[IDN-WG] [APAC-Discuss] [ALAC] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
Holly Raiche
h.raiche at internode.on.net
Sun May 5 00:51:15 UTC 2013
Hi Rinalia
I think the sentence strikes the right balance. Well done
Holly
On 04/05/2013, at 4:09 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
> Dear Jean-Jacques and Edmon,
>
> Would the following be an acceptable middle ground?
>
> "In principle, the At-Large community does not support over-extensive
> trademark protection measures.
> However, we do strongly believe that users from all language communities
> should be protected from confusion equally, irrespective of the characters
> of the trademarks."
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rinalia
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon at isoc.hk> wrote:
>
>> I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for:
>>
>> “ICANN should treat all trademarks equally”
>>
>> Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are different
>> types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, Unregistered, etc...
>> and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for certain
>> TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM from Paris
>> “might” be appropriately given priority over others...
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement
>> sending the message to the board than the specifics. If people feel
>> strongly about the sentence, I can live with it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Edmon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* JJS [mailto:jjs.global at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM
>> *To:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim
>> *Cc:* Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List
>> *Subject:* Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH and
>> Variants
>>
>>
>>
>> *Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,*
>>
>>
>>
>> *I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the deletion
>> of the following sentence? *
>>
>> "However, we do strongly believe that ICANN should treat all trademarks
>> equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademarks, and that users
>> from all language communities should be protected from confusion equally."
>>
>>
>>
>> *Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Jean-Jacques.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>
>>
>> Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement.
>>
>> Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of support or
>> disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If you have questions
>> or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them as
>> well.
>>
>> If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to
>> amend the statement.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Rinalia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon at isoc.hk> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at:
>>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants+Workspace?focusedCommentId=41883644#comment-41883644
>>>
>>> And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement.
>>> I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN
>>> Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST
>>> implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot
>>> based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their
>>> applications.
>>>
>>> I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
>>>
>>> 1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling
>>> The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first
>>> rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted
>>> certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing
>>> “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such
>> “variant
>>> or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
>>>
>>> 2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH
>>> Model
>>> To take out the sentence: " However, we do strongly believe that ICANN
>>> should treat all trademarks equally, irrespective of the characters of
>> the
>>> trademarks, and that users from all language communities should be
>>> protected from confusion equally."
>>>
>>> 3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH
>>> Model
>>> To expedite the development of appropriate solutions, the ALAC recommends
>>> that the Board request from the ICANN CEO an interim mechanism that can
>>> yield such solutions efficiently and on an urgent basis. ICANN already
>> has
>>> all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and
>> IDN
>>> Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the
>>> application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could
>>> help improve the statement.
>>>
>>> Edmon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:
>> alac-bounces at atlarge-
>>>> lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM
>>>> To: Alan Greenberg
>>>> Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo
>>>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and
>>>> Variants
>>>>
>>>> What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration.
>>>> What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for
>> variants.
>>>>
>>>> I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems
>>> variants
>>>> would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are
>>>> considered common data items and stored in the common database.
>>>>
>>>> -Carlton
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ==============================
>>>> Carlton A Samuels
>>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>>>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>>>> =============================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg
>>>> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Note that the TMCH has two separate components.
>>>>> The backend and the interface with registries is, I believe, a single
>>>>> database and is being run under contract to ICANN by IBM. The
>>>>> interface to TM holders and the validation service is contracted to
>>>>> Deloitte. The design explicitly allows for distributed user
>> interfaces
>>>>> and validation services to ensure proper handling of different
>>>>> languages, scripts and TM law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> At 23/04/2013 07:17 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
>>>>>> Also agree with Yaovi on removing the word "centralized"
>>>>>> And thanks to Hong and Rinala for the work done on this statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dev Anand
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In any case, the opening of offices in Turkey and Singapore makes
>>>>>>> it
>>>>> hard
>>>>>>> to argue that ICANN isn't at least making an attempt to
>>> decentralize.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Please don't see my relative silence as lack of interest, but
>>>>>>> rather
>>>>> lack
>>>>>>> of depth in the issue)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Evan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23 April 2013 14:19, Yaovi Atohoun <yaovito at yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the statement we can read :
>>>>>>>> "... we strongly urge ICANN to move away from a model that is
>>>>> centralized,
>>>>>>>> inflexible and unfriendly to variants. "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My question : Is is not possible to have a model that is
>>>>>>>> centralized
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> taking into account IDN variant issues?
