<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText><a name="_MailOriginalBody">Dear Work Track 5 members,<o:p></o:p></a></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Please see below the notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the transcript and recording at: </span><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-02-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-02-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5</span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b>Action Items:<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>ACTION ITEM 1: Communicate to Work Track 2 that number-letter and letter-number codes are out of scope for Work Track 5.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>ACTION ITEM 2: WT members should the annex of the AGB, Module 2, to the list relating to "Separable Country Name List". The separable names list is available beginning on page 88 here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b>Notes:<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates: No updates to SOIs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>2. Update since last meeting:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- ToR completed. (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Terms+of+Reference[community.icann.org]) <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Webinar prepared for WT5 members - History of Geographic Names at the Top Level at ICANN (8th Feb, 19:00 UTC).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>3. Review of existing defined geographic terms:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><u>Slide 6: Review of existing defined geographic names<o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Discussion points:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>a) is it a valid geographic terms for the purposes of new gTLDs?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>b) what were the positive impact/merits based on the treatment applied to the term in the AGB?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>c) what were the negative impact/opportunities lost based on the treatment applied to the term in the AGB?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Summary of terms we will discuss today: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FuPEq0y-cdSUQ1nvhWKhVnG8PLaC2RYXsCpQu91FDqo/edit#gid=358523414<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><u>Slide 7: 2.2.1.3.2 DNS Stability: String Review Procedure<o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Alpha-2 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Example: AF for Afghanistan<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Policy: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- When we say this was adopted to avoid conflict with current and future country codes based on the ISO 3166-1 -- was the concern about misdirected traffic, competition, or both?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- It is not just that it is already a ccTLD, ones that have not yet been registered are also not available for registration because countries change names, so it is a relatively small number of two letter combination.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Might be interesting to understand the volume of additions to the two-letter list. Blocking access to all two-letter characters, but we may not actually use all of them.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- ICANN needs the ISO to provide their policy on the use of codes that have not yet been assigned.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- ISO 3166 there is an understanding that ICANN conforms to the list and will only use that for ccTLDs. The understanding goes back to 2000. If you want to use it for something else then you need to get ICANN to change that understanding/policy. You cannot pick and choose elements from the standard that you like and disregard those you don't like. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- aa.com was mentioned -- that was an example of a two-letter code that was reserved to the public; it cannot be assigned to a country as it is exempted.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Need to distinguish between two-letter codes from number-letter, letter-number, number-number, as they don't fall within ISO 3166. Can't say that all two-letter codes operate as ccTLDs. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Is it reasonable still to use 3166 as a basis for policy requirements? Is this a good list to include in the geo terms? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- The AGB and the policy said said two-letter alpha codes were not allowed -- but the slide says, "two-character ASCII strings". What is the actual language in the policy? "Part III - Policy Requirements for Generic Top-Level Domains – These requirements apply to all prospective top- level domain strings applied for as gTLDs.3.1 Applied-for gTLD strings in ASCII must be composed of three or more visually distinct characters. Two- character ASCII strings are not permitted, to avoid conflicting with current and future country codes based on the ISO 3166-1 standard."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Negative impact and opportunities lost -- don't have the answer to that. Don't see any reason for why this is not a good list.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Positive impact/merits based on the treatment in the AGB:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Consistent rule that was easy to apply and was objective.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Question to ask: should we limit the two-character restriction to letter-letter combinations? Or should we allow number-letter, letter-number combinations? Consider the letter-number combinations as out of scope -- would need to say this before Work Track 2 would take it up. Isn't there a current prohibition against numbers in TLD strings? (2.2.1.1.3.2 (1.2.1) But we are only looking at geographic terms.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Longstanding rule that domains should not start or end with numbers. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>ACTION: Communicate to Work Track 2 that number-letter and letter-number codes are out of scope for Work Track 5.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><u>Slide 8: 2.2.1.4.1 Country or Territory Names<o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166 standard<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Example: AFG for afghanistan<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Policy: Available, but challenge mechanism to governments to initiate an objection.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>AGB: Not available as gTLDs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Is it a valid geographic term for the purposes of new gTLDs?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Unlike the alpha two codes, only the alpha three codes -- it is undeniable to say that there is a geographic connection.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Refer to the application for .bar -- treated as a geographic term because it is in 3166, then three-letter country names are even more valid.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- We are NOT talking right now about how we treat the 3 character codes. We are just talking about whether there is a connection between 3 characters and geographic terms. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Not a question that .com broke the rule since there wasn't a rule. How we treat them is something we need to discuss clearly, but we do know that the 3-letter codes are in the ISO list to designate countries, but not to say that they get the same treatment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- As far as the three-letter codes listed at the time it makes sense to consider them as geographic terms; but all three-letter codes that aren't on the list wouldn't get the same treatment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- ccNSO has a detailed policy on this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- ISO 3166 doesn't belong to ICANN, so ICANN should formally request from ISO a response on these questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- On negative/opportunities lost -- we can't answer that. Very few opportunities on there. ICANN wasn't gathering data.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- There are some brands on that list, but they knew they couldn't apply. The 3-letter combinations included some common words and abbreviations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- GIN would have been applied for but it was blocked.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Positive impact is that the alpha-three is strongly associated with a country name as a common abbreviation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Permutations also are not allowed -- such as AFR and FRA -- bit of overprotection: "Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Applicants that may have reached agreement with the respective "owner" of the 3-letter were banned.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><u>2.2.1.4.1 Country or Territory Names<o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Long-form name in the ISO 3166-standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Example: The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Policy: Available, but challenge mechanism to government to initiate an objection.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>AGB: Not available as gTLD.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- It is a reference point, but they are not always right, and depending on other sources and may be different than what is in use. Can only treat it as a source, not the source.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Positive impact: It was an easy, objective standard to follow<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- It was predictable.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Negative Impact: If a country wanted to apply for their long name as TLD, they were not allowed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><u>Slide 10: 2.2.1.4.1 Country or Territory Names<o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Short-form name in the ISO 3166-standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Example: Afghanistan<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Policy: Available, but challenge mechanism.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>AGB: Not available<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><u>Slide 11: 2.2.1.4.1 Country or Territory Names<o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as "exceptionally reserved" by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Example: UK for United Kingdom<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Policy: Available but challenge mechanism<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>AGB: Not available<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- A better example could be EU for European Union.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><u>Slide 12: 2.2.1.4.1 Country or Territory Names<o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Separable component of a country name designated on the "Separable Country Name List" or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language, according to annex in AGB.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Example: Aland, separable component of Aland islands.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Policy: Available with challenge mechanism<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>AGB: Not available<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>The separable names list is available beginning on page 88 here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Would want to review the list before stating an opinion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- WT members should review the separable names list.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><u>Slide 20: Additional geographic terms<o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Members will be invited to submit additional geographic terms that are not covered by the existing terms. These will be considered at a subsequent WT5 meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- These are potential geographic names, but for the purpose of WT5 that these are not yet geographic names.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>4. AOB: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>1. Board discussion on Geo Names:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- At the Board Workshop there was a public session on geo names. These sessions are informational; no decision making. Session to inform the Board of the work that is going on here and the status, open questions and issues, projections for when the Board would need to look at the outcome.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>2. Work Plan and ICANN61:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Leadership is developing a Work Plan for discussion by the WT.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Developing the program for the WT5 session at ICANN61.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>