[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on WT 5 next call on Wednesday - Subject 1: Additional Geographic Terms

Javier Rua javrua at gmail.com
Tue Aug 27 12:47:55 UTC 2019 

Gracias Jorge.  And thanks to all for all the recent input and efforts!

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:32 AM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

> Dear all
>
>
>
> I’ve been looking in depth into the details of the different comments and
> proposals so far and have included in the Google Doc a new version that
> tries to streamline all inputs into one consistent wording…
>
>
>
> Here it is for your convenience:
>
>
>
> ==
>
>
>
> Suggested text considering all inputs (Susan, Paul, Katrin, Justine) so
> far (Jorge August 27, at 14:00):
>
>
>
> *Proposal.*
>
> Applications of strings regarding terms beyond the 2012 AGB rules with
> geographic meaning shall be subject to an obligation of the applicant to
> contact the relevant public authorities, in order to put them on notice.
>
>
>
> *Affected Strings.*
>
>
>
> (a) Exact matches of adjectival forms of country names (as set out in the
> ISO 3166-1 list), in the official language(s) of the country in question.
> The adjectival forms of country names shall be found on the World Bank
> Country Names and Adjectives list (World Bank List
> <https://siteresources.worldbank.org/TRANSLATIONSERVICESEXT/Resources/CountryNamesandAdjectives.doc>
> ).
>
>
>
> (b) Other terms with geographic meaning, as notified by GAC Members states
> or other UN Member states to the ICANN Organization within a deadline of 12
> months following the adoption of this proposal. In such notifications the
> interested countries must provide the source in national law for
> considering the relevant term as especially protected; The list of notified
> terms shall be made publicly available by ICANN Org.
>
>
>
> *Contact details of interested countries*.
>
> Interested countries must provide relevant contact details to ICANN at
> least three (3) months in advance of the opening of each application window.
>
>
>
> *Obligation to contact interested countries.*
>
> Applicants for such a term will then be under an obligation to contact the
> relevant country. Said obligation to contact must be fulfilled, at the
> latest, in the period between applications closing and reveal day, but an
> applicant may choose to notify earlier than this.
>
> Said obligation to put on notice the relevant country may be performed in
> an automatized fashion by ICANN Org, if the applicant so wishes.
>
>
>
> *No further legal effect.*
>
> There is no further obligation whatsoever arising from this provision and
> it may not be construed as requiring a letter of non-objection from the
> relevant public authority. Nothing in this section may be construed against
> an applicant or ICANN Org as an admission that the applicant or ICANN Org
> believes that the Affected String is geographical in nature, is protected
> under law, or that the relevant government has any particular right to take
> action against an application for the TLD consisting of the Affected String.
>
>
>
>
>
> ==
>
> @Paul, while it is true that Susan’s proposal received more support two
> calls ago, I feel that the level of support to a more comprehensive text
> (which came from across the community and is present in many inputs from
> the public comment period) should not be diminished…
>
>
>
> This should be especially so, if we consider that the latest wordings
> which I’ve been suggesting have conceded and factored in many of the
> questions which were presented during the last calls (e.g. eliminating the
> reference to “public policy”; stating as clearly as possible that this is
> just and only a contact obligation; that no rights are being created or
> recognized; providing for an automated notification option, etc.).
>
>
>
> I’m trying to be as specific and flexible as possible…
>
>
>
> I hope that you and other colleagues with concerns may make constructive
> and specific proposals on this text, without losing the wider objective out
> of sight, which is to create a framework that handles non-AGB applications
> related to geographic terms in a more successful fashion than the 2012 AGB…
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *Im
> Auftrag von *McGrady, Paul D.
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 27. August 2019 14:02
> *An:* Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer at dotzon.com>;
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on
> WT 5 next call on Wednesday - Subject 1: Additional Geographic Terms
>
>
>
> Thanks Katrin,
>
>
>
> Of course my refinement of Susan’s proposal is not meant to be in addition
> to the proposal found at the link (as is clear from my statement when I
> posted it).  As I stated, Jorge’s proposal putting a notice burden on the
> applicant and opening up the compilation of a list for all sorts of geo
> terms is a non-starter.  Jorge’s proposal had very little support on our
> call when it was held at an hour more conducive to full participation.