>>>>>>>> If so my recommendation is to remove the word "Centralized" in
>>>>>>>> the sentence above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yaovi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>> De : JJS <jjs.global at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> À : Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> Cc :
>>>>>>>> apralo <apac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; No name <
>>>>>>>> idn-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ALAC Working List <
>>>>>>>> alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé le : Dimanche 21 avril
>> 2013
>>>>>>>> 4h11 Objet : Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and
>>>>>>>> Variants
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Dear Rinalia,*
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>> *you've done a very thorough job, thank you. * *Below, my
>>>>>>>> **suggested modifications in red.*
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>> *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark
>>>>>> Clearinghouse and IDN Variants
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is deeply concerned by
>> the
>>>>>>>> implementation model outlined in the “Trademark Clearinghouse:
>>>>>>>> Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements” published
>>>>>> on April 6, 2013. We view the
>>>>>>>> model to be deficient in that it overlooks the critical issue of
>>>>>>>> IDN variants; thus implemented, the model would clearly run
>>>>>>>> against the
>>>>> public
>>>>>>>> interest in the pertinent
>>>>>>>> user communities.*
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *(1) Domain Name Matching*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Language communities have requested that TMCH services factor
>>>>> IDN-script
>>>>>>>> trademarks involving variants and that ICANN consider adopting
>>>>>>>> community-based solutions to address this issue since October
>>> 2011.
>>>>>>>> Despite
>>>>>>>> concerns raised by language community experts in the TMCH
>>>>> Implementation
>>>>>>>> Assistance Group (IAG), the domain name matching requirements of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> TMCH
>>>>>>>> still does not take into account trademarks in IDN scripts
>>>>>>>> involving variants. Variant matching is critical in certain
>>>>>>>> languages and particularly in Chinese. To illustrate, when a
>>>>>>>> trademark holder registers a simplified Chinese word-mark and
>> not
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>> traditional
>>>>>>>> equivalent, the TMCH will accordingly generate only one
>> trademark
>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> new gTLD registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and
>>>>> trademark
>>>>>>>> claims for trademarks recorded in the TMCH. Without variant
>>>>>>>> matching requirements in place, only that registered simplified
>>>>>>>> word-mark will
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> eligible for trademark protection. This leaves the traditional
>>>>> word-mark
>>>>>>>> equivalent open for cybersquatting. Given that both simplified
>>>>>>>> and traditional writings of the word-mark are deemed identical
>> by
>>>>>>>> Chinese communities worldwide (and by norm few trademarks are
>>>>>>>> registered in
>>>>> both
>>>>>>>> writings),
>>>>>>>> ruling out the un-registered writing by not
>>>>>> allowing variant matching would
>>>>>>>> make the TMCH completely useless to Chinese
>>>>>> trademarks, and would result in
>>>>>>>> an unfair penalty against users of Chinese.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trademarks have a very important function in safeguarding the
>>>>>>>> public interest by identifying the source of goods and services.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *The rest seems fine.*
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>> *Best regards,*
>>>>>>>> *Jean-Jacques.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2013/4/20 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Members of the IDN WG, APRALO and ALAC Colleagues,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have revised the proposed " *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> Trademark
>>>>>>>>> Clearinghouse and IDN Variants*" based on Hong's draft, input
>>>>> received
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> Beijing and my own consultation with IDN Variant experts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please review and comment on the draft on
>>>>>> the wiki for tracking purposes.
