[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well - how some institutions are handling this contentious issue systematically.

Fri Dec 1 03:24:27 UTC 2017

This link might be helpful to understand how geo Names are being grappled with in an organised and professional manner:

Information about foreign geographic feature names can be obtained from the GEOnet Names Server (GNS)<http://geonames.nga.mil/gns/html/index.html>, developed and maintained by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)<http://www.nga.mil/>. The GNS database is the official repository of foreign place-name decisions approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names.

Trent Palmer
US BGN Executive Secretary, Foreign Names
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
7500 GEOINT Drive Mail Stop N62
Springfield, VA 22150-7500
Phone/fax: (571) 557-7028 / (571) 558-3113
E-mail:  Trent.C.Palmer at nga.mil<mailto:Trent.C.Palmer at nga.mil>

Kind Regards

Aslam Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Ph: +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857>

[https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPO/MessageImages/e8c178193df6475281bb991a2e32c8d7.png]
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys.
rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/>

On 30 Nov 2017, at 22:09, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack at gmail.com<mailto:otieno.barrack at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

Following the thread, i must say that each person is right to some
extent. I also agree that we have to appreciate and respect diverse
viewpoint as has been rightly stated. That said we should take
cognisance of the fact that International law has not evolved at the
same pace as innovation. This is especially so in the global south
where most countries are still battling bread and butter issues and
are only starting to get used to the value attached to the global real
estate known as the Internet. It therefore behoves us to consider both
the letter and the spirit of the law even though as i understand the
business of gNSO is business. If we consider the spirit of the law
then we might want to consider the evolving nature of the ISO 3166
Standard and possibly reflect on the philosophy of RFC 1591 with
respect to countries territories. Of course we also have names of
Cities and towns that are shared globally.

A purely legalistic point of view will result in a stale mate in this
conversation.

Best Regards

On 12/1/17, Aslam Mohamed <aslam at rnaip.com<mailto:aslam at rnaip.com>> wrote:
Very well articulated Greg. That’s exactly the point I was trying to make.
That Heather’s thesis is so lucid that dismissing it on emotion does not
fly. And it needs to be countered by reason which in my research there is
none.

Kind Regards

Aslam Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Ph: +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857>

[https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPO/MessageImages/e8c178193df6475281bb991a2e32c8d7.png]
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys.
rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com><http://rnaip.com/>

On 30 Nov 2017, at 21:41, Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:

Is there a paper with reasoned analysis that differs from the "views" so
well laid-out by Prof. Forrest?  Is there any reason that the views in this
paper are not valid?  Clearly, the fact that this paper (or any paper or
position) represents the views of its author is merely a statement of fact,
and cannot refute the logic or validity of any position.  Since that goes
without saying, there's no point in saying it, except as a rhetorical
attempt to dismiss differing views without dealing with their merits.

Of course, the multistakeholder model depends on discourse and persuasion
dealing with the merits of differing viewpoints.  As such, the email above
contributes nothing to the conversation (except to the extent it can be
construed as an admission that there are no reasoned and logical ways to
oppose the merits of Prof. Forrest's paper).

And, if (as was stated) there are thousands of papers that are consistent
with Professor Forrest's paper, and none that are consistent with your
dismissal of that paper, then that is very telling indeed.  Thus, until we
see papers, etc. refuting this analysis, we must accept it.

As for claims that "You and none of your supporter has a right I et the
Persepolis   Which is one of the well known capital of  one of the most
ancient  civilisation   Acamanech  in greater Iran
No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of
Iran"?  This is clearly an argument, not a statement of fact.  And it is
clearly not, in fact, the case, see, e.g.:

http://www.persepolisnewyork.com/
https://www.facebook.com/savannahpersepolis/
http://www.persepolis-restaurant.de/
http://foratasteofpersia.co.uk/
https://www.perspolispizzasubs.com/
https://www.facebook.com/persepolis.cuisine/
https://www.yelp.com/biz/persepolis-leoben
http://www.restaurantpersepolis.de/
https://www.zomato.com/montreal/brochetterie-persepolis-montr%C3%A9al
https://www.facebook.com/sherbrooke.ca/
http://www.persepolisgrill.com/
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/160890/persepolis-by-marjane-satrapi/9780375714573/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_(film)
http://www.cafepress.com/+persepolis+gifts
http://www.persepolisorientalrug.com/
http://www.persepolis-shop.com/en/index.html
https://www.havertys.com/furniture/persepolis-rug
https://www.booking.com/hotel/fr/le-persepolis.html
https://www.just-eat.co.uk/restaurants-persepolis-g42/menu
https://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2014/09/29/whats-new-restaurants-persepolis-sanlitun
https://www.booking.com/hotel/it/persepolis-rome.html
http://www.deltatravel.ro/bucharest-hotels/persepolis.php

And, for your listening pleasure, "Persepolis" by Iannis Xenakis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-GEbbgT5Io

Best regards,

Greg

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Aslam Mohamed
<aslam at rnaip.com<mailto:aslam at rnaip.com><mailto:aslam at rnaip.com>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss

I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I also
respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond
one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty
might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more
sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this
is without the melee of rights in personam and rem.

