[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Thu Aug 9 05:10:38 UTC 2018

Then my prior point stands — just about anything can be a geo term, even
when it is not primarily a geo term.  “Apache” is certainly not primarily a
geo term, even though this place (pop. 1444) exists.

And the reason this place exists?  This is on land that was once part of a
reservation, until the Apaches (and Kiowa and Comanche) were kicked out of
their reservation in Oklahoma, forced to move west, and the land was opened
to non-Native American settlement. This location was picked as a townsite
by the offIcial in charge, and the name was then picked by the railroad
that came through and helped destroy the reservation.  So, this name is
really a great insult to the Apache people.

In any event, we are certainly not going to protect every town name, so
this game of “find the obscure geographic use of a
non-geographic term” is amusing but irrelevant.

Best regards,

Greg

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:49 AM Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Greg
>
> *Apache* is a town in Caddo County
> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caddo_County,_Oklahoma>, Oklahoma
> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma>, USA
> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States>.
>
> WT5 must keep an open mind to make policy and research this further before
> shutting it out.
>
> Best
> Aslam.
>
> On Aug 9, 2018, at 12:11 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> “ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation”
> are certainly not geo terms.  They do not identify specific places.
>
> There are several "Apache Nations" but none of them are places.  "Apache
> Nation" is sometimes used colloquially to refer to one nation or all of
> them.  But still, not a place.
> Apache Territory is a 1958 film starring Rory Calhoun.  Also not a place.
> There are a number of Apache reservations, but none is simply called
> Apache Reservation.  For instance, there is the San Carlos Apache Indian
> Reservation in Arizona (but not in Apache County), which is a place.   It
> is the home of the San Carlos Apache Nation, which is not a place.
> Apache Country is a 1952 film starring Gene Autry.   Still not a place,
> though "Apache Country" is also used colloquially to refer to Southeastern
> Arizona, particularly for travel and tourism purposes, but it has no
> formally defined boundaries or status.  (FYI, Apache County is not in
> "Apache Country.")
>
> I write this with the greatest respect for the Apache Nations, and in
> particular the San Carlos Apache Nation.  But that doesn't change the facts.
>
> We need to avoid "geo-creep."
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greeg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:25 PM Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All:
>>
>> This is the level of conversation between work track members that could
>> be good to make interesting non-AGB name policy.  Keep it up!
>>
>> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>>
>> +1-787-396-6511
>> twitter: @javrua
>> skype: javier.rua1
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>>
>>
>> On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> They would be.
>>
>> On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Interesting! Do you think “ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”,
>> “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” would be geo terms?
>>
>> Others?
>>
>> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>>
>> +1-787-396-6511
>> twitter: @javrua
>> skype: javier.rua1
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>>
>>
>> On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Apache is not a geographic term and therefore not within our remit. Can
>> we stick to discussing  strings where at least one meaning is geographic?
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:07 AM Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> All:
>>>
>>> I think it was Paul that made the point in todays call that this
>>> “Apache” question is the type of issue best left to the national law level;
>>> but I wonder if it was the other way around: some national US law that
>>> forbade the Apache people from applying for and registering a “.apache”
>>> string.  Should ICANN feel bound here by US Law? Is International Law
>>> relevant? What if any preventative or curative policy be put in place, if
>>> any?
>>>
>>> Please all chip in!
>>>
>>>
>>> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>>>
>>> +1-787-396-6511
>>> twitter: @javrua
>>> skype: javier.rua1
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <
>>> ohlmer at dotzon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Jon,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> but the community objection process does not apply once a string has
>>> been delegated – a community would have to file an objections before.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Katrin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
>>> Akazienstrasse 28
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>> 10823 Berlin
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>> Deutschland - Germany
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>> Tel: +49 30 49802722
>>> Fax: +49 30 49802727
>>> Mobile: +49 173 2019240
>>> ohlmer at dotzon.consulting
>>> www.dotzon.consulting
>>>
>>> DOTZON GmbH
>>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
>>> Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
>>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *Im
>>> Auftrag von *Jon Nevett
>>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 8. August 2018 14:41
>>> *An:* Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com>
>>> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus
>>> Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And that is why we have a community objection process . . .