> Susan’s proposal had significant support on that call, subject to the need
> for a few tweaks which I think I have put forward.  My refinement to
> Susan’s proposal is a significant concession on top of all of the
> compromises already baked into the 2012 Applicant Guidebook.  As we all
> know, there is no basis in law requiring any special treatment for
> geographic terms, so the special treatments found in the 2012 AGB are
> significant concessions, as is the refinement to Susan’s Early Reveal
> proposal below.
>
>
>
> If we are at a point where those pushing for Jorge’s proposal are
> insisting on all or nothing, I’m afraid it will be time declare
> non-consensus and simply revert to the AGB 2012 as written (which is itself
> a significant concession since, as noted above, the AGB contains many
> concessions on this point not required under any law).  That is the point
> of compromise – no one side gets everything they want.
>
>
>
> Hopefully, serious consideration will be given to what I posted below.
> Attempting to tack it on as a redundancy to Jorge’s proposal is not a
> helpful response, and time is short.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 27, 2019 6:04 AM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on
> WT 5 next call on Wednesday - Subject 1: Additional Geographic Terms
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> we assume that the basis for the proposal remains the text as published by
> staff at
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OKYbbvUVOqLJGk0a9S5K7H9sp-7833S6y5xg6c8yqa4/edit
> and that the proposal below serves as an addition and does not substitute
> the notification from applicants to governments. In that case we are
> generally ok  – and added a clarification in green.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Katrin
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Paul, dear all
>
>
>
> @Paul: Thanks for your Email and proposal!
>
>
>
> However: as said, while Susan’s/Paul’s proposal would certainly mean a
> step ahead in providing for a more stable and predictable framework for all
> interested parties, it, nevertheless, is still far away from providing a
> middle-ground solution for non-AGB terms with geographic meaning. Adjective
> forms of country names are but a very small subset of terms with a
> geographic meaning beyond the AGB terms…
>
>
>
> Hence, let me try to use Paul’s proposal as a basis for a wording that
> tries to strike a compromise between the different positions so far (my
> tweaks in red):
>
>
>
> ==
>
> _____________________________________
>
> *Early Reveal Process*
>
>
>
> ·         *Proposal. *There should be an Early Reveal Process, which is
> an opportunity for national governments to receive early notification about
> particular applications so that they can take whatever steps they wish to
> take.
>
> ·         *Affected Strings.*  (a) Exact matches of adjectival forms of
> country names (as set out in the ISO 3166-1 list), in the official
> language(s) of the country in question, shall be subject to the Early
> Reveal Process described below. The adjectival forms of country names shall
> be found on the World Bank Country Names and Adjectives list (World Bank
> List
> <https://siteresources.worldbank.org/TRANSLATIONSERVICESEXT/Resources/CountryNamesandAdjectives.doc>).
> (b) Other terms with geographic meaning, as notified by GAC Members states
> or other UN Member states to the ICANN Organization within a deadline of 12
> months following the adoption of this proposal. In such notifications the
> interested countries must provide the source in national law for
> considering the relevant term as especially protected;
>
> ·         *Purpose.*  The purpose of the Early Reveal Process is to
> provide early notice to relevant national governments regarding new gTLD
> applications for exact matches to adjectival forms of country names found
> on the World Bank List and other terms with geographic meaning, as
> notified by GAC Members states or other UN Member states to the ICANN
> Organization.
>
> ·         *Notification by National Governments.*  Interested national
> governments must provide relevant contact details to ICANN at least three
> (3) months in advance of the opening of each application window.
>
> ·         *Notification to National Governments.*  As soon as possible
> after, but never before, the close of each application window , but no
> later than 1 month after the close, ICANN Org should reveal relevant
> applied-for terms and applicant contact information to those national
> governments who provided contact information.
>
> ·         *Notice by ICANN.* ICANN Org will provide notice of the
> Affected Strings to National Governments who timely submit their contact
> information. There is no obligation for applicants arising from this Early
> Reveal Process to seek  a letter of consent/non-objection from the relevant
> public authority.
>
> ·         *No Legal Effect.*  Nothing in this section may be construed
> against an applicant or ICANN Org as an admission that the applicant or
> ICANN Org believes that the Affected String is geographical in nature, is
> protected under law, or that the relevant government has any particular
> right to take action against an application for the TLD consisting of the
> Affected String.
