[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
Mike Rodenbaugh
mike at rodenbaugh.com
Fri May 4 18:49:24 UTC 2018
I agree completely with both points, thanks Robin!
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> Dear Jorge,
>
> But this really isn’t about “getting at a table” with equals, this is a
> policy which gives one party the unilateral veto right over all others for
> a TLD. Which means the applicant has to go begging to the govt(s) for a
> non-objection letter. Of course "nothing gets you nothing” in this world,
> so the govt is now empowered to extract conditions, including possibly
> payments from the applicant in order to obtain that letter permitting the
> TLD to proceed. Even in cases where the TLD is not going to be used to
> refer to the geo meaning or to misrepresent a connection to the term, that
> letter is required. No doubt govts want to require as many people as
> possible must "get at the table" since that means more people must pay
> govts for TLDs to go forward. The more one looks at it, it appears the
> non-objection letter is a type of "extortion scheme" for TLDs, bad policy
> for a free and open Internet. And the policy wasn’t something that the
> GNSO actually approved in the last round. It was one of those
> post-approval board-staff "implementation details" that went off the rails
> due to intense govt pressure to ignore the GNSO-approved policy on the
> issue and give govts more power at ICANN anyway. The policy must be
> reconsidered for both of these reasons.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
> > On May 4, 2018, at 10:18 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jon
> > I cannot speak for all 2000+ cities in Switzerland ;-)
> > They have rights on their name but I guess that getting at a table with
> them would be fruitful.
> > best
> > Jorge
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email>
> > Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 19:00:29 MESZ
> > An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> > Cc: paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweig@
> redbranchconsulting.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>,
> alexander at schubert.berlin <alexander at schubert.berlin>,
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
> >
> > Jorge:
> >
> > Do you think that applicant should have to talk to the city and get a
> non-objection letter if the applicant was not using the TLD in a way at all
> related to the city? I don't have a problem with letters of non-objection
> in cases where the TLD is being targeted to the city population itself, but
> not in every instance. For example, in the case of Arch, Switzerland, do
> you think that the Swiss municipality should have veto rights on whether a
> group of architects could secure .ARCH to collect and display photos of
> interesting arches around the world or whether the Arch Insurance Co in New
> Jersey, US should be able to have a TLD for its network of brokers?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > On May 4, 2018, at 12:48 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Paul
> > That is probably a strange way of seeing things. The brand holder would
> have only an interest worth protecting if the string is used by someone
> else in commerce, in the same category of product or service, and consumer
> confusion is at stake.
> > The city under Swiss law has a right to sue against the use of its name,
> without such strings attached, i.e. it is a more ample right.
> > But again, what is key here is that the applicant needs to talk to the
> city with that very name and get at least its non-objection. Everything
> else is an invitation for protracted conflicts as we have seen in some
> cases NOT subject to this instrument...
> > best
> > Jorge
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
> > Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 18:04:30 MESZ
> > An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>, gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>, alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:
> alexander at schubert.berlin><alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@
> schubert.berlin>>
> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
> > Betreff: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
> >
> > Yes, I understand the difference. But what gives one priority over the
> > other. You are, in effect, arguing that the civil code of Switzerland
> > should take precedence in our judgment to the trademark code of Great
> > Britain, say. Indeed, to my mind the narrower more focused right
> should
> > generally be thought of as taking precedence since it is less limiting of
> > others.
> >
> > Paul Rosenzweig
> > M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
> > Sent: Friday, May
> > To: paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@
> redbranchconsulting.com>; gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>;
> > alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>
> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> > Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
> >
> > Dear Paul
> > The difference, being simple, is that a trademark gives you a limited
> > protection regarding a term for certain products and services, when there
> > might be a confusion for consumers (Nick from Nominet explained it much
> > better).
> > The right under the civil code on the name of a city is general in its
> > scope, not limited to commercial issues, not limited to specific products
> > and services and not focused on consumer protection.
> > Best
> > Jorge
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
> > Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 17:27:55 MESZ
> > An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>,
> > gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>,
> alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>
> > <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>
> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
> > Betreff: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
> >
> > Why is it qualitatively different? And if it is qualitatively different
> > what body of law gives one type of right priority over another?
