<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Greg -- thank you for
the response. Of course, I was not trying to discredit you. But
you realize, of course, that e-mails can be easily
misinterpreted -- not just by me, but by the couple of hundred
people signed up for this discussion. So, I am just seeking
caution in this respect.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Marita</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/26/2018 11:54 AM, Greg Shatan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+aOHUR18Uyue57FpbWS4FBUOuztrL5mYsaUrR0=HxfVX1X=WA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Marita,</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Please don't jump to
conclusions. I was responding to Alexander's email, but I
didn't want to do "inline" responses, since I find those
tendentious and tiresome unless absolutely necessary. So I
needed to say what part of his email I was responding to.
This was a way to show what I was responding to, but was not
in any way an attempt to "discredit" the positions or
Alexander. At no point did I say that any of his positions
were held only by Alexander. I don't think it's appropriate
when we are discussing substantive issues to make claims about
how many or how few people support a given position. I will
leave it to our co-chairs to deal with which positions are
getting "traction" or not or, better yet, where "common
ground" can be found.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I could say that your
email was an attempt to discredit me and the positions I put
forward, but that would be silly. I hope you will understand
that your perception of my actions and intent was incorrect.
Of course, there is no problem with an honest
misunderstanding, and I will assume that was all it was.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Best regards,</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Marita
Moll <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi Greg. I
object to your painting all the positions you disagree
with as positions held by Alexander. That's not just
misleading, it's false. The positions you disagree are
supported by quite a few people. Throwing them all
into one box labeled "Alexander says" (you used the
name at least 10 times) is a way of discrediting ideas
by pinning them on a single individual. It is a well
known technique in political discourse when you are
trying to discredit someone.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Let's not do
that here.</font></p>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Marita<br>
</font></p>
</font></span>
<div>
<div class="h5"> <br>
<div class="m_7933093344519172564moz-cite-prefix">On
6/25/2018 7:30 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif">Joe,</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif">I want to clarify some areas where
Alexander's characterizations of the group's
work to date don't appear correct. In
particular:</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><span
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default">
<ul>
<li><font face="verdana, sans-serif">We have <b>not</b>
spent our time discussing practically
nothing else than trademark-related issues
specifically. We <b>have</b> spent a
great deal of time discussing a more
general topic -- are place-name meanings
somehow superior to ALL other meanings?
This includes trademark meanings,
surnames, nouns that are not proper nouns
(BAR, SPA, ROCK), communities (aside from
the community of the place(s) with that
name. Casting this as a trademark
discussion misses the point entirely.</font></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><font face="verdana, sans-serif">It is not
an accepted concept that the 2012 AGB is
the starting point of our work (vs. the
policy recommendations that preceded it;
after all, this is a "policy development
process." It is <b>certainly </b>not a
base in the sense of a "floor" changes to
the 2012 AGB could go in any direction –
and in many cases, there's no agreement on
whether any particular change would be an
"improvement."</font><br>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif"><span>·<span
style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal"> <span> </span></span></span>Alexander
says the 2012 AGB protected "very few geo
names." ISO 3166-2 protected nearly 6,000
names. Capital cities protected roughly 250
names. The UNESCO regions and subregions
(ignored by Alexander) add another 35
names (only 2 of which are registered TLDs,
contrary to Alexander's email). That's a
"protect list" of roughly<b> 6,285</b>
names. I would not call that "very few." </font></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif">Each of these was
blocked unless the relevant governmental
authorities granted a letter of
consent/non-objection (at their sole
discretion). Alexander claims "And so far
nobody has really much challenged these
rules." <b><u>Nothing could be further from
the truth.</u></b> There have been
repeated challenges to continued blocking
based on the ISO-3166-2 list. To the extent
capital cities have not been challenged, I
believe that has been based on the hopeful
idea of compromise to reach consensus.