>
> _____________________________________
>
> ==
>
>
>
> You will see that this new wording limits the terms to be notified to
> those whose special protection is provided for by national law.
>
>
>
> I hope that we may all agree on this as a minimum provision for addressing
> this longstanding issue…
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *Im
> Auftrag von *McGrady, Paul D.
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 27. August 2019 04:19
> *An:* Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on
> WT 5 next call on Wednesday - Subject 1: Additional Geographic Terms
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I have been studying both Susan’s proposal and Jorge’s counterproposal.
> Unfortunately, I believe Jorge’s counterproposal is a non-starter that
> would result in a chilling effect upon would-be applicants and does not
> have enough support to reach consensus.  Susan’s Early Reveal proposal (as
> tightened up a bit below) remains a very attractive compromise.  If Susan’s
> proposal were modified as noted, I believe this Early Reveal Process is
> something we could “sell” to our constituencies to get behind when we send
> this to the Full WG.  I hope Staff will find a way to work this into the
> documents we are looking at on our next call.
>
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________
>
> *Early Reveal Process*
>
>
>
> ·         *Proposal. *There should be an Early Reveal Process, which is
> an opportunity for national governments to receive early notification about
> particular applications so that they can take whatever steps they wish to
> take.
>
> ·         *Affected Strings.*  Exact matches of adjectival forms of
> country names (as set out in the ISO 3166-1 list), in the official
> language(s) of the country in question, shall be subject to the Early
> Reveal Process described below. The adjectival forms of country names shall
> be found on the World Bank Country Names and Adjectives list (World Bank
> List
> <https://siteresources.worldbank.org/TRANSLATIONSERVICESEXT/Resources/CountryNamesandAdjectives.doc>
> ).
>
> ·         *Purpose.*  The purpose of the Early Reveal Process is to
> provide early notice to relevant national governments regarding new gTLD
> applications for exact matches to adjectival forms of country names found
> on the World Bank List.
>
> ·         *Notification by National Governments.*  Interested national
> governments must provide relevant contact details to ICANN at least three
> (3) months in advance of the opening of each application window.
>
> ·         *Notification to National Governments.*  As soon as possible
> after, but never before, the close of each application window , but no
> later than 1 month after the close, ICANN Org should reveal relevant
> applied-for terms and applicant contact information to those national
> governments who provided contact information.
>
> ·         *Notice by ICANN.* ICANN Org will provide notice of the
> Affected Strings to National Governments who timely submit their contact
> information. There is no obligation for applicants arising from this Early
> Reveal Process to seek  a letter of consent/non-objection from the relevant
> public authority.
>
> ·         *No Legal Effect.*  Nothing in this section may be construed
> against an applicant or ICANN Org as an admission that the applicant or
> ICANN Org believes that the Affected String is geographical in nature, is
> protected under law, or that the relevant government has any particular
> right to take action against an application for the TLD consisting of the
> Affected String.
>
> _____________________________________
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged,
> attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended
> recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you
> received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply
> e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Justine Chew
> *Sent:* Monday, August 26, 2019 7:45 PM
> *To:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on
> WT 5 next call on Wednesday - Subject 1: Additional Geographic Terms
>
>
>
> I support Jorge's proposal as amended and have proposed some edits to the
> last paragraph just to address possible confusion between the 2
> notifications which the proposal touches on. The edited paragraph is
> replicated below in case it doesn't show up in the googledoc [
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OKYbbvUVOqLJGk0a9S5K7H9sp-7833S6y5xg6c8yqa4/edit?usp=sharing
>  ]
>
> Applicants for such a term will then be under an obligation to contact the
> relevant country. That obligation to contact must be fulfilled, at the
> latest, prior to reveal day. Nothing in this provision shall be construed
> as requiring a letter of support or non-objection from the relevant
> government or public authority
>
> I believe it is reasonable for an obligation to contact to be placed on an
> applicant that applies for a string matching a term in the list to be
> populated as described in the proposal. Early notice to the right
> government or public authority of an application for such a string could
> prove useful in encouraging both sides to address any concerns that one
> side may have of the other's approach or reaction, as the case may be, to
> the application. The proposed obligation to contact in no way attracts any
> requirement for a letter of support or non-objection, so I see little to no
> downside in supporting this proposal.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Justine
> -----
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 01:52, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear WT5 colleagues,
>
>
>
> I trust this email finds you well.
