[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC

Volker Greimann vgreimann at key-systems.net
Tue May 16 15:33:56 UTC 2017


Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot 
realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?


Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
>
> Volker,
>
> Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
>
> Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of 
> the rush.
>
> We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of 
> FCFS. Not any.  There was no point.  You could have applied yesterday 
> just as today.
>
> Rob
>
> *From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Volker 
> Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent 
> Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>      I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a
>     discussion about the best technology.   That only occurs when you
>     artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or
>     like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
>
>      Domains are registered every day on a first come first served
>     basis in all the new gTLD’s.
>
> Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, 
> excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that 
> the majority will have about half or more of their overall 
> registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
> Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest 
> will benefit from most.
>
> Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With 
> rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties 
> to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is 
> warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations 
> would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste 
> time and ressources to make that decision.
> That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost 
> effective for those affected.
>
>
>
>
>     *From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>     <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Alexander
>     Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
>     <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>
>     *Reply-To: *"alexander at schubert.berlin"
>     <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> <alexander at schubert.berlin>
>     <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>
>     *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
>     *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
>     <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>     <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>     *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
>     Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>     Rob,
>
>     I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access” and
>     “competition”? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3
>     month after we open the floodgates.  Doesn’t matter whether it is
>     a “round” or an “ongoing process” – the number of applications
>     won’t change.
>
>     If you have no “round” – what is it then? The only other thing
>     than a “round” is “First Comes First Served”. That’s a competition
>     KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping
>     technology”. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
>
>     There is no way around having a “round” once we are ready to
>     accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6
>     month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for
>     applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their
>     application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply –
>     but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then
>     be rather short (1 week should be enough).
>
>     But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise” of a next round
>     in “about a year” – we should ALREADY set the date for the next
>     application window  6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t
>     make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later –
>     ICANN’s capacities will not allow for it. Also the next window
>     dates should be FIXED.
>
>     So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism” with
>     one “launch date” – just that there are various windows with fixed
>     dates. To allow for competition to happen.
>
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Alexander
>
>     *From:*Rob Hall [mailto:rob at momentous.com]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
>     *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin
>     <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
>     Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>     Alexander,
>
>     There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are
>     desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use
>     review and updating to enact that delay.
>
>     The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later.   And now it
>     looks like it will be 8.  The previous rounds envisioned the same
>     thing.
>
>     If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open
>     applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
>
>     The need for rounds is artificial.  We create this by not allowing
>     open applications.
>
>     We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches.  A round
>     is exactly the same idea.  It allows for applications during a
>     period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
>
>     Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
>
>     Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away
>     if we just allow open applications.
>
>     I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with
>     convoluted categories for a problem we created.
>
>     Rob
>
>     *From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander
>     Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin
>     <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>
>     *Reply-To: *"alexander at schubert.berlin
>     <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>" <alexander at schubert.berlin
>     <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>
>     *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
>     *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>>
>     *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
>     Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain
>     categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings
>     I promote would fit into 4  or even 5 of these suggested
>     categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like
>     disaster! So I concur with Rob.
>
>     Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword
>     based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO
>     or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical
>     to a generic string  (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of
>     non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up
>     locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo
>     location to almost every generic term.
>
>     Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS.
>     At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50
>      (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before
>     2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand
>     on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not
>     expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space
>     on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see
>     whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based
>     Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural
>     meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark
>     Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning
>     would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do
>     not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” –
>     but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for
>     computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million
>     Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for
>     a gTLD for them.
>
>     And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is
>     based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others
>     access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN.
>     ICANN would get sued up and down.
>
>     So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it
>     is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs
>     or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an
>     implementation than a policy issue, right?
>
>     As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing
>     process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a
>     certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we
>     open the system up and allow real time application submitting.
>     Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual
>     “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now.
>     Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the
>     1^st and the 2^nd round). After that there will be fewer and
>     smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess
>     the 2^nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say
>     2 years. So the 3^rd round could be set 2 years after the 2^nd ,
>     the 4^th a year after the 3^rd , then biannual rounds. Just: We
>     need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule!
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     *From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>     [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alan
>     Greenberg
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
>     *To:* Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com <mailto:rob at momentous.com>>;
>     Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>     *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
>     Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>     And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the