Subregion names have not really been
discussed one way or the other.</font></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif">Of course,
non-capital cities are also protected --
this adds <b>4,400-50,000</b> more places,
yielding a total between approximately <b><font
color="#ff0000">11,000</font></b> names
and more than <b><font color="#ff0000">56,000</font></b>
names. That certainly cannot be "very
few."</font></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif">All of these
issues are still open items. So, it's
incorrect to say that "The ONLY remaining
2012 AGB geo-name category was “city
names.”" There has been a tendency by some
to try and close discussions with premature
declarations of victory (somehow it never
works the other way...). This should be
seen in that context.</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif">This really has
nothing to do with free speech rights of
citizens -- if they want a second level
domain, they can get one. If their city
wants a TLD, they can get one. This is
about blocking names from use and giving one
or more governments the power to decide what
speech will be allowed. This is the
opposite of free speech.</font></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif">The idea of
giving reservation/blocking rights to
governments based on "potentially hundreds
of thousands qualifying “city names”" seems
like a terrible blow to free speech, a form
of "prior restraint" on speech, which is
particularly disfavored. Of course, nothing
will stop any city from getting a TLD
related to their name now, or in the future
(even if their first choice is not
available).</font></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif">Since this isn't
really about "free speech rights for cities"
at all, I'll skip responding to those items,
except to note that the so-called "free
speech" here is a peculiar invention: the
ability of citizens "to express themselves
through a domain name based on their city
name." Since the TLD will not exist because
of this rule, the ability to use such a
domain name doesn't exist. </font></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif"><span
style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal">Similarly,
hypotheticals that are full of false
assumptions and one sided presumptions
intended to paint a David vs. Goliath
picture don't need further response, since
they do not illustrate any general
principle. (As for the good people of Tel
Aviv, they would likely prefer "Tel Aviv"
in Hebrew.)</span><span
style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal">
</span><span
style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal">But
it is good to know that Alexander thinks
the 2012 rules are "horrible."</span></font></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span
style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif">Alexander
dismisses the whole complex issue of
"intent" based on a false premise -- that
because the registrars will sell the
domain names, that the registry's intent
regarding the domain name doesn't matter.
First, this obviously ignores .brands, who
will not be selling domain names at all.
Second, there are many cases where TLDs
are restricted as to the type and scope of
use by registrants -- not least, many
.cityname TLDs!</font></span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif"><span><span
style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal"><span>W</span></span></span></font><span
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">hether
brands have rights (which of course they do)
is really not an issue here. Brands are not
looking to exercise any rights here to stop
other applications, nor have brands asserted
superior privileges over other legitimate
applicants. Again, I won't pick through all
of the baseless assumptions and pejorative
terms used to cobble together an
argument.... But I will say the idea that
this is a </span><span
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">"</span><span
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">culture
war" doesn't hold water (and certainly is
not how this has been framed generally, if
you are looking to catch up on the work of
the group.</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif">As for the
proposed "compromise" -- it's no compromise
at all, since it starts with a false premise
-- that this is a "free speech" question for
"citizens." The idea that the has been
"broad support" for the "solution" proposed
is similarly incorrect. This is certainly
the solution Alexander has repeatedly
brought up, but there is no basis to say
there is broad support for it (though there
is some support). Getting rid of intent
limitations without getting rid of blocking
privileges is no compromise at all.</font></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span
style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif">Once again,
this proposal is supported by inaccurate
and unsupported statements. </font></span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span
style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif">Close to zero
burden? Applicants would have a higher
burden than before -- the requirement to
bargain for the blessing of a government
even where their intended use is not
associated with that place.</font></span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif"><span
style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal">The
assumption that a brand that shares a name
with a big city "deliberately chose it" to
"profit from the image" of the city and
that it's living off of it or
"piggybacking' on it is phrased
pejoratively, but not in any way proven.
Building on this concept, we get into
invented concepts without any basis in law
or facts: that there are "</span>certain
obligations" a brand has to a city it shares
a name with; that the brand is some sort of
“co-brand"; that the “real brand” is the
city brand. These are incredibly fact
specific assumptions, and even if the facts
are as stated, that creates no obligations
or privileges. Furthermore this ignores the
issue of generics and other applicants with
other issues. I guess there's no pejorative
fable to tell about these applicants...</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif">The so-called
"current WT5 suggestion" is being "floated"
largely by Alexander. In reality, it's a
lead balloon and NOT workable. I would
"float" a different "WT5 suggestion" as a
compromise:<br>
</font></p>
<ul>
<li><font face="verdana, sans-serif">The
status quo did not work and it is not
fine. (Perhaps it worked well for the
public authorities; there are numerous
applicants that had nightmare scenarios
(e.g., TATA)</font></li>
<li><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Continue
the "intent" limitation in the category
“city” and apply the same limitation to
subnational regions. (This is a big
compromise, since it would really be much
more appropriate to deal with these issues
on an objection or "after-the-fact" basis)<br>
</font></li>
</ul>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif">That is my "reach
across the aisle" on this point. I am also
passionate about the rights of people and
public benefit -- but "geo-uses" does not
have a monopoly on either point.<br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif">As for looking at
"geo-names not previously protected" -- I
think it would be far more fruitful to start
looking at "after-the-fact" solutions for
public authorities that feel they actually
have been harmed rather than continuing to
try to use blocking privileges as a
solution.</font><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;margin:0px;font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;margin:0px;font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Greg</span></p>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at
4:05 AM, Alexander Schubert <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Dear
Joe,<br>
<br>
thanks for your contribution! You
are stating that you haven’t been
actively involved in the past but
observed. Have you read all emails
and been in all calls? I am asking
because you also state:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,78,121)">
“……the discussions seem to have
only mildly addressed the
thousands of business names
around</span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,78,121)">
the world that are trademarked,
that already contain geographic
names, cities and territories….”</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Well:
For MONTH on end we did practically
nothing else than discussing
precisely that topic. In endless
email exchanges (probably a
thousand) and phone conferences.
