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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed May 17 16:28:16 UTC 2017


What we have now is not a land rush.  FCFS would not precisely be a land
rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the
[plot of land/TLD] first claims it.  In a sense it would be worse than the
land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting
line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware
of what was going on.

*At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash
into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.*

*On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9
million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on
April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed
to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans
quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of
territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000
hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory.*

*The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At
11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of
the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers
signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips,
thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback,
and on foot.  All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the
territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims
either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman,
Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight.*

*An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust
for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud.
Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the
legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government
attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually
adopting a lottery system to designate claims.*


*[image: Inline image 1]*

P.S.  In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American
West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term.  In most if
not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open
only to white Americans.  Of course, the land in many cases was not truly
unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not
recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West.




*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com


On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com> wrote:

> Greg,
>
>
>
> We have a land rush for TLD’s.  That’s a fact of life.  There is demand.
>
>
>
> We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds.   We let
> demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
>
>
>
> Rob.
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM
> *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> *Cc: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>,
> Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, Christa Taylor <
> christa at dottba.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>, "
> 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
>
>
>
> Rob,
>
>
>
> Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.  I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible
> idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
> S: gsshatan
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> wrote:
>
> Greg,
>
> I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply.  So a
> registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application.  Competitors
> then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.”  Whether they
> win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a
> unique idea more expensive.  I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.
>
>
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
>
> 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com
>
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> lrrc.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman
> *Cc:* Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor;
> Volker Greimann; 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 would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs
> are simply too valuable and unique.  We don't need to have "rounds" in
> order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice,
> etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and
> for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for
> the string.  In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated
> from every other application but going through the same process as
> applications currently do.  This eliminates the pent up demand problem,
> without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
> S: gsshatan
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
> wrote:
>
> Rob,
>
>
>
> To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as
> well:
>
>
>
> 1.  ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand.  We
> would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is
> offered to any category, etc.
>
> 2.  After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide
> advice on).  ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and
> processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis.
> However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were
> posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals
> Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections,
> public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an
> example).  This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course
> the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait
> list service for TLDs ;)).
>
>
>
> Other than that last part, do I have that right?  If so, it presents an
> interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new
> option for the group to consider.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> *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 or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
>
> @Jintlaw
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM
> *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <
> AAikman at lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa at dottba.com>; 'Volker
> Greimann' <vgreimann at key-systems.net>; 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
>
>
>
> OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this
> current string.
>
>
>
> I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial
> solution.  I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was
> suggesting or advocating for.
>
>
>
> The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to
> concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round)
> that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
>
>
>
> As an example, would we need categories ?
>
>
>
> Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract.  Ie: It becomes just a
> means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms
> apply.
>
>
>
> But for priority ?   Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a
> FCFS world.
>
>
>
> So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will
> call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”.
> Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> *From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM
> *To: *Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <
> AAikman at lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa at dottba.com>, 'Volker
> Greimann' <vgreimann at key-systems.net>, "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
>
>
>
> Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been
> going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are
> not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of
> GTLDs as a "round".
>
> Alan
>
> At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
>
> Anne,
>
> To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off.   It is only being
> suggested AFTER the next round ends.  So that after we have dealt any pent
> up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
>
> I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored.   The
> reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the
> process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
>
> However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a
> month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
>
> When they announce is not related to when the application is received and
> the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
>
> Rob
>
> *From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM
> *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa at dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <
> vgreimann at key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>, "
> 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
>
> What about a hybrid approach?  FCFS is a terrible idea when no application
> has been permitted for over 5 years.  There is “pent-up†demand.   It is
> also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources.   Personally (and
> obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
>
> 1.       We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC
> Report and Copenhagen Communique.  It would take 60% of the Board to reject
> that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council
> Advice to the contrary.  Will the Board act in this situation or just tell
> GAC and GNSO to “work it out†?  Why not “cut to the chase†and work
> it out with the GAC now ?   All Objection processes should apply.  PICs
> have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t
> be revoked or it voids the registry agreement.    It’s up to Track 3 to
> develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t
> trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to
> meet a “social good†requirement.  “Community†is also about freedom
> of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
>
> (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization
> applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds.   No idea
> what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs.   Could an
> LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for  a
> geo name?  Is there any way to work this out now?  ICANN has got to get way
> more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the
> Board.   And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no
> application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window?
> Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old
> version of AGB?)
>
> 2.      Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands.
> Why?  Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment
> that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with
> potential TLD strings to pay off.  (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.)
> Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community
> objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc.    Applications for
> same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string
> contention.  After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third
> party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the
> trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all
> obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
>
> 3.      Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and
> applications compete.  String contention and all objection procedures apply.
>
> 4.      Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of
> applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a
> public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for
> objections).
>
> Anne
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel
> 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
> 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
> AAikman at lrrc.com
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> lrrc.com
>
> *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-
> bounces at icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christa
> Taylor
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM
> *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; 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
>
> Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
>
> Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around
> gaming the system.   Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room
> would be the more direct approach.  How do we prevent gaming?  For
> instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry
> could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to
> a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short
> period of time afterwards?   I’m not saying that these are solutions but
> just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christa
>
> *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-
> bounces at icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker
> Greimann
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM
> *To:* Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>; 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
>
>
> If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the
> rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does
> not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over
> the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd
> have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from
> applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And
> even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a
> legitimate objection too is very high.
>
> It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants
> have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick
> application and fires it off while the other takes care that the
> application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that
> takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
>
> OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its
> benefits.
>
> Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should
> consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with
> cannot be gamed for public harm.
>
> Best,
>
> Volker
>
>
> Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
>
> Sigh.
>
>
>
> My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled
> pent up demand.  This is clearly not just about one TLD.
>
>
>
> Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open
> applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round,
> that you think there would be a rush in the first day ?  I fail to
> comprehend how that is possible.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>
> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
>
> To: Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com> <rob at momentous.com>,
> "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> <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
>
>
>
> 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>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann
> <vgreimann at key-systems.net> <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>
> <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>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert
> <alexander at schubert.berlin> <alexander at schubert.berlin>
>
> Reply-To: "alexander at schubert.berlin" <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> <alexander at schubert.berlin> <alexander at schubert.berlin>
>
> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
>
> To: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> <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
>
>
>
> 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†– thhe number of applications won’t
> change.
>
> If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher 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 nnext
> 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 nnot 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 <rob at momentous.com>]
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
>
> To: alexander at schubert.berlin; 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> on behalf of Alexander
> Schubert < alexander at schubert.berlin>
>
> Reply-To: " alexander at schubert.berlin" < alexander at schubert.berlin>
>
> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 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
>
>
>
> 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†) – obtainn 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 arre 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 theere 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 DNNS 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†froom being used – just for
> computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: 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 woould 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 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and
> smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess
> thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2
> years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year
> after the 3rd, 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 <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>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com >
>
> Cc: 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 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 >
>
> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
>
> To: Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>
>
> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin at brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <
> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com >, " 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 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 <(917)%20816-6428>
>
> S: gsshatan
>
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com> wrote:
>
> I honestly can̢۪t 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> on behalf of Martin Sutton <
> martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
>
> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
>
> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com >
>
> Cc: " 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <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 or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514 <%28703%29%20635-7514>
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079 <%28202%29%20549-5079>
>
> @Jintlaw
>
>
>
>
>
> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-
> bounces at icann.org <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>; 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_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff
> zJAAhEvNlA/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 ¢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’? T¢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
>
>
>
> 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 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
>
>
> Email:
>
> vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Web:
>
> www.key-systems.net /
>
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
>
>
> Email:
>
> vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Web:
>
> www.key-systems.net /
>
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> 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 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
>
>
> Email:
>
> vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Web:
>
> www.key-systems.net /
>
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
>
>
> Email:
>
> vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Web:
>
> www.key-systems.net /
>
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> 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 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
>
>
> Email:
>
> vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net /
>
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
>
>
> Email:
>
> vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net /
>
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
> Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png"
> Content-Description: image001.png
> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497;
>          creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT";
>          modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"
> Content-ID: <image001.png at 01D2CE90.2CAEC770>
> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>          1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf
> ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi
> sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw==
> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
>          ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(
> 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(
> 400001002070)(400125200095);
>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>          1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf
> ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi
> sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw==
> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
>          ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(
> 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(
> 400001002070)(400125200095);
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170517/20051730/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 292100 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170517/20051730/image-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6489 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170517/20051730/image001-0001.png>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list