>     Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose,
>     just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules
>     applicable to typical TLDs.
>
>     Alan
>
>     At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
>
>
>
>
>         Greg,
>
>         Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state
>         where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
>
>         I believe this entire artificial “in rounds” that we are
>         doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
>
>         I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the
>         last round and want their TLD.   If we had an open TLD
>         registration process, they could have easily applied by now.  
>         I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories” is to
>         try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
>
>         By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that
>         causes most of the contention and issues.
>
>         As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why
>         categories are a good idea.  Can someone fill me in ?
>
>         Rob.
>
>         *From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>         *Date: *Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
>         *To: *Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com <mailto:rob at momentous.com>>
>         *Cc: *Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org
>         <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman
>         <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>,
>         "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>"
>         <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>>
>         *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
>         Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>         I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather
>         "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of
>         the big questions for this WG.  (I guess we know your
>         preferred answer now....)
>
>         There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly
>         enough not to dismiss it out of hand.  Turning the TLD space
>         into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling
>         idea, to say the least.
>
>         There were certainly problems with the community applications
>         (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may
>         be worth doing better.  I'm sure we have plenty of other
>         horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program
>         and from different perspectives.  We should learn from them,
>         rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
>
>         Greg
>
>         *Greg Shatan**
>         *C: 917-816-6428
>         S: gsshatan
>         gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>
>         On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com
>         <mailto:rob at momentous.com>> wrote:
>
>         I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.
>
>         If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where
>         anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be
>         a waste of time.
>
>         The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial
>         Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on
>         someone else.   I can just imagine the loud screaming when
>         someone games the system.   Have we not learned anything from
>         the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
>
>         Rob.
>
>         From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
>         <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of
>         Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org
>         <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>>
>
>         Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
>
>         To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>         <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> >
>
>         Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>         <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>         <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>>
>
>         Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
>         Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>         That would be helpful.
>
>         I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring
>         categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications
>         were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are
>         well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be
>         created and processes refined for that particular category,
>         especially where the operating model is very different to the
>         traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
>
>         Kind regards,
>
>         Martin
>
>         Martin Sutton
>
>         Executive Director
>
>         Brand Registry Group
>
>         martin at brandregistrygroup.org
>         <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
>
>         On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman
>         <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> >
>         wrote:
>
>         Thanks Kurt.  Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6
>         months ago?  It may help our discussions later today.
>
>         Jeffrey J. Neuman
>
>         Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
>
>         1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>
>         Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>
>         E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com>
>         or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
>
>         T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>
>
>         M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>
>
>         @Jintlaw
>
>         From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
>         <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>         [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
>         <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt
>         Pritz
>
>         Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
>
>         To: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org
>         <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>         <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>
>         Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
>         Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>         Hi Everyone:
>
>         In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the
>         spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,
>         https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551
>         ).
>
>         It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN
>         Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to
>         the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be
>         problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement.
>
>         Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick
>         marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of
>         the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1)
>         getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and
>         (2) a clean implementation.
>
>         Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
>
>         The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored
>         TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain
>         name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria
>         associated with categories.
>
>         In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category
>         types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the
>         implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances
>         in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t
>         just a process failure, the task itself was extremely
>         difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a
>         government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says,
>         ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple
>         compared to evaluating community applications.
>
>         The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a
>         number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and
>         difficult application and evaluation process (and an
>         expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It
>         is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to
>         create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
>
>         For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD
>         program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
>
>         Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a
>         process that
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>
>     Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
>
> -- 
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email:vgreimann at key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net>  /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>  /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>  
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
> --------------------------------------------
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
> Best regards,
> Volker A. Greimann
> - legal department -
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email:vgreimann at key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net>  /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>  /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>  
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

-- 
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170516/68a634fd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list