This topic has been THE priority so
far. Let me summarize from my view:</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">We
work off the 2012 AGB as a base –
and try to identify areas of
improvement</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">In
the 2012 AGB very few geo names have
been protected, namely:</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span
style="font:7pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Unesco regions
(irrelevant as all are assigned as
gTLD but “.europe”)</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span
style="font:7pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">ISO 3166 Alpha-2
national sub regions (which is why
.tata wasn’t granted to the Indian
TATA and why .bar needed an OK from
the region BAR in ME - <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr>ISO_3166-2:ME</a>)</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span
style="font:7pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Capital cities</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">All
of the above require a letter if
non-objection by the responsible
Government authority – independent
whether or not the applicant claims
geo-use intent or not! And so far
nobody has really much challenged
these rules.</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The
ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name
category was “city names” – with
“city” not really very precisely
defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants
for strings identical to a city name
needed Government approval (letter
if non-objection). The only
exception was a declaration of
“non-geo name use”. That could be a
brand, a generic term, or some
“.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” -
which might be an industrial center
in China (I made that up).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">There
are now two main concerns (those of
brands vs. those who want to
protect the free expression rights
of city populations):</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">There
are potentially hundreds of
thousands qualifying “city names” –
and there is (as you mentioned) a
sizeable overlap with so called
“brands and generic terms! </span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">In
the same time the citizens of
sizeable and or important cities
should have their free speech rights
preserved: that is being able to
express themselves through a domain
name based on their city name – just
like in the future most if not all
big metropolises will offer that
possibility! </span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">So
if somebody would apply for
“.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is
the capital of Israel) – but claim
“non-geo use” (which might be a
ruse) – then according to the 2012
AGB they would be assigned the TLD
if there was no competition – OR
they could drive up the public
auction price in a bidding war
against a potential city based
non-profit that represents the
city’s constituents but has no VC
cash! Or worse: a financially strong
BRAND could simply outbid the city
based application and hijack the
TLD! I am quite sure that the good
people of Tel Aviv would be very
unhappy – and I wonder how you would
defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules
to them? </span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Plus:
It doesn’t really matters what the
registry “intents” – the registry is
not offering domain names to the
public, nor is it the registrant. It
is the registrars who will offer it
is a city gTLD – and it is
registrants who will use it for that
purpose – and there won’t be any
obligation by ICANN to prevent such
use!</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Some
here claim that “brands” have
“rights” – while citizens of cities
have none. Others claim that this
constitutes a travesty – as most
city name based brands are BASED on
the connotation with the city – and
ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC
BENEFIT (as in helping citizens
executing their right of free
expression) and NOT helping “brands”
to squat on city resources! What is
more important: the “right” of a
small brand – or the rights of
hundreds of thousands of citizens in
a city?</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The
entire thing is a question of
“culture” – and like in any OTHER
culture war both sides are very
divided and each is steadfast
convinced to have possession of
endless wisdom (me included).</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">As
this is not an “election” where a
“majority” decides what the future
culture shall be (essentially
picking a “winner” – and creating a
big pool of “losers”) – we will
need to find an agreeable
compromise!</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The
compromise needs to:</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span
style="font:7pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Protect as many
citizens in as many cities as
possible from losing their right of
free expression by using city name
based domains!</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span
style="font:7pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">But to not
overprotect that category – because
it would put too many burdens on
brands and generic term based
applicants!</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">I
am lobbying for a certain workable
solution – and it seems there has
been broad support for it:</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span
style="font:7pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">In order to
prevent citizens from losing their
free speech and free expression
rights permanently we do strike the
“non-geo use” clause without
replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac
arrest – read on).</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span
style="font:7pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">So if somebody
applies for “.telaviv” and claims it
would be a new social network like
TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they
would need to get the city’s
approval first – to PROTECT the
citizens free speech and free
expression rights which are very
important!</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span
style="font:7pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">To reduce this new
burden there should be a “cutoff”
implemented: only if the city meets
a certain requirement (e.g. in
population size) the “non-geo use”
would be replaced. In other words:
if a tiny city of no special
relevance has a name identical to a
generic term – applicants for such
generic term do NOT have to approach
the city government IF there is no
intent for geo use! (The Government
of such smaller city will STILL have
to be approached if the gTLD is
intended to serve the city).</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span
style="font:7pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Such cutoff could
be a population size – the exact
measures would have to be
determined! Numbers between 100,000
and 500,000 have been floated,
and/or percentages of country size!
