[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
Vernatius Okwu EZEAMA
vezeama at ourrightsng.org
Tue May 8 00:21:52 UTC 2018
Hi all,
I would like to express strong support for Jorge and Nicks comments raised
earlier in this thread. I also support Katrins comments on “intended use”
and the non-objection- letter. However caution must be taken.
Thanks and best regards,
Vernatius EZEAMA,
Our Rights
On Mon, May 7, 2018 10:44 pm, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote:
> +1 Giacomo
>
>
> ---
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>
>
> El 2018-05-07 12:47, Mazzone, Giacomo escribió:
>
>
>> Dear Greg,
>>
>>
>> After having read your message, I re-read Jorge's summary. I cannot
>> find anything that looks like "not neutral, through imitation,
>> exaggeration, and parody".
>>
>> Could you explain me where do you find this lack of respect in Jorge's
>> contribution ?
>>
>> I think we are trying as WG to debate calmly to find solutions to
>> problems that have origin in the existing differences among
>> jurisdiction and legislation across the world.
>>
>> I would recommend everybody to stick to facts and to act on good faith.
>> If we do not, the whole logic of the exercise of the WG will be gone.
>>
>>
>> Thank you in advance to everybody to keep this place of debate as fair
>> as possible.
>>
>> Giacomo
>>
>>
>> FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Greg Shatan
>> SENT: lundi 7 mai 2018 17:43
>> TO: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
>> CC: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>>
>>
>> Well, if the idea was to avoid "dueling summaries" and what Liz called
>> "ridiculous circles of oneupmanship", we have failed.
>>
>>
>> However, if the idea was to express the view that Liz's summary wasn't
>> neutral, through imitation, exaggeration, and parody, this has
>> succeeded brilliantly.
>>
>> I'm fairly sure this doesn't help consensus-building, unless we take
>> this for what it is -- a platform representing the views of one camp.
>> Helpful in its own way, but it would more helpful if accurately
>> labeled.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 1:43 AM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in
>>> preparing their third party-recap:
>>>
>>> - TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is
>>> delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from
>>> using that name.
>>>
>>> - Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful.
>>> „Intended use" limitations also imply impractical enforcement
>>> challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use
>>> by third parties, such as registrants...
>>>
>>> - city names are geographic terms that have political, historical,
>>> economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the
>>> populations, communities affected.
>>>
>>> - city governments have responsibilities over their names as their
>>> primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic
>>> interactions and as identification of their peoples.
>>>
>>> - Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and
>>> law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia,
>>> have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is
>>> subject to general/public interests representent by that city
>>> government. City governments act according to the laws of the
>>> countries they are established and accountable under them.
>>>
>>> - City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A
>>> monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under
>>> laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a
>>> number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer
>>> normally to composed names („lucerne foods") and are limited to
>>> specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to
>>> avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name
>>> in that category of products or services who generate confusion in
>>> the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this).
>>>
>>> - Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and
>>> direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and
>>> in not receiving objections when they are well into an application
>>> process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as
>>> this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation.
>>>
>>> - Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply
>>> for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify
>>> potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help
>>> identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012).
>>>
>>> - City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know
>>> ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and
>>> actively look for their city names being applied for and to object
>>> within deadlines they ignore.
>>>
>>> - Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in
>>> 60+ cases.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues
>>> with the „non-objection" as such were identified.
>>>
>>> - Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering
>>> evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant
>>> public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying
>>> improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact
>>> that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments
>>> may have different, legitimate causes.
>>>
>>> - Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with
>>> specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the
>>> relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those
>>> specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the
>>> public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This
>>> system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the
>>> parties, which may go from „laisser-faire", to participation in
>>> governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc.
>>>
>>> - If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from
>>> the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say.
>>>
>>> - Potential issues to be further analysed:
>>>
>>>
>>> a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such.
>>> Improvements to the non-objection letter system.
>>>
>>>
>>> b) ...
>>>
>>> Hope this is helpful
>>>
>>>
>>> best
>>>
>>> Jorge
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> Von: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
>>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ
>>> An: liz.williams at auda.org.au <liz.williams at auda.org.au>
>>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Liz
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing.
>>> You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you
>>> conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the
>>> non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of
>>> others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective...