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2018, at 5:23 AM, Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> “Thanks Robin!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To continue this interesting conversation, a question (anyone can of
>>> course chip in) how could this hypothetical be solved preemptively or
>>> curatively (a posteriori): What if 1) an “Apache Helicopter Corp.”, a
>>> company that incidentally has registered US trademarks for the name “Apache
>>> Helicopter”, applied for a “.apache” string; 2) the US government never
>>> objected (or paid any attention) to said application, and the string was
>>> delegated, 3) yet a representative of the several federally recognized
>>> Apache Tribes, a few months later found about this and objected to this
>>> “appropriation of their cultural identity-the name of their people”?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> PS: My heart wants the Apaches to prevail... “
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +1-787-396-6511
>>>
>>> twitter: @javrua
>>>
>>> skype: javier.rua1
>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:14 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Javier,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you please refresh my (our) recollection of that fact pattern?
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:15 AM Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thx Greg!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What would you say to my “Apache Helicopter” fact pattern?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +1-787-396-6511
>>>
>>> twitter: @javrua
>>>
>>> skype: javier.rua1
>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:33 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alexander,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your anger and hurt are heard. Thanks for expressing your feelings so
>>> directly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's turn to the facts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There's no "infringement" here. Overheated rhetoric won't make it so.
>>> Words can have more than one meaning.  If a registry sets up a .brick TLD
>>> for use by the brick industry, it does not "infringe" on any right that
>>> Brick, New Jersey has.  There is simply no general principle that supports
>>> the idea that a "geo use" is a "better" use of a string with multiple
>>> meanings than a "non geo use."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are no "vultures" to be protected from.  They are no more real
>>> than Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster or the monster under the bed when you
>>> were 6 years old.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Challenge processes (I don't want to use the "C___ R_____" term you have
>>> a knee-jerk reaction to) are a well-accepted method, in ICANN and
>>> everywhere else. Access to a form of due process does not translate to
>>> "anything goes" or "big money wins."  Quite the opposite -- it is a way to
>>> arrive at a fair result.  It may translate to "Geos don't always win" --
>>> but that's completely appropriate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can't speak for NCSG or for ALAC, but in my view from an end-user
>>> perspective, a "geo use" is only one possible use of a multi-meaning
>>> string.  Many more end-users may be interested in a .coupon that is used
>>> for getting and using coupons that a .coupon that is used for Coupon,
>>> Pennsylvania.  There is no inherent preference for "geo uses."  "City
>>> constituencies" have the right to apply for appropriate gTLD strings,
>>> whether it's .Budapest or .Bucharest or .Bridgeport.  Nothing we do here
>>> will change that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As we move toward a series of consensus calls, it is particularly
>>> concerning to see Challenge Processes rejected out of hand and with such
>>> divisive rhetoric.  But it's better to know now if challenge processes can
>>> be part of a consensus recommendation from this group.  I would hope the
>>> answer would be "yes" But, if the answer is "no" -- as this "call to arms"
>>> suggests -- then we will have to move forward under those circumstances.  I
>>> don't think that will be helpful in reaching consensus on any
>>> recommendation, even some of the so-called "easy" ones.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:14 PM Alexander Schubert <
>>> alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Curative Rights"?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Geo communities won't even know that vultures and brands are infringing
>>> on their identities. Especially not once we go into continuous application
>>> mode in a few years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> GAC members should be VERY ALARMED. "Curative Rights" is a thinly veiled
>>> eulogy for "anything goes" and "big money wins". The rights of geo
>>> communities and their constituents will be TRAMPLED on.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the 1600s and 1700s Europeans set out to stake claims in every corner
>>> of the world. Unchallenged. Their prey being vulnerable and without
>>> defense. Colonialism! It wiped out populations of ENTIRE CONTINENTS  (e.g.
>>> North America).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What is being peddled here is just the same in the age of claiming DNS
>>> land on top level:
>>>
>>> Venture Capital will marry Vulture Culture - together they will colonize
>>> the geo-TLD world. To make big bucks - on the back of vulnerable
>>> communities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Europe, Asia, South America and Africa should stand up to cyber
>>> colonialism. It cannot be that "their lands" are brute-force taken AGAIN.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sizeable cities are as important (and their geo gTLDs as impacting for
>>> their city constituents) as small countries. I would wish we collectively
>>> mature up and recognize that truth. "Curative Rights" ain't enough. Where
>>> are ALAC or the NCSG? It would be THEIR job to defend city constituencies.