>
>
>
> As agreed in our last call, there would be a revision of 4 different
> issues, as a last chance to find a possible agreement in new text:
>
>
>
> Subject 1: Final Discussion: Additional Geographic Terms
>
> Subject 2: TOPIC CLOSURE: Changes to String Contention Resolution
>
> Subject 3: Final Discussion: Non-Capital City Names
>
> Subject4 : TOPIC CLOSURE: Proposals to Increase or Decrease the Scope of
> Protections for Geographic Names
>
>
>
> This email puts together all of them, please take a look, share your
> comments edits in this email list or in the shared document when available.
>
>
>
> We noted there are already comments in the email list on Subject 3. Please
> note that these and other suggestions will be summarised together with new
> input that these issues will receive during the next days.
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your active involvement.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Annebeth, Javier, Martin, and Olga
>
>
>
>
>
> Subject 1: Final Discussion: Additional Geographic Terms
>
>
>
> The WT is considering a proposal for additional geographic terms, which
> was discussed in detail on both email and most recently on the 21 August
> 2019 meeting. As an action item, it was agreed that discussion should
> continue on list until * 28 August 2019*, where it is anticipated that a
> near-final proposal (if achievable) can be considered by the group on the
> call taking place that same day. To facilitate that discussion, the latest
> iteration of the proposal has been copied into a Google document here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OKYbbvUVOqLJGk0a9S5K7H9sp-7833S6y5xg6c8yqa4/edit?usp=sharing.
> Staff has attempted to integrate some of the questions, concerns, and
> suggested improvements into that document for your consideration. Please
> either suggest edits directly in the Google doc or reply to this email
> thread dedicated to this subject.
>
>
>
> In this case, unless consensus can be reached on this proposal, the
> co-leads do not envision that there will be any additional terms receiving
> geographic protections.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Subject 2: TOPIC CLOSURE: Changes to String Contention Resolution*
>
>
>
> As an action item on the 21 August 2019 meeting, the WT agreed to continue
> discussion on possible changes to string contention resolution. To date,
> there has only been a single proposal put forth (see below), which the
> co-leads believe has received adequate discussion time, but has received
> considerable opposition both on list and during WT meetings. Discussion on
> this topic will be allowed to continue on list until *28 August 2019. *Unless
> it becomes apparent to the co-leads that a consensus position is possible
> by that date, this topic will be considered closed.
>
>
>
> For avoidance of doubt, unless consensus is reached on this proposal, the
> 2012 Applicant Guidebook provisions will remain in place for string
> contention resolution.
>
>
>
> *Proposal:*
>
>
>
> *Update Applicant Guidebook, Chapter 2.2.1.4.4 with: *
>
> If an application for a string representing a geographic name is in a
> contention set with applications for identical strings that have not been
> identified as geographical names, the string contention will be resolved
> using the string contention procedures described in Module 4.
>
>
>
> *Update Applicant Guidebook, Module 4. with: *
>
> A// In case there is contention for a string where one application intends
> to use the string as a non-capital city name or designated the TLD to
> targeting it to a geographic meaning, preference should be given to the
> applicant who will use the TLD for geographic purposes if the applicant for
> the geoTLD is based in a country where national law gives precedent to city
> and/or regional names.
>
>
>
> *RATIONALE: This would reflect national law e.g. in countries like
> Switzerland and Germany, where e.g. city names have more rights that
> holders of the same name. *
>
>
>
> B// If there is more than one applicant for an identical string
> representing a geographic name, and the applications have requisite
> government approvals, the applicant with the larger no of inhabitants will
> prevail over the smaller one. As the criteria “size” has been used in the
> CPE criteria, it is apparently a well-accepted criteria.