>>>
>>> To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let's them
>>> do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so
>>> far.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>>
>>> Jorge
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au>
>>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ
>>> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
>>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>>>
>>>
>>> Jorge
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track
>>> along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the
>>> group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really
>>> don't give a fig who does it...it just needs to be done so that we
>>> are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous
>>> circles of oneupmanship which I don't care for.
>>>
>>> I've done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough
>>> consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up
>>> with best practice that I really don't mind who does what.
>>>
>>> It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to
>>> the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are
>>> MILES from any final position.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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>
>>> www.auda.org.au [1]<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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm,
>>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Liz
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions
>>> expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many
>>> others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar,
>>> Kavouss... and I).
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have
>>> many different summaries.
>>>
>>> best
>>>
>>> Jorge
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> Von: Liz Williams
>>> <liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>
>>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ
>>> An: Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello everyone
>>>
>>>
>>> I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set
>>> of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some
>>> things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can
>>> discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and
>>> staff?
>>>
>>> 1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based
>>> policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications.
>>> This, of course, includes geographic terms.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that
>>> ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what
>>> their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no
>>> one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from
>>> national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice
>>> to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However,
>>> individual member governments may have different opinions about
>>> specific applications for TLDs.
>>>
>>> These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen
>>> in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the
>>> Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the
>>> implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants.
>>> Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as
>>> has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that
>>> unfairness in implementation suggestions.
>>>
>>> For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do
>>> not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the
>>> implementation of those policies because, given the level of
>>> disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement.
>>>
>>> From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus
>>> that
>>>
>>> 1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications
>>> for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN's Mission and Core
>>> Values.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. That the expansion of "lists" of things is not an effective or
>>> useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond
>>> ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the
>>> international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or
>>> appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be
>>> relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably
>>> "treat" applications for TLD labels that may have geographic
>>> significance.
>>>
>>> 3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms
>>> but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an
>>> application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic
>>> terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to
>>> applications.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally,
>>> get rid of the "non-objection" artifact which can be capricious (if a
>>> government changes), subjective (because we haven't successfully
>>> articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and
>>> it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using
>>> clearly set out guidelines).
>>>
>>> Best wishes.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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> www.auda.org.au
>>> [1]<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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll
>>> <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.
>>> net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can
>>> really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as
>>> countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries
>>> they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list
>>> of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as
>>> reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify
>>> themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the
>>> conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities
>>> would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marita Moll
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>>> Robin,
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you and I share a certain "distain" for regulation exercised
>>> through "Governments". You write:
>>>
>>> "It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to
>>> misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think
>>> that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis."
>>>
>>> You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody
>>> wants to help GOVERNMENTS to "protect" their territories in the DNS.
>>> But why don't you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly
>>> couldn't care less about Governments - but I do care very much and
>>> very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the
>>> constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to
>>> their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by
>>> CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment
>>> about "Governments" - and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM?
>>> NOT from "misrepresentation" - but from the ability to identify
>>> themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via
>>> ccTLDs).
>>>
>>> Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a "community priority application" if
>>> the string is identical to a ("sizeable") city: I want that THE
>>> PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major,
>>> promise 85% of (diluted) "profits" - and then blanket the space with
>>> hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to "just make big
>>> bucks"; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY
>>> initiatives that THRIVE!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> Alexander.berlin
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin
>>> Gross
>>> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM
>>> To: Greg Shatan
>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:greg
>>> shatanipc at gmail.com> 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>
>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan
>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregs
>>> hatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think Greg's suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful
>>> suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not
>>> someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when
>>> they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our
>>> analysis. We don't want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we
>>> also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the
>>> same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected
>>> with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those
>>> applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate
>>> international law on some other ground.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan
>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregs
>>> hatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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><mail
>>> to: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.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.will
>>> iams at auda.org.au>>www.auda.org.au
>>> [1]<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.