That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and
managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally.

Kind Regards

Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Mob +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857>

[cid:image001.png at 01D2730D.4FCB7A70]

RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com><http://rnaip.com/>

On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Aslam
Thank for the paper
However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than
that.
There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of
their authors and nothing more
Kavouss

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
wrote:
Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all

As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some
law that is nothing more than a claim.  It is not at all “obvious” to me
that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam
cited makes clear why this is so.

If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is
“obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless
conversation.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739>

From: Arasteh
[mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM
To: Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>;
Aslam Mohamed <aslam at rnaip.com<mailto:aslam at rnaip.com><mailto:aslam at rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld
Wg Wt5
<gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>

Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference
and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts
as well

Paul
I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA
You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have «  so
called «  international law
Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be
used as a proper reference
You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis   Which is
one of the well known capital of  one of the most ancient  civilisation
Acamanech  in greater Iran
No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of
Iran
Whose who have recognised history understand that
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
wrote:
Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of
that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names …  I invite you
Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory)
international law.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739>

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM
To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam at rnaip.com<mailto:aslam at rnaip.com><mailto:aslam at rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso
Newgtld Wg Wt5
<gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>; Paul
Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference
and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts
as well

Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.”
The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the
primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge
the primacy of governments”).

I agree that we all need to express our views freely.  However, I see no
attacks or anything offensive in this thread.  Claims of attacks or
offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views.
Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by
definition) criticisms of those views.  A request to abstain from criticism
is a request to refrain from dialogue.  Clearly, that’s not happening.

Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of
this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of
this WT and this WG.  In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in
substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.

There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here.  We
will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of
those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between
various legitimate rights.  Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when
stacked against the rule of law.

Greg

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers.
Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall
compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it
from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and
historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not
deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being  criticised , collectively
attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct.  The repeated efforts by the
GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is
antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model.  It is
particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in
support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM
To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam at rnaip.com<mailto:aslam at rnaip.com><mailto:aslam at rnaip.com>>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5
<gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference
and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts
as well

Robin;

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I
wholeheartedly agree.

It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each
participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal
footing.  Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views”
seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal”  as
all are stakeholders.  This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,”
where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming
to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so.
This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views
by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine
dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of
others.

We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our
respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate
directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important
to the success of the multistakeholder process.

Greg

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed
<aslam at rnaip.com<mailto:aslam at rnaip.com><mailto:aslam at rnaip.com>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss

I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I
see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However
I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in
a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach
and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would
suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is
NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and
when it arises.

Kind Regards

Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Mob +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857>

<image001.png>

RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com><http://rnaip.com/>

On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:

Robin Gross via<https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en>
icann.org<http://icann.org><http://icann.org/>

6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]

[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]
[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] within the lines

Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]

I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my
comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference
revealed yesterday.

Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as
something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves
away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which
intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for
names.  It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be
slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work.  We would be
ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language
does exactly that.

Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action
mentioned by the Board is before  2016 there were two procedure either
seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to
the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD
.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with
economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP.  This is a PDP
regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR
is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate.   Let’s
focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts
into the ToR -- that are geo-names.  This PDP was set-up to work on
geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the
understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to
our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial
importance to these two criteria

While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis,
let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis,
rather than being singularly focused on risks.  We are in danger of having a
wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well.  We may
wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element
of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own
evaluation.  Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to
one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other
parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such
mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis.   So I think this can be a
highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a
bit further in light of the complexities.
Reply
While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the
process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative
Regards
Kavouss

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton
<martin at brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org><mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>>
wrote:
Hi Robin,

Thank you for sending through your comments.  We will combine your comments
on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from
WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.

Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus
attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into
assessing the risks.  At that stage we must look at whether the risks
themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and
enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any
positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This
is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are
concerned about with the level of controls applied.  Back to my physics
days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the
dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with
the aim of achieving an acceptable balance.  I should have made that clearer
and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read
picked up on this point as well.

Kind regards,

Martin

Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin at brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org><mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>

On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross
<robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org><mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:

I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my
comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference
revealed yesterday.

Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as
something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves
away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which
intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for
names.  It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be
slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work.  We would be
ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language
does exactly that.

Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with
economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP.  This is a PDP
regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR
is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate.   Let’s
focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts
into the ToR -- that are geo-names.  This PDP was set-up to work on
geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the
understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to
our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.

While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis,
let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis,
rather than being singularly focused on risks.  We are in danger of having a
wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well.  We may
wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element
of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own
evaluation.  Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to
one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other
parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such
mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis.   So I think this can be a
highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a
bit further in light of the complexities.

Thanks,
Robin

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

________________________________
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are
confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating
any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not
the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this
email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone.
While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses
from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot
accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The
integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not
accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this
medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

________________________________
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are
confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating
any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not
the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this
email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone.
While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses
from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot
accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The
integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not
accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this
medium for transmissions by or to RNA.

--
Barrack O. Otieno
+254721325277
+254733206359
Skype: barrack.otieno
PGP ID: 0x2611D86A

________________________________
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171201/3960c997/attachment-0001.html>