>
>
>
> *RATIONALE: This would reflect the current rule of the Applicant Guidebook
> capital city has priority over smaller city.*
>
>
>
>
>
> *Subject 3: Final Discussion: Non-Capital City Names*
>
>
>
> The WT is considering [what appears to be a non-substantive – feel free
> to delete if you’re uncomfortable with this statement] proposal for a
> clarifying text change to section 2.2.1.4.2 part 2 in the Applicant
> Guidebook, on non-capital city names. This proposal has been discussed on
> both email and most recently on the 21 August 2019 meeting. As an action
> item, it was agreed that discussion should continue on list until *28
> August 2019*, where it is anticipated that a near-final proposal (if
> achievable) can be considered by the group on the call taking place that
> same day. To facilitate that discussion, the latest iteration of the
> proposal has been copied into a Google document here, which includes
> Sophie’s latest proposal received after the 21 Aug meeting:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZSuKTRm2y3mTg9FBZHv50ljP-dWE9N_okz9gcl2-2U/edit?usp=sharing.
> Please either suggest edits directly in the Google doc or reply to this
> email thread dedicated to this subject.
>
>
>
> For avoidance of doubt, unless consensus is reached on this proposal, the
> 2012 Applicant Guidebook provisions will remain in place for non-capital
> city names.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Subject4 : TOPIC CLOSURE: Proposals to Increase or Decrease the Scope of
> Protections for Geographic Names*
>
>
>
> As an action item on the 21 August 2019 meeting, the WT agreed to continue
> discussion on several proposals that either increase or decrease the scope
> of protections for Geographic Names. The relevant proposals are 8, 9, 10,
> 37, 6, and 7 and the fully detailed public comment can be found in the
> public comment review document here:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WKSC_pPBviCnbHxW171ZIp4CzuhQXRCV1NR2ruagrxs/edit?usp=sharing.
> You can also review the public comment summary document beginning on page
> 32 here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rsyxCEBd6ax3Rb_w1kms_E9n29XL1_lw3Yp9XQ4TeCY/edit?usp=sharing.
> The co-leads believe that the proposals have received adequate discussion
> time and significantly, each appear to have received widely divergent
> opinions, which leads us to believe that consensus will be difficult to
> achieve. However, discussion on this topic will be allowed to continue on
> list until *28 August 2019. *Unless it becomes apparent to the co-leads
> that a consensus position is possible for any of these proposals by that
> date, this topic will be considered closed.
>
>
>
> For your convenience, the proposals are reproduced below:
>
>
>
> *Proposals:*
>
> *Increase in protections*
>
>
>
> Proposal 8: If an applicant applies for a string that is confusingly
> similar to a geographic term that requires a letter of government support
> or non-objection, the applicant should be required to obtain a letter of
> government support/non-objection. As an example, a common misspelling of a
> geographic name would be considered confusingly similar.
>
>
>
> Proposal 9: At the end of the registry contract period, a government
> entity has the option of becoming engaged and can add provisions to the
> contract that specifies conditions rather than there being an assumption
> that the contract will be renewed.
>
>
>
> Proposal 10: A TLD associated with geography should be incorporated within
> the jurisdiction of the relevant government and subject to local law.
>
>
>
> Proposal 37: Require that an applicant demonstrates that it has researched
> whether the applied-for string has a geographic meaning and performed any
> outreach deemed necessary by the applicant prior to submitting the
> application. The proposal would be in addition to the existing measures
> related to the Geographic Names Panel.
>
>
>
> *Decrease in protections*
>
>
>
> Proposal 6: Once a gTLD is delegated with an intended use that is
> geographic in nature, all other variations and translations of this term
> are unconditionally available for application by any entity or person.
> Objection procedures could potentially still apply.
>
>
>
> Proposal 7: An applicant for a string with geographic meaning must provide
> notice to each relevant government or public authority that the applicant
> is applying for the string. The applicant is not required to obtain a
> letter of support on non-objection. This proposal relies on curative
> mechanisms to protect geographic names in contrast with
> support/non-objection requirements that are preventative in nature. Each
> government or public authority has a defined opportunity to object based on
> standards to be established. The right to object expires after a set period
> of time. Objections are filed through one of the existing objection
> processes or a variation on an existing process. A set of standards would
> need to be established to determine what constitutes a relevant government
> or public authority. This proposal could apply to all or some of the
> categories of geographic names included in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Kind regards,
>
> Annebeth, Javier, Martin, and Olga
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190827/10a092e9/attachment-0001.html>

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