Once we agree on the cutoff rule;
the exact measures could be defined
later! First qualifying, then
quantifying!</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The
outcome would be that brands and
generic term based applications have
close to zero extra burden to carry;
while in the same time the free
speech rights and rights of
expression for hundreds of Millions
of people would be preserved in
accordance with ICANN’s mission! In
the very rare cases of a brand
having deliberately chosen a “big
city” name (because they want to
profit from the image the citizens
of that city have worked hard to
create over time) – then sorry: but
nobody forced you to piggyback on
the city’s fame: your own decision;
all legal; but you will still need
to meet certain obligations. You are
just a “co-brand”; the “real brand”
is the city brand; and you are
living “off” it. Then go and get
their permission! But honestly: if
we require only cities with more
than e.g. 500k people to be
specially extra protected (no
“non-geo use clause”) – what is the
number of brands impacted? Could
somebody run a brand name database
against a big city database? And not
every single US $200 TM
registration is a “brand”! </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">So
if the 2012 AGB is the base; the
current WT5 suggestion is being
floated:</span></b></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Keep
everything like it is! It worked
and it is fine!</span></b></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">In
the category “city”: elevate
cities that meet a certain
requirement into the same status
as subnational regions or capital
cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use
clause)</span></b></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">And
indeed: a city with 500,000 people
should be AS MINIUM as important
as the average capital or a
subnational region! Why should it
be LESS protected, makes no sense!</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The
disciples of both faiths are
requested to reach over the isle and
compromise. It doesn’t work in
politics in many countries (I am not
singling any particular country out)
– it doesn’t work in Religions most
of the times. We at ICANN could
proof that WE can do it. So let’s
simply do it. Both sides have
ENDLESSLY often explained their
views (and I am guilty of having
done so one too often: apologies! I
am passionate when it comes to
rights of people and public
benefit!). <br>
Now it is time to form the
compromise.</span></p>
<span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br
clear="all">
</span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">A
simple to implement suggestion has
been made. Is it workable?<br>
<br>
Anyone in?<br>
<br>
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once
we have a solution for that specific
category we can look at geo name
categories previously not protected.
But that will be a SEPARATE category
– and should not be conflated with
the city name category!<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Alexander</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bo<wbr>unces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Joe Alagna<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 22, 2018
9:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>
Work Track 5 <<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><wbr>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work
Track 5 Comments</span></p>
<div>
<div
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Hi
All,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Although,
because of time obligations,
I have not commented, I have
been an observer of this
track since the beginning
and recently converted to
member so I could make a
comment. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">I
would like to pose several
questions and
considerations. Please
accept my apologies if some
of my comments have already
been discussed since I have
been unable to join the
telephonic discussions. I
have perused the ongoing
document you are developing
within the limits of my
time. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">These
questions and considerations
are meant in the spirit of
contributing and stimulating
discussion, not necessarily
advocating a position. The
work you are doing is
important. Please note that
these are my own
observations and comments,
not necessarily reflective
of the company I work for:</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph"
style="margin-bottom:12pt;line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">1.</span><span
style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Some
members are advocating to
reserve city and territory
names as rights or even as
owned by the cities or
territories. I’ve always
understood city and
territory names as tools to
be used by the public for
geographic purposes. In
fact, unless I missed it (I
may have), the discussions
seem to have only mildly
addressed the thousands of
business names around the
world that are trademarked,
that already contain
geographic names, cities and
territories. You can look
at any database of
trademarks from any
jurisdiction around the
world and likely find
hundreds of existing
trademarks that contain
geographic strings. Strings
like this are highly
important as parts of
business names, identifying
the locations of service
areas for example. These
include names like Swiss Air
and American Telephone and
Telegraph. I use that
second example to show how
long-standing this tradition
is. This fact seems
unacknowledged so far in our
discussions. I fear that we
are ignoring a hundred years
+ of tradition and
precedence. It may be an
important exercise to see
how many trademarks already
exist in various places that
contain geo-type strings.<br>
<br>
The history of registries
suggests that they may
either be public or private,
so it seems that the
principal of neutrality is
important when considering
the type of entity applying
for a string.</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph"
style="margin-bottom:12pt;line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">2.</span><span
style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">There
is a theme of debate about
who gets preference
regarding geographic
indicators in new strings,
government entities or
private entities. My
experience, at least in the
United States is that many
government entities do not
care about their geographic
names (and for that matter,
their email addresses). They
seem to be perfectly happy
using what I would consider
seriously outdated URLs and
