Dear all, Liz is making a fair point here, that applicants should do their own due diligence in all aspects of their applications. However, if we in any way can make the application process easier and offer some advice, that can help the applicants in their due diligence process. Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Date: Wednesday, 16 May 2018 at 12:26 To: "liz.williams@auda.org.au" <liz.williams@auda.org.au>, "mazzone@ebu.ch" <mazzone@ebu.ch> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 16 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC Dear Liz and all I think it is a fair point that there is a clear distinction between the review panel and the advisory panel. However, at the level of principle I feel that the experience and the added-value of the review panel had in the 2012 AGB round would probably be very helpful for applicants prior to filing their application – in the form of an (independent, expert) advisory body that would be at their disposal. And as said, this would help applicants especially with those names with geographic significance not falling under the specific categories of the AGB and/or in difficult cases as some city names may be (where, as we have seen, there apparently are no comprehensive lists…). Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Williams Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2018 11:39 An: Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 16 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC Hello everyone We need to be super careful here. Firstly these are implementation details not policy principles although I appreciate efforts to resolve conflicts. However, an evaluation panel has one function and that is to evaluate applications for all kinds of TLDs against a set of criteria. It is unwise for it to have any other function, most particularly where there could be any cause for any conflict of interest with respect to any advisory role. Applicants should do their own due diligence in all aspects of their applications. No applications for any TLDs should be “hard cases” when application rules are clear, when evaluation takes place objectively and where contracting arrangements are known in advance with the production of a draft contract which is published along with the application materials. If it takes us longer to get to consensus on the policy principles that guide those application rules then it is likely time well spent. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au> Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 16 May 2018, at 6:44 pm, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch<mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch>> wrote: Thank you Jorge. This seems to be a very good idea, but we need first to be clear among us what will be the advice that such group will provide. The need to arrive to a consensus on principles and criteria is primordial. Then of course –once we have clear guidelines- the case by case implementation could be very useful. Giacomo From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: mercredi 16 mai 2018 10:00 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 16 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC Hi Jorge This is a good idea. WT5 should work towards solutions that reduces conflicts. The more that can be done in advance to avoid complaints and litigation afterwards, the better. Looking forward to hear other members view on this. Kind regards Annebeth Annebeth B Lange UNINETT Norid AS 16. mai 2018 kl. 09:28 skrev "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>: Dear Emily Thanks for the useful slides. One question/suggestion which comes to my mind: there is a geographic names review as part of the initial evaluation, i.e. when the applicant already has made significant investments. What if, in addition to that review, the geographic names panel would also be available on an advisory basis during the application preparation phase? It could advise on hard/unclear cases and also on names with geographic significance not covered by the specific geonames categories/lists included in the AGB 2012, as well as help in identifying relevant public authorities (with help from ICANN Org and GAC Members if needed)… Probably this would avoid a lot of headaches and unexpected issues when the application is already further down the road, and would allow for early contact with the relevant public authorities… Hope this helps Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Emily Barabas Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2018 08:23 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 16 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC Dear Work Track 5 Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Wednesday 16 May at 14:00 UTC. 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Administration/Capturing and Managing Input 3. Geographic Names Process Review 4. AOB Slides for the call are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 ________________________________ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Good afternoon: With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures. I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire: 1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens. 2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation. Regards CW PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated.

El 16 de mayo de 2018 a las 12:44 Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> escribió:

Dear all,

Liz is making a fair point here, that applicants should do their own due diligence in all aspects of their applications. However, if we in any way can make the application process easier and offer some advice, that can help the applicants in their due diligence process.

Annebeth

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Date: Wednesday, 16 May 2018 at 12:26 To: "liz.williams@auda.org.au" <liz.williams@auda.org.au>, "mazzone@ebu.ch" <mazzone@ebu.ch> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 16 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC

Dear Liz and all

I think it is a fair point that there is a clear distinction between the review panel and the advisory panel.

However, at the level of principle I feel that the experience and the added-value of the review panel had in the 2012 AGB round would probably be very helpful for applicants prior to filing their application – in the form of an (independent, expert) advisory body that would be at their disposal.

And as said, this would help applicants especially with those names with geographic significance not falling under the specific categories of the AGB and/or in difficult cases as some city names may be (where, as we have seen, there apparently are no comprehensive lists…).

Best

Jorge

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Williams Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2018 11:39 An: Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 16 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC

Hello everyone

We need to be super careful here. Firstly these are implementation details not policy principles although I appreciate efforts to resolve conflicts.

However, an evaluation panel has one function and that is to evaluate applications for all kinds of TLDs against a set of criteria.

It is unwise for it to have any other function, most particularly where there could be any cause for any conflict of interest with respect to any advisory role. Applicants should do their own due diligence in all aspects of their applications.

No applications for any TLDs should be “hard cases” when application rules are clear, when evaluation takes place objectively and where contracting arrangements are known in advance with the production of a draft contract which is published along with the application materials. If it takes us longer to get to consensus on the policy principles that guide those application rules then it is likely time well spent.

Liz

…. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au http://www.auda.org.au

Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

> >

...

On 16 May 2018, at 6:44 pm, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch > wrote:

Thank you Jorge.

This seems to be a very good idea, but we need first to be clear among us what will be the advice that such group will provide.

The need to arrive to a consensus on principles and criteria is primordial. Then of course –once we have clear guidelines- the case by case implementation could be very useful.