>>>>>>>>> The wiki page for the draft is here -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Advice+to+the+I
>>>>> CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once the text is deemed satisfactory, it will be forwarded to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> ALAC
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> a vote. Please try your best to respond with comments by
>>>>>>>>> Friday
>>>>> April
>>>>>>>>> 26th.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Text pasted below for rapid review. The final version will be
>>>>> proofread
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> a summary of recommendations will be produced as part of the
>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>> (as per our norm in giving advice to the Board).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rinalia
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark Clearinghouse
>> and
>>>>>>>>> IDN Variants
>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is deeply concerned by
>>>>>>>>> the implementation model outlined in the “Trademark
>>>> Clearinghouse:
>>>>> Rights
>>>>>>>>> Protection Mechanism Requirements” published on April 6, 2013.
>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>> view
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> model to be deficient in that it overlooks the critical issue
>>>>>>>>> of IDN variants, which would seriously impact the public
>>>>>>>>> interest in the
>>>>>>>> pertinent
>>>>>>>>> user communities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We wish to highlight two areas of particular concern in the
>>>>> Trademark
>>>>>>>>> Clearinghouse (TMCH) requirements:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *(1) Domain Name Matching*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Language communities have requested that TMCH services factor
>>>>> IDN-script
>>>>>>>>> trademarks involving variants and that ICANN consider adopting
>>>>>>>>> community-based solutions to address this issue since October
>>> 2011.
>>>>>>>>> Despite
>>>>>>>>> concerns raised by language community experts in the TMCH
>>>>> Implementation
>>>>>>>>> Assistance Group (IAG), the domain name
>>>>>> matching requirements of the TMCH
>>>>>>>>> still does not take into account trademarks in IDN scripts
>>>>>>>>> involving variants. Variant matching is critical for certain
>>>>>>>>> languages and particularly for the Chinese language. To
>>>>>>>>> illustrate, when a
>>>>> trademark
>>>>>>>>> holder registers a simplified Chinese word-mark and not its
>>>>> traditional
>>>>>>>>> equivalent, the TMCH will accordingly
>>>>>> generate only one trademark record.
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> new gTLD registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and
>>>>> trademark
>>>>>>>>> claims for trademarks recorded in the TMCH. Without variant
>>>>> matching
>>>>>>>>> requirements in place, only that registered simplified
>>>>>>>>> word-mark
>>>>> will be
>>>>>>>>> eligible for trademark protection. This
>>>>>> leaves the traditional word-mark
>>>>>>>>> equivalent open for cybersquatting. Given that both
>> simplified
>>>>>>>>> and traditional writings of the word-mark are
>>>>>> deemed identical by the Chinese
>>>>>>>>> community (and by norm few trademarks are registered in both
>>>>> writings),
>>>>>>>>> ruling out the un-registered writing by not allowing variant
>>>>> matching
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> make the TMCH completely useless to Chinese trademarks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *(2) Domain Name Bundling*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The TMCH requirements specifically prohibit any registry from
>>>>>>>> implementing
>>>>>>>>> “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under
>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>> “variant
>>>>>>>>> or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion
>>>>>> of the Sunrise Period. Such a
>>>>>>>>> restriction would exclude the accommodation of any solution
>> for
>>>>>>>>> IDN trademarks involving variants during the
>>>>>> sunrise period at the TLD level,
>>>>>>>>> even though registries may be willing to address the variants
>>>>> through
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> own registration management and at their own expense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Trademarks have a very important function of safeguarding the
>>>>>>>>> public interest by identifying the source of goods and
>>>>>>>>> services. If left unaddressed,
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> deficiencies of the TMCH model design may likely cause serious
>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>> confusion and result in market chaos. In principle, the
>>>>>>>>> At-Large
>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>> does not support over-extensive trademark protection measures.