>>> Do they even know what's playing out here?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Btw: I wish we could stop calling it "governmental support". For many
>>> that sounds like FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Nothing could be more wrong. It's the
>>> CITY'S representatives who are tasked to provide support. They know the
>>> needs of their city best - they have been ELECTED to represent the city's
>>> constituent's interests.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alexander
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my Samsung device
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> Date: 8/7/18 20:02 (GMT+02:00)
>>> To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus
>>> Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
>>>
>>> I agree with Greg and would add that many of us would be far less
>>> resistant to the concept of “geo names” if the underlying right/privilege
>>> provided was a curative right (rather than preventative).  For some, the
>>> biggest problem we have with “geo names” is the presumption of restrictions
>>> (in this case a “veto power” to a single actor) so moving discussion
>>> towards curative rights could be a very useful way of working toward an
>>> ultimate consensus.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 7, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Christopher,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can’t just throw the word “politically” into the middle of an
>>> unsupported claim and expect to be persuasive (or even understood).  I
>>> don’t see any reason or reasoning where would find “all geographic names”
>>> to be subject to any rules, much less preventative rules.  Quite the
>>> contrary.  Can you explain your use of “politically” and what that
>>> implies?  Where do you see politics coming into the ICANN policy-making
>>> process, and which politics are you referring to?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Curative procedures have been successfully invoked since the dawn of
>>> ICANN (and long, long before, in a multitude of settings) to allow someone
>>> to assert a claim against another party’s actions on the basis of
>>> agreed-upon standards.  To write off the entire concept as “unsuitable,”
>>> again without support, seems both extreme and premature.  New curative
>>> procedures were created for the 2012 round, and we could adapt those or
>>> create something different if we wanted to.  On a policy level, there’s
>>> absolutely no reason for curative procedures to be “unsuitable.”  Indeed,
>>> for reasons I very recently stated, they are far more suitable than
>>> preventative rights for the vast majority of terms with geographic
>>> meanings.  Helping them work appropriately is an implementation-level
>>> concern that should not impede good policy-making.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As a group trying to reach consensus, we should not put all of our eggs
>>> into the one basket of preventative measures — no matter how much some
>>> participants want us to do so.  I understand the allure of preventative
>>> processes over curative processes — you don’t need to watch anything, you
>>> don’t need to initiate anything, you don’t need to prove anything, and you
>>> don’t even need to explain anything.  It’s a completely one-sided approach
>>> — which is good for one-sided, slam-dunk situations.  Conversely, they are
>>> not particularly good where there are two sides to the story.  Perhaps
>>> there is a concern that in a “curative” process over terms with geographic
>>> meanings, the “objectors” will not be able to succeed very often — that
>>> often there really is no basis for a claim.  If that is the case, it is
>>> even more critical that we identify and agree upon the bases for these
>>> claims — whether they are exercised preventatively or curatively.  We can’t
>>> put (or keep) a preventative privilege in place without clear-cut reasons
>>> that this privilege exists, and clear-cut reasons that the claim must be
>>> granted preventative status.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Preventative rights are equivalent to “guilty until proven innocent,”
>>> except that there’s no forum for such proof — it is entirely at the
>>> discretion of the privilege-holder.  Curative rights, on the other hand,
>>> are “innocent until proven guilty,” with a forum and a process for that
>>> determination to be made by an uninterested entity/person(s).  I tend to
>>> prefer “innocent until proven guilty” as a general concept.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:22 AM lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <
>>> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Greg:
>>>
>>> I expect that we shall find that, politically, all geographical names
>>> will be subject to preventative rules, at least in the first instance.
