasure of the provincial governments.



Leaves one to wonder if the province could deny the city the right to it's TLD.:-( This is a pretty slippery slope......


Marita

On 5/2/2018 11:17 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:

Dear all,



Cities have been founded, incorporated and given various privileges - including their names - in the course of history by kings and emperors and other assorted authorities, and in my non-lawyer´s mind, documents attesting to those acts, scribbled on parchment or whatever, are the legal basis. More important, from end-users´ point of view, is the political ownership felt by the citizens.



For reference,  attached please find an excerpt of the founding document  of my home city Tampere/Tammerfors in 1779, signed by king Gustaf III.



Best,



Yrjö



[cid:image001.png at 01D3E2D4.C11E9F30]





________________________________
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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>><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>>>><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>><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 Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:16 PM
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>>><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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names


Dear Greg,



You write:
        “…..but a ‘first right’ based on a geographic name is troublesome on several levels. But one fundamental question jumps out -- what right is this first right based on?”

If we talk about sizeable (or otherwise “important”) cities:

Nobody has a “first right” obviously. Why should anybody. But if a string is (should be) poised to serve as identifier for a sizeable amount of people (e.g. larger cities) – I think we do not have to search for “international law”; it should be self-evident that such an infrastructure resource like a city-gTLD is NOT assigned lightly to “some entity” – but that the representatives of the city are looped in. There is morality and a “sense of common good” OUTSIDE of established law. At least in Good Old Europe.



But I completely agree with you if we talk about “minor” geographical entities – such as a small stream or a hill. Or a tiny dwelling somewhere in the nowhere. Especially if there is an entity that is MUCH better known to the public (e.g. a well-known brand  vs. a small mountain) or if it is identical to a generic term: “.new” and the New River.

The big question is: How do we policy the line that separates the entities that deserve “protection” from the rest? A repository? Lists of any sort? Population size? Or maybe a panel that decides case by case (caution: Beauty contest alarm)? But having no protections at all is not going to work. To LOWER the already low bar is bonkers in my mind. I wish GAC would pay more attention – there are forces trying to take away DNS infrastructure from The People.


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>><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 Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 7:42 AM
To: David Cake <dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>>>
Cc: leonard obonyo via 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>><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<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: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names



I find myself generally in agreement with Liz Williams.  There are more nuances to unpack than I have time for, but a "first right" based on a geographic name is troublesome on several levels. But one fundamental question jumps out -- what right is this first right based on?  Is there a legal basis for this?  (Jorge tells us that his government would make a decision "based on law", so it would be useful to know what law we're talking about.)  Requiring a "letter of support or non-objection" is also troublesome and not just for the reasons Liz mentions.  (I hope we do not have to pore through each of the letters of support/non-objection from the first round to highlight the problems they cause, but if we are going to, this should be a job for the WG as a whole, not an assignment for Liz.)  I recognize that, as Jorge say, it "works well for governments."  Well, of course it does!  It completely favors governments, and was imposed by governments (i.e., the GAC).  The problem is that it doesn't work well for anyone else, and it is not well-grounded in the rule of law (unless we are thinking of something akin to the droit de seigneur, or perhaps the Divine Right of Kings).



I don't know if I'll be able to be on any part of the call starting shortly, since it is running from 1-2:30 am my time, and I don't do well on 4 hours of sleep....  If am not, please accept my apologies.



Greg









On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:48 PM, David Cake <dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>>>> wrote:

Perth is not even unique within Australia, there is a small town in Tasmania. But the point about ambiguity remaining even if we restrict it to concepts like ‘capital’ is a very good one.



David (resident of the Western Australian Perth)



On 30 Apr 2018, at 1:18 pm, Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>>>> wrote:



Hello everyone



I wanted to start a new thread of conversation about city names ahead of our upcoming conference call.   We are being encouraged by our co-chairs to think about city names as TLDs. The first point is, perhaps, to recognise the “success” of some previous city TLDs including Berlin, Paris, NYC and so on.  Those applications went through very specific requirements for evaluation and, now, hopefully serve the requirements of local communities.  We should hope that, in any new round, the experiences of those cities will ease the way for future applications because we have learnt something about how and why applicants apply for place names (and I use the word place deliberately) as top level domain labels.



For our next round of policy recommendations I wanted to use an example which I think highlights the difficulties we face if we are prescriptive and limited in our analysis.



Most of us know that Perth is the capital city of Western Australia.  It is not the capital city of Australia as Canberra has that honour.  Relying on a “is the word a capital city” question is fraught with difficulty.   It is difficult because Perth, Scotland, has at a bare minimum had city status since the 12th century, far longer than Perth, Australia which also has an indigenous place name, its colonial name and a migrant demographic where the largest majority of Perth residents come from England.  Things are complicated by the existence of Perth in Canada which, in its own right, has some features of a capital and, at the very least, some important historic linkages.



And then we turn to the generic words which Jon Nevett highlighted in a previous post (Bath, Save, New) which are also place names.



That leads us to what can we usefully and objectively recommend as treatment of other names which are also linked to places and how those could be treated as top level domains.  As a starting point, my recommendation would be that we don’t have any special treatment for place names as TLDs and that applicants for those names would be evaluated against other business and technical criteria just like another application.  However, we might want to think about better ways of handling an objection.  Those objections, from whatever quarter, need to be treated in exactly the same way.  I don’t recommend “letters of support or non-objection”.  They are too subjective, fraught with movable political nuance and, in some cases, deeply sensitive geo-political facts (using Jerusalem as the example).



I look forward to hearing the views of others.



Liz

….
Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
.au Domain Administration Ltd
M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
E: liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>>> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au><http://www.auda.org.au/><http://www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/>><http://www.auda.org.au/>

Important Notice
This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.



_______________________________________________
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>>><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<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><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<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




_______________________________________________

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>>><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<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><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<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


_______________________________________________
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>>><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<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><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

_______________________________________________
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



________________________________

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************

_______________________________________________
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/20180504/2f05a9f7/attachment-0001.html>


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