email addresses. <br>
<br>
These government entities
already have the right to
use a .gov (or a .edu)
domain name and email
address, a right that any
private citizen or public
company does not have. Yet
they prefer not to use
them. <br>
<br>
The example I have in mind
is the several thousand
public schools across the
United States who prefer to
continue using long URLS and
email addresses in the .edu
or .us space. A very
typical teacher or
administrative email address
looks like this:<br>
<br>
</span><span
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msohyperlink"><b><u><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(5,99,193)"><a
href="mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastNam<wbr>e@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.<wbr>ca.us</span></a></span></u></b></span><b><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"><br>
</span></b><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"><br>
</span><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">They
don’t seem to want to change
this. Wouldn’t it be better
and more convenient for them
to use something like:<br>
<br>
</span><span
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msohyperlink"><b><u><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(5,99,193)"><a
href="mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.g<wbr>ov</span></a></span></u></b></span><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">
(or .edu) anything less than
a fourth level domain name?
So…</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">3.</span><span
style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Should
not ICANN remain completely
unbiased as to who gets the
ability to apply for
specific strings related to
names in the DNS?
</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">a.</span><span
style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Since
many government, city, and
territorial entities are not
engaged nor involved in this
process, </span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">b.</span><span
style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Since
both private and public
entities can be good or
evil, and </span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">c.</span><span
style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Since
ICANN has a charter of a
bottom up, community driven,
process, not the creation of
laws or rights <br>
<br>
Why should ICANN, in any way
confer a preference to
either type of entity? In
fact, some in this
discussion seem to be
suggesting an assumed
“ownership” of TLD strings,
a right that I think can
only be conferred on a hyper
local level by the proper
legal entities, certainly
not ICANN, therefore, </span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">4.</span><span
style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Shouldn’t
we be careful not to try to
confer preferences or
“rights” at all? In fact,
shouldn’t we not even try
that? It seems that we do
not, and probably should not
have that power.</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">5.</span><span
style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">There
has been discussion that any
applicant should comply with
local laws in areas, cities,
or territories where a
string name where they would
like to do work is
relevant. <i>I would agree
with that general
principal</i> since it
respects local laws, makes
sense, and doesn’t try to
rule the world.</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">6.</span><span
style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Shouldn’t
we <u>not</u> assume that
every government entity
around the world cares about
what we are doing here. In
fact, I am sure that most
don’t care – at least as
much as we do. If they did
care, they would be
involved. <br>
<br>
We know that TLDs are
important and we should care
about and anticipate how
geographic names affect
cities and territories
around the world. We should
also care about how a
country, city, or
territory’s rights will
affect any applicant in the
future. But we should not
show a preference in our
policy, therefore, four
suggestions:</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">a.</span><span
style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">A
general preference for
non-objection from
geo-entities and curative
solutions in policy over
preventive solutions for
potential geographic
strings; not assuming
preferences that more often
than not, don't exist </span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">b.</span><span
style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">A
more conservative approach
to our scope in terms of the
places we define</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">c.</span><span
style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Recognizing
that our contracts are time
limited – We should
recognize that our contracts
are for a specified period,
at the end of which, a
government entity may have
the option of becoming
engaged and maybe add
something to the contract
that specifies this rather
than an assumption of
renewal for applicants.
This would allow for
worthwhile private
investment (maybe a five or
ten-year period) and allow
review by any public entity
after a period of time, to
become involved if they then
care to.</span></p>
<p
class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">d.</span><span
style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">There
should be no limits on how
many applications may be
filed on behalf of a single
entity (private, corporate,
or government). If we do
this, here also, we limit
the capital involved in the
process and we limit the
chances for success of
applicants and of this
program in general.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Finally,
thank you to all of you, on
all sides, for your
discussion and
participation. I believe
this discussion is an
important one and I know the
sacrifice you are making in
terms of your time. I only
wish I was able to
contribute near as much time
as all of you have. Thank
you!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:rgb(11,83,148)"><br
clear="all">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span
style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Joe
Alagna </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="m_7933093344519172564mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
<a class="m_7933093344519172564moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_7933093344519172564moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>