>>>
>>> The existing 'curative' procedures appear to me to be quite unsuitable
>>> for global application at the level of disagregation that we are currently
>>> considering.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Christopher
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El 7 de agosto de 2018 a las 7:46 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Carlos wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to
>>> be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic
>>> names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if
>>> possible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This reminded me that we have so far talked almost exclusively about
>>> what are generally called "preventive" processes (reserve lists, permission
>>> requirements, blocking lists, etc.), and very little about what are
>>> generally called "curative" processes (objections, dispute resolution
>>> processes, challenge processes, etc.).  By doing so, we've taken half the
>>> tools out of the toolkit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I just finished working on the reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive Rights WG
>>> where we were dealing (at this point) with reserving/restricting national
>>> Red Cross/Red Crescent society names.  In this case, a preventive rights
>>> approach made sense -- the names of the various national societies are
>>> essentially unique, identified only with that one entity, third party uses
>>> are almost certainly done in bad faith and with bad intent, and there's no
>>> real underlying policy disagreement.  In some cases (e.g., name collisions,
>>> certain reserved names) there is also a strong technical component.  This
>>> is how preventive rights have generally been used in ICANN policy -- for
>>> "slam-dunk" cases.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are few, if any, "slam-dunk" cases in our work.  A good case can
>>> be made for 2-letter letter-letter combinations.  Perhaps a good case can
>>> be made for some of the remaining classifications in this first set or
>>> potential recommendations.  However, as we move "down the list", so to
>>> speak, we get further away from "slam-dunk" situations.  We could
>>> potentially make more headway on some of the classifications of names if we
>>> considered "curative" processes, instead of being so intensely focused on
>>> "preventive" rights.  This tends to turn our discussions into "all or
>>> nothing" choices -- but this is a false menu, since there are other options
>>> aside from the binary "all/nothing" that should be on the menu.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's keep this in mind as we move forward.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with Paul and think we should declare agreement where we have
>>> it, and build on that to find other agreement down the line.  The process
>>> is supposed to involve incremental steps and building blocks along the way,
>>> and that is how we will eventually arrive at a consensus.  To take the
>>> “nothing until everything” approach will keep us spinning our wheels
>>> indefinitely, cause confusion, and risks unexpected results, which is in no
>>> one’s interest.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is
>>> agreed” approach.  This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus
>>> building exercise.  If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed
>>> and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a
>>> consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
>>> Behalf Of* lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson
>>> *Sent:* Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM
>>> *To:* Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
>>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus
>>> Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Co-Leads and Martin:
>>>
>>> I disagree with the method proposed.
>>>
>>> 1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics
>>> when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed.
>>>
>>> 2.  Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> CW
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <
>>> martin at brandregistrygroup.org> escribió:
>>>
>>> Hi Christopher,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is
>>> designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather
>>> recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call
>>> and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list,
>>> although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB
>>> categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By
>>> experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please
>>> provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to
>>> consider, rather than simply stating a request.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <
>>> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Co-Leads:  May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be
>>> moved up to point 1.
>>>
>>> Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5
>>> in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms.
>>>
>>> These include :
>>>
>>> -  all other geographical terms
>>>
>>> -  geographical indications
>>>
>>> -  several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names.
>>>
>>> Thankyou and regards
>>>
>>> Christopher Wilkinson
>>>
>>> El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <
>>> martin at brandregistrygroup.org> escribió:
>>>
>>> Dear Work Track members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8
>>> August at 13:00 UTC:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
>>> 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan
>>> 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names
>>> 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms
>>> 5. AOB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan
>>> aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end
>>> of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to
>>> ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work
>>> of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for
>>> delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a
>>> series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s
>>> Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of
>>> recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft
>>> recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work
>>> Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft
>>> recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team
>>> will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s
>>> call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be
>>> followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:
>>> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf
>>>  [gnso.icann.org]
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472632128&sdata=me4M2xocdDENZhUf8U%2FfsplZO3q09h%2FivOZ%2FOORwgPE%3D&reserved=0>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an
>>> apology, please email gnso-secs at icann.org.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> WT5 Co-Leads
>>>
>>> Annebeth Lange
>>>
>>> Javier Rua
>>>
>>> Olga Cavalli
>>>
>>> Martin Sutton
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended
>>> solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged
>>> information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not
>>> the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message
>>> has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by
>>> reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are
>>> not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
>>> dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is
>>> strictly prohibited.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this
>>> message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
>>> Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
>>> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of
>>> the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be
>>> used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties
>>> under applicable tax laws and regulations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>> 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
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>> 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
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>> 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
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180809/ef3f3367/attachment-0001.html>