>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> do strongly believe that ICANN should treat all trademarks
>>>>>>>>> equally, irrespective of the characters of the
>>>>>> trademarks, and that users from all
>>>>>>>>> language communities should be protected from confusion
>> equally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In September 2012, the ALAC statement on
>>>>>> the TMCH called for a “more open
>>>>>>>>> and flexible model” that can address our community’s concerns
>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> limitations of a uniform model, which would be applied to all
>>>>>>>>> gTLD registries irrespective of their differences and
>>>>>>>>> competencies. We
>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>> that new gTLD registries require a more open and flexible TMCH
>>>>> model to
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> successful and we strongly urge ICANN to move away from a
>> model
>>>>> that is
>>>>>>>>> centralized, inflexible and unfriendly to variants.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In light of the considerations above, the ALAC urges the ICANN
>>>>> Board to
>>>>>>>>> call for a more open and flexible TMCH model. Towards this
>>>>>>>>> end, we
>>>>> urge
>>>>>>>>> the Board to support a community-based, bottom-up solution for
>>>>>>>>> TMCH implementation and to ensure that the IDN variant issue
>> is
>>>>>>>>> addressed
>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>> the TMCH begin providing services to the new gTLD registries.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We understand that addressing the IDN Variant issue in a
>>>>>>>>> holistic
>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>> requires the development of Label Generation Rules (LGR) for
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> Root
>>>>>>>> Zone,
>>>>>>>>> which experts and Staff have projected to
>>>>>> require a minimum of 12 months.
>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>> appreciate that the LGR development requires conscientious
>>>>>>>>> effort to maintain the security and stability of the Internet,
>>>>>>>>> but we are also mindful that the business and practical
>>>>>>>>> requirements of new gTLD applicants, especially from
>> developing
>>>>>>>>> economies, call for urgent implementation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To expedite the development of appropriate
>>>>>> solutions, the ALAC recommends
>>>>>>>>> that the Board request from the ICANN CEO an interim mechanism
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> yield such solutions efficiently and on an urgent basis. This
>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>> additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities
>>>>> working in
>>>>>>>>> tandem with community members with relevant expertise. It may
>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>> a consideration of expediting the LGR process for the Han
>>> script.
>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>> understand that in the general case, the handling of variants
>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>> complex
>>>>>>>>> issue. However, for variant cases that are well defined and
>>>>> understood,
>>>>>>>>> such as the case of the Han script, ICANN should proceed on a
>>>>> fast-track
>>>>>>>>> basis to include variant support in the TMCH in time to
>>>>>>>>> accommodate
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> delegation of the appropriate TLDs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> END
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> IDN-WG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> IDN-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IDN WG Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> ALAC mailing list
>>>>>>>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working
>> Wiki:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
>>>> Large+Advisory+Committe
>>>>> e+(ALAC)
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> ALAC mailing list
>>>>>>>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working
>> Wiki:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
>>>> Large+Advisory+Committe
>>>>> e+(ALAC)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Evan Leibovitch
>>>>>>> Toronto Canada
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Em: evan at telly dot org
>>>>>>> Sk: evanleibovitch
>>>>>>> Tw: el56
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> ALAC mailing list
>>>>>>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
>>>>>>
>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
>>>> Large+Advisory+Committe
>>>>> e+(ALAC)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> APAC-Discuss mailing list
>>>>>> APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ALAC mailing list
>>>>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>>>>
>>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
>>>> Large+Advisory+Committe
>>>>> e+(ALAC)
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ALAC mailing list
>>>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>>>
>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
>>>> Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date:
>> 04/23/13
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IDN-WG mailing list
>>> IDN-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
>>>
>>> IDN WG Wiki:
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IDN-WG mailing list
>> IDN-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
>>
>> IDN WG Wiki:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
>>
> _______________________________________________
> APAC-Discuss mailing list
> APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
>
> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
More information about the IDN-WG
mailing list