<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" 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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",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
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.m839577194674867455msolistparagraph, li.m839577194674867455msolistparagraph, div.m839577194674867455msolistparagraph
{mso-style-name:m_839577194674867455msolistparagraph;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Hi Timo,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Just for clarification: So you think a .city should be a ccTLD as well? A .state (e.g. .florida) as well?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Why don’t we simply dissolve the ccNSO and end the artificial separation between ccTLDs and gTLDs – and just have ONE class of TLDs? Would make it MUCH easier! It seems you are calling for that, right? Dissolving the ccNSO?<br><br>How can the harmonization of ccTLDs and gTLDs be applied for at ICANN? What would be the steps?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Alexander<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Timo Võhmar<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 04, 2018 5:12 PM<br><b>To:</b> Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hello<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I support Cristopher's points<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The separation between generic and country code TLDs is not the question of semantics - it is about policy ie who is in control of how the TLD is operated whether it is local internet community or international community (ICANN). So from that point of view anything that stands for and represents country names must be in control of these local communities. That in general goes for geo-names as well - in my view interests of local internet community should override the corporate interests. But as the geo-names were already released under GNSO policy we should work around that to try to find a solution that works for internet communities and if no claim is made for corporate or international/generic interests.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Timo Võhmar<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Estonian Internet <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Alexander Schubert <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Hi WT5,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Greg makes a valid point here:<br>Obviously a place like Qatar, London or Israel are relevant and important enough internationally as well as locally to be protected globally for the local residents. But then there are places that do not even HAVE “Internet”, no industry whatsoever and no recognition internationally not even nationally. A small hill for example. Or a small stream.<br><br>The big question here is: how to distinguish? In the past we tried to apply ISO lists – with mixed success. <br><br>But this is probably irrelevant for the names that have been banned in the 2012 round: ISO 3166 Alpha-3 and territory names. These are impacting enough to deserve extra protection by requiring a letter of non-objection by the Government! </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>So we have TWO different problem clouds:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m839577194674867455msolistparagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>1.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Names that have been unavailable in the 2012 round: ISO 3166 Alpha-3 and territory names!</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m839577194674867455msolistparagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>2.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Small, unknown, un-impacting geo-places (small mountain, small stream) around the world</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>I think both need to be dealt with separately.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Thanks,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Alexander</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 04, 2018 3:41 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" target="_blank">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a> Wilkinson <<a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" target="_blank">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu" target="_blank">cw@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>A string may be used as a brand, a geographical name, a generic term, a purpose-specific term and a surname, among other things.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Whether it is “primarily” one of those things may or may not be a relevant or workable test or factor. And how one determines the primary use is open to debate. Declaring that if some patch of dirt or pool of water has been named X, that X is always “primarily” a geographical name, regardless of other uses and factors, is a conclusion, not a basis.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Invoking “transparency and predictability” as a mantra doesn’t make it any more reasoned. I don’t think there’s a “transparency” issue here at all, but since we all support transparency (except, it appears, when it comes to who owns a domain name) it must be good, right? And why the “transparency and predictability” needs of the occupants of a tiny village trump the transparency and predictability of millions of consumers is still a mystery. It represents a dirt-based physical nationalism that is very much at odds with the border less reality and future of the Internet, though experiencing a disturbing resurgence at the moment in the U.S. and elsewhere. You can build a wall at the border or around a patch of dirt; that doesn’t mean that you put that same wall around every top level domaIn name that happens to be used as a geographical name somewhere.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Greg<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:04 AM <a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" target="_blank">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a> Wilkinson <<a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" target="_blank">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p>Dear Greg, Dear WT5 participants:<o:p></o:p></p><p>I consider that a geographical name pertains primarily and in the first instance to the internet users (present and future) in the location concerned.<o:p></o:p></p><p>This in the interests of transparency and predictability for individual users among those communities and economies.<o:p></o:p></p><p>Regards<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p>CW <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p> <o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'>El 2 de abril de 2018 a las 19:32 Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Kris,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>What is your basis for thinking that Geonames takes precedence over IP? I’d like to understand that thought process, and see how broadly you think this “precedence” should be applied (and why).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Thanks!<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Greg<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM Kris Seeburn <<a href="mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com" target="_blank">seeburn.k@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Just a thought:<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Why don’t we just ensure country codes with ISO alpha 3 is retained for countries plain and simple. There are countries where even the alpha-2 are not within an independent hands. ICANN is still working trying to release them from certain people, but still no way out. So a proposal is all the ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as alternate to alpha 2 for countries. That could clear the air for government and so on. So ISO alpha 3 can still be under GNSO per say. We do not move them to cctld.Just a thought. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Then we could look at brands etc., based on IP or a strong case where it geoname attached to a country language, or culture but without also destroying a model that would be on the onus of the party requesting such Domain. Since we are talking Geonames. I think Geo takes precedence over IP but we may need to establish a strict way of engaging this as it could backfire as well. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>My two cents. But still it’s a double sided cutting knife. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On Apr 2, 2018, at 08:35, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite relevant. I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to them. We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in any comprehensive way.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><em><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are referring to with regard to geographical names? Which laws and/or treaties are you referring to, and to which parts?</span></em><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I expect that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual policy for geographical names."</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "</span><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222;background:white'>all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO.</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>" It's really quite the opposite. Once upon a time, there was a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names. Then came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the ccNSO. All else remained in the GNSO.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked in that analogy before I can respond. Even assuming <em><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>arguendo</span></em> that there is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes relevant when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest or right in it. Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple uses."</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Greg</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> .</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><br>_______________________________________________<br>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>