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2018, at 4:50 am, Mike Rodenbaugh
>>> <mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbau
>>> gh.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/><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><mail
>>> to: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 rodenbau
>>> gh.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><mail
>>> to: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:gregs
>>> hatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>,
>>> mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.n
>>> et<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><m
>>> ailto: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<http://france.com/>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>>> tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
>>> http://rodenbaugh.com<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><mail
>>> to:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><m
>>> ailto: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.c
>>> h>>>> 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 rodenbau
>>> gh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto
>>> :mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbau
>>> gh.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><mail
>>> to:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><m
>>> ailto: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.c
>>> h>>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan
>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregs
>>> hatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatan
>>> ipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gm
>>> ail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>,
>>> mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.n
>>> et<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll
>>> @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:mmol
>>> l 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 ica
>>> nn.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-newgt
>>> ld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mail
> to:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><m
> ailto: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.or
> g>>>>
>>> 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/><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><mail
>>> to:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><m
>>> ailto: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.c
>>> h>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.adm
>>> in.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.a
>>> dmin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bako
>>> m.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at ba
>>> kom.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 r
>>> odenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com
>>> <mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at r
>>> odenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.co
>>> m><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mik
>>> e at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.c
>>> om<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><mail
>>> to:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><m
>>> ailto: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.c
>>> h>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.adm
>>> in.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.a
>>> dmin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bako
>>> m.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at ba
>>> kom.admin.ch>>>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan
>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregs
>>> hatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatan
>>> ipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gm
>>> ail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.
>>> com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<ma
>>> ilto: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>>>>>;
> mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<m
> ailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inte
> r.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>><mailto:mmol
> l at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailt
> o:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.ne
> t><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>>;gnso-newgtld-w
> g-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-newg
> tld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-ne
> wgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:gns
> o-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:g
> nso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailt
> o:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mai
> lto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-new
> gtld-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
>>> [2]<http://city.com/><http://city.com/><http://city.com<http://city.c
>>> om/><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/><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><mail
>>> to:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><m
>>> ailto: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.c
>>> h>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.adm
>>> in.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.a
>>> dmin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bako
>>> m.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at ba
>>> kom.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<m
>>> ailto: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><m
>>> ailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt
>>> 5-bounces at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<m
>>> ailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-w
>>> t5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><m
>>> ailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt
>>> 5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mai
>>> lto: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:mmol
>>> l 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 c
>>> a.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mai
>>> lto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.int
>>> er.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-wt
>>> 5 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<mailt
>>> o:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.or
>>> g<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at ic
>>> ann.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:mmol
>>> l 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 c
>>> a.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mai
>>> lto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.int
>>> er.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-bou
>>> nces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:g
>>> nso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bou
>>> nces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:g
>>> nso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounc
>>> es 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-bou
>>> nces 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-boun
>>> ces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gn
>>> so-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>>> on behalf of Alexander
>>> Schubert
>>>
> <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin><mailto:alexa
> nder at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>><mailto:alexander
> @schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander at schub
> ert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>><mailto:alexander at schubert.b
> erlin<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><m
>>> ailto: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
>>> @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 ica
>>> nn.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<m
>>> ailto: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><m
>>> ailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt
>>> 5-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 dave
>>> cake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>>><mailt
>>> o:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.ne
>>> t<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at dav
>>> ecake.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-wt
>>> 5 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:gns
>>> o-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mail
>>> to:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.o
>>> rg<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at i
>>> cann.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 dave
>>> cake.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 dave
>>> cake.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.wi
>>> lliams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.willia
>>> ms at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>><mailto:liz.williams
>>> @auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at aud
>>> a.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.o
>>> rg.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.a
>>> u<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.wil
>>> liams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.william
>>> s at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>><mailto:liz.williams@
>>> 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.or
>>> g.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
>>> [1]<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/>><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><ma
>>> ilto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.o
>>> rg>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@
>>> icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-w
>>> g-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-n
>>> ewgtld-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 ican
>>> n.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><ma
>>> ilto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.o
>>> rg>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@
>>> icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-w
>>> g-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-n
>>> ewgtld-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 ican
>>> n.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><m
>>> ailto: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
>>> @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 ica
>>> nn.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><ma
>>> ilto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.o
>>> rg>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@
>>> icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-w
>>> g-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-n
>>> ewgtld-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 ican
>>> n.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><ma
>>> ilto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.o
>>> rg>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@
>>> icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-w
>>> g-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-n
>>> ewgtld-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 ican
>>> n.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><ma
>>> ilto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.o
>>> rg>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>> mailing list
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [3]
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> -------------------------
>>
>>
>> **************************************************
>> 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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.auda.org.au
> [2] http://city.com
> [3]
> 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
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list