[IDN-WG] [APAC-Discuss] [ALAC] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Mon May 6 18:35:02 UTC 2013


Dear Hong,

your suggested (1) appears clearer than the current "ICANN should treat
all trademarks equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademark".

Also - to all involved, since several amendments are being made to this
Statement after it has been voted on, the ALAC will need to ratify this
Statement again. Amendments are significant enough to warrant a new
vote. Please be so kind to let me know when you have found a consensus
and are ready to freeze the Statement once and for all, to start a new vote.

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 06/05/2013 13:01, Hong Xue wrote:
> Thanks to Edmon for referring to the sentence,  “ICANN should treat all
> trademarks equally” . When completing the draft at the late night after the
> gala event in Beijing, I was actually thinking--
>
> (1) "ICANN RPM should treat the trademarks in any language or character set
> equally", because [ as JJS stated] "users in any language community should
> be protected from confusion equally".
>
> In addition, I strongly suggest including the following points.
>
> (2) "Trademarks have very important function of safeguarding public
> interests by identifying the source of goods or services. The malfunctioned
> TMCH design would cause serious public confusion and market chaos.
> Confusion over the sources or origins of the goods or services can be very
> destructive, particularly in the fields of banking, insurance and other
> high-security businesses."
>
> (3) Revised one item in the Recommendation
>
> >From "Additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities, who
> will work in tandem with community members with relevant expertise" to
> "ICANN (staff) supports the community members with relevant expertise to
> develop interim variants-capable trademark authentication/ verification
> services that are interoperable with the TMCH so as to enable the timely
> launch of the IDN TLDs."
>
> I've updated onto the wiki and wish for its speedy endorsement from the
> at-large community.
>
> Hong
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html




More information about the IDN-WG mailing list