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > Paul Rosenzweig
> > M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf
> > Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> > Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 10:54 AM
> > To: gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>;
> alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>
> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
> >
> > Dear Greg
> > Luzern has a right on the name as such under civil right, which is
> > qualitatively different.
> > Best
> > Jorge
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>
> > Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 16:44:19 MESZ
> > An: alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>
> <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>
> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
> >
> > Alexander,
> >
> > You seem to be confusing how patents work and how trademarks work.
> Patents
> > can accurately be characterized as a “right to exclude.” Trademarks
> cannot.
> > The company has positive rights in LUCERNE.
> >
> > When enforcing that trademark, the owners of LUCERNE can seek to stop
> use or
> > registration of a mark that raises a “likelihood of confusion” —
> basically,
> > the same or similar mark for the same or related goods and services, and
> for
> > goods and services in the “natural zone of expansion.” I’m not saying
> they
> > have the right to stop EVERYBODY nor should they, but then again, neither
> > should Luzern.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:31 AM Alexander Schubert
> > <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>> wrote:
> > Greg,
> >
> > Lucerne Foods, Inc. (an American legal entity) might have acquired trade
> > mark rights in the United States of America – but NOT for “LUCERNE”! The
> > trade mark protection prevents the commercial usage of the trade-marked
> > string “lucerne” - FOR A VERY NARROW SELECTION OF SERVICES AND GOODS.
> It’s
> > rather the services and goods that you protect – FOR a certain string.
> The
> > string itself is free to use by anybody for everything (minus the few
> goods
> > and services trade-marked).
> >
> > And nobody says that “governments think the rights of governments come
> > first” – it is THE PEOPLE who come first of course – and Governments are
> > merely representing them.
> >
> > Alexander
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> > [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-
> newgtld-wg-wt5-bou
> > nces at icann.org<mailto:nces at icann.org>>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
> > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 9:08 AM
> > To: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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
> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> >
> > Subject: 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><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><mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
> >
> > Cc: Liz Williams
> > <liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto: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
> ><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
> > (<http://>www.lucernefoods.com<http://www.lucernefoods.com/><
> http://www.lucernefoods.com<http://www.lucernefoods.com/><h
> ttp://www.lucernefoods.co<http://www.lucernefoods.co/>
> > m<http://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/><http://lucernefoods.com<
> http://lucernefoods.com/>> because
> > www.lucerne.com<http://www.lucerne.com/><http://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><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<mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><http://kom.admin.ch<http://kom.admin.ch/>>>
> > Cc: Liz Williams
> > <liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto: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
> ><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><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><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
> ><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.william
> > s at auda.org.au<mailto:s 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>
> >
> > 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
> @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:Jorg
> > e.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:e.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
> @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:Jorg
> > e.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:e.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:gregshatanip
> > c at gmail.com<mailto:c 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<mail
> > to:mmoll at ca.inter.net<http://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<mai
> > lto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<http://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:g
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-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>>>
> > 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:Jorg
> > e.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:e.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Ca
> > ncio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:ncio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge
> .Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> > bakom.admin.ch<http://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
> @rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<
> > mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:
> mike at rodenbau
> > gh.com<http://gh.com>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mik
> e 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:Jorg
> > e.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:e.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Ca
> > ncio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:ncio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge
> .Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> > bakom.admin.ch<http://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:gregshatanip
> > c at gmail.com<mailto:c at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com<
> > mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
> gregsh
> > atanipc at gmail.com<mailto:atanipc 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<mail
> > to:mmoll at ca.inter.net<http://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<mai
> > lto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<http://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:g
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:g
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-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
> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:g
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-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:Jorg
> > e.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:e.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Ca
> > ncio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:ncio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge
> .Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> > bakom.admin.ch<http://bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> >>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bak
> > om.admin.ch<http://om.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> ><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.ad
> > min.ch<http://min.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@
> bakom.admin.ch<ma
> > ilto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<http://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 rodenbau
> > gh.com<http://gh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mi
> ke at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at r
> > odenbaugh.com<http://odenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:
> mike at rodenbaugh.com>>><mail
> > to:mike at rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com
> ><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.co
> > m<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:
> mike at rodenb
> > augh.com<http://augh.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:Jorg
> > e.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:e.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Ca
> > ncio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:ncio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge
> .Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> > bakom.admin.ch<http://bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> >>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bak
> > om.admin.ch<http://om.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> ><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.ad
> > min.ch<http://min.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@
> bakom.admin.ch<ma
> > ilto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<http://bakom.admin.ch>>>>>>
> > Cc: Gregory S. Shatan
> > <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanip
> > c at gmail.com<mailto:c at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com<
> > mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
> gregsh
> > atanipc at gmail.com<mailto:atanipc at gmail.com>>>><mailto:gregsh
> atanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gma
> > il.com<http://il.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mail
> > to:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<http://gmail.com><mailto:gregshat
> anipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatan
> > ipc at gmail.com<mailto:ipc 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<mail
> > to:mmoll at ca.inter.net<http://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.inte
> > r.net<http://r.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net
> <mailto:mmoll at ca.i
> > nter.net<http://nter.net>>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:
> mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll
> > @ca.inter.net<http://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:g
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:g
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:g
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gns
> > o-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:o-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<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:Jorg
> > e.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:e.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Ca
> > ncio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:ncio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge
> .Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> > bakom.admin.ch<http://bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> >>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bak
> > om.admin.ch<http://om.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> ><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.ad
> > min.ch<http://min.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@
> bakom.admin.ch<ma
> > ilto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<http://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-bou
> > nces at icann.org<mailto:nces at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-
> newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-new
> > gtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gtld-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-bo
> > unces at icann.org<mailto:unces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-
> newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-
> > newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.or
> > g><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-
> newgtld-wg-wt5-b
> > ounces at icann.org<mailto:ounces at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-
> newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-
> > newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
> >><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.o
> > rg<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<mai
> > lto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<http://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.int
> > er.net<http://er.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmol
> l at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.
> > inter.net<http://inter.net>>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:
> mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmol
> > l at ca.inter.net<mailto:l 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:g
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-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:g
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:g
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-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<mai
> > lto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<http://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.int
> > er.net<http://er.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmol
> l at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.
> > inter.net<http://inter.net>>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:
> mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmol
> > l at ca.inter.net<mailto:l 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 ic
> > ann.org<http://ann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg
> > -wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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 i
> > cann.org<http://cann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
> >>>><mailto:gnso-newgtl
> > d-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:d-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mai
> > lto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:newgt
> ld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces
> > @icann.org<http://icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-
> bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtl
> > d-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:d-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mai
> > lto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:newgt
> ld-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
> > @schubert.berlin>>><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:
> alexander at schube
> > rt.berlin><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexand
> er 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:g
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:g
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:g
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gns
> > o-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:o-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-bou
> > nces at icann.org<mailto:nces at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-
> newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-new
> > gtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gtld-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-bo
> > unces at icann.org<mailto:unces 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><mail
> > to:dave at davecake.net<http://davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net
> >>>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<m
> > ailto:dave at davecake.net<http://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:g
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-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:g
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-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><mail
> > to:dave at davecake.net<http://davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net
> >>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<ma
> > ilto:dave at davecake.net<http://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.willia
> > ms at auda.org.au<mailto:ms at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au
> >><mailto:liz.williams at auda.or
> > g.au<http://g.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:l
> iz.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.will
> > iams at auda.org.au<mailto:iams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.
> williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.o
> > rg.au<http://rg.au>>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:
> liz.williams at auda.org.au><mai
> > lto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<http://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.william
> > s at auda.org.au<mailto:s 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.willi
> > ams at auda.org.au<mailto:ams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au
> <mailto:liz.williams at auda.or
> > g.au<http://g.au>>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:l
> iz.williams at auda.org.au><mail
> > to:liz.williams at auda.org.au<http://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://auda.org.au><http://www.auda.org.au/>><ht
> tp://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:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gns
> > o-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:o-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:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gns
> > o-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:o-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:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gns
> > o-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:o-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:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gns
> > o-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:o-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:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gn
> > so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:so-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gns
> > o-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:o-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:G
> > nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:nso-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>
> > 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>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> > 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/20180504/7044359a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list