Giacomo

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: mercredi 16 mai 2018 10:00 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 16 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC

Hi Jorge

This is a good idea. WT5 should work towards solutions that reduces conflicts. The more that can be done in advance to avoid complaints and litigation afterwards, the better.

Looking forward to hear other members view on this.

Kind regards

Annebeth

Annebeth B Lange

UNINETT Norid AS

16. mai 2018 kl. 09:28 skrev "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch " <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch >:

> > >

...

Dear Emily

Thanks for the useful slides.

One question/suggestion which comes to my mind: there is a geographic names review as part of the initial evaluation, i.e. when the applicant already has made significant investments. What if, in addition to that review, the geographic names panel would also be available on an advisory basis during the application preparation phase? It could advise on hard/unclear cases and also on names with geographic significance not covered by the specific geonames categories/lists included in the AGB 2012, as well as help in identifying relevant public authorities (with help from ICANN Org and GAC Members if needed)…

Probably this would avoid a lot of headaches and unexpected issues when the application is already further down the road, and would allow for early contact with the relevant public authorities…

Hope this helps

Jorge

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org ] Im Auftrag von Emily Barabas Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2018 08:23 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 16 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC

Dear Work Track 5 Members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Wednesday 16 May at 14:00 UTC.

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Administration/Capturing and Managing Input 3. Geographic Names Process Review 4. AOB

Slides for the call are attached for reference.

Kind regards,

Emily

Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist

ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Email: emily.barabas@icann.org mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

> >

> > >

...

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

> >

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

************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway **************************************************

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

>

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Agreed Greg Christopher, you appear to be suggesting that the term “rock” since it happens to be the name of at least one small town in Cornwall, England, and possibly elsewhere, could not be used as a TLD by geologists, landscapers, musicians, etc etc. On what possible legal, or indeed policy, basis? So no, you may not take that as agreed. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: 16 May 2018 21:46 To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 16 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC Christopher wrote: 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. Greg On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Good afternoon: With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures. I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire: 1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens. 2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation. Regards CW PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated. El 16 de mayo de 2018 a las 12:44 Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> escribió: Dear all, Liz is making a fair point here, that applicants should do their own due diligence in all aspects of their applications. However, if we in any way can make the application process easier and offer some advice, that can help the applicants in their due diligence process. Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Wednesday, 16 May 2018 at 12:26 To: "liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>" <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>, "mazzone@ebu.ch<mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch>" <mazzone@ebu.ch<mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 16 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC Dear Liz and all I think it is a fair point that there is a clear distinction between the review panel and the advisory panel. However, at the level of principle I feel that the experience and the added-value of the review panel had in the 2012 AGB round would probably be very helpful for applicants prior to filing their application – in the form of an (independent, expert) advisory body that would be at their disposal. And as said, this would help applicants especially with those names with geographic significance not falling under the specific categories of the AGB and/or in difficult cases as some city names may be (where, as we have seen, there apparently are no comprehensive lists…). Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Liz Williams Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2018 11:39 An: Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch<mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 16 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC Hello everyone We need to be super careful here. Firstly these are implementation details not policy principles although I appreciate efforts to resolve conflicts. However, an evaluation panel has one function and that is to evaluate applications for all kinds of TLDs against a set of criteria. It is unwise for it to have any other function, most particularly where there could be any cause for any conflict of interest with respect to any advisory role. Applicants should do their own due diligence in all aspects of their applications. No applications for any TLDs should be “hard cases” when application rules are clear, when evaluation takes place objectively and where contracting arrangements are known in advance with the production of a draft contract which is published along with the application materials. If it takes us longer to get to consensus on the policy principles that guide those application rules then it is likely time well spent. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au> Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 16 May 2018, at 6:44 pm, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch<mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch>> wrote: Thank you Jorge. This seems to be a very good idea, but we need first to be clear among us what will be the advice that such group will provide. The need to arrive to a consensus on principles and criteria is primordial. Then of course –once we have clear guidelines- the case by case implementation could be very useful. Giacomo From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: mercredi 16 mai 2018 10:00 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 16 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC Hi Jorge This is a good idea. WT5 should work towards solutions that reduces conflicts. The more that can be done in advance to avoid complaints and litigation afterwards, the better. Looking forward to hear other members view on this. Kind regards Annebeth Annebeth B Lange UNINETT Norid AS 16. mai 2018 kl. 09:28 skrev "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>: Dear Emily Thanks for the useful slides. One question/suggestion which comes to my mind: there is a geographic names review as part of the initial evaluation, i.e. when the applicant already has made significant investments. What if, in addition to that review, the geographic names panel would also be available on an advisory basis during the application preparation phase? It could advise on hard/unclear cases and also on names with geographic significance not covered by the specific geonames categories/lists included in the AGB 2012, as well as help in identifying relevant public authorities (with help from ICANN Org and GAC Members if needed)… Probably this would avoid a lot of headaches and unexpected issues when the application is already further down the road, and would allow for early contact with the relevant public authorities… Hope this helps Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Emily Barabas Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2018 08:23 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 16 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC Dear Work Track 5 Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Wednesday 16 May at 14:00 UTC. 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Administration/Capturing and Managing Input 3. Geographic Names Process Review 4. AOB Slides for the call are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 ________________________________ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5