Thank you Katrin! As I said in Panama during the last meeting, I have serious doubts that the scope of the SubPro will alow us to roll back into the dicsussion any of 2007 Policies. I need confirmation that we are not overstepping the scope by going beyond the 2012 AGB. Best regards --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-06 07:42, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH escribió:

Dear All,

while reviewing the proposed recommendations and their reference to the 2007 GNSO Policy Recommendations I missed the reference to the AGB 2012:

In this document reference is only made to the 2007 GNSO Policy Recommendations: "This recommendation is a revision to the existing 2007 policy recommendations." If I remember correctly, we referenced the AGB 2012 in our Terms of Reference since there were gaps between the Initial Policy Recommendations and the Implementation in the AGB: "WT5 will (i) consider what constitutes a geographic name in the specific context of the New gTLD Program; (ii) analyze (a) 2007 GNSO POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS on the Introduction of New Generic Top - Level Domains; and (b) RELEVANT RULES CONTAINED IN THE 2012 GUIDEBOOK, such as .....".

Therefore I would recommend we add a second line under each of our recommendations stating that "This recommendation is <identical/a revision> to the Applicant Guidebook 2012". This might help readers which are more familiar with the AGB2012 than with the policy recommendations from 2007.

What do others think?

Best regards,

Katrin

DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting [1]

DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin

VON: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> IM AUFTRAG VON Martin Sutton GESENDET: Montag, 6. August 2018 14:42 AN: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org BETREFF: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Dear Work Track members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB

On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.

As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. WORK TRACK MEMBERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THESE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PRIOR TO THE CALL ON WEDNESDAY. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org] [2].

If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.

Kind regards,

WT5 Co-Leads

Annebeth Lange

Javier Rua

Olga Cavalli

Martin Sutton

The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.

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

Links: ------ [1] http://www.dotzon.consulting [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=

Hi Christopher, In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods. We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1. Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms. These include : - all other geographical terms - geographical indications - several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names. Thankyou and regards Christopher Wilkinson El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió: Dear Work Track members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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

I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach. This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise. If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear Co-Leads and Martin: I disagree with the method proposed. 1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed. 2. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Regards CW El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió: Hi Christopher, In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods. We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1. Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms. These include : - all other geographical terms - geographical indications - several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names. Thankyou and regards Christopher Wilkinson El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió: Dear Work Track members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

All, Carlos wrote: I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible. This reminded me that we have so far talked almost exclusively about what are generally called "preventive" processes (reserve lists, permission requirements, blocking lists, etc.), and very little about what are generally called "curative" processes (objections, dispute resolution processes, challenge processes, etc.). By doing so, we've taken half the tools out of the toolkit. I just finished working on the reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive Rights WG where we were dealing (at this point) with reserving/restricting national Red Cross/Red Crescent society names. In this case, a preventive rights approach made sense -- the names of the various national societies are essentially unique, identified only with that one entity, third party uses are almost certainly done in bad faith and with bad intent, and there's no real underlying policy disagreement. In some cases (e.g., name collisions, certain reserved names) there is also a strong technical component. This is how preventive rights have generally been used in ICANN policy -- for "slam-dunk" cases. There are few, if any, "slam-dunk" cases in our work. A good case can be made for 2-letter letter-letter combinations. Perhaps a good case can be made for some of the remaining classifications in this first set or potential recommendations. However, as we move "down the list", so to speak, we get further away from "slam-dunk" situations. We could potentially make more headway on some of the classifications of names if we considered "curative" processes, instead of being so intensely focused on "preventive" rights. This tends to turn our discussions into "all or nothing" choices -- but this is a false menu, since there are other options aside from the binary "all/nothing" that should be on the menu. Let's keep this in mind as we move forward. Greg On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:

I agree with Paul and think we should declare agreement where we have it, and build on that to find other agreement down the line. The process is supposed to involve incremental steps and building blocks along the way, and that is how we will eventually arrive at a consensus. To take the “nothing until everything” approach will keep us spinning our wheels indefinitely, cause confusion, and risks unexpected results, which is in no one’s interest.

Best, Robin

On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:

I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach. This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise. If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point.

Best, Paul

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson *Sent:* Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM *To:* Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Dear Co-Leads and Martin:

I disagree with the method proposed.

1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed.

2. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Regards

CW

El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org> escribió:

Hi Christopher,

In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods.

We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request.

Kind regards,

Martin Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1.

Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms.

These include :

- all other geographical terms

- geographical indications

- several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names.

Thankyou and regards

Christopher Wilkinson

El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org> escribió: Dear Work Track members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB

On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.

As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....> .

If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.

Kind regards,

WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton

The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>

------------------------------ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org 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

Hi All, we could substitute „restrictions“ with „conditions “ to frame our discussion and recommendations in a positive manner, kind regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Kavouss Arasteh Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. August 2018 10:11 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Carlos +1 Kavouss On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:47 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, Carlos wrote: I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible. This reminded me that we have so far talked almost exclusively about what are generally called "preventive" processes (reserve lists, permission requirements, blocking lists, etc.), and very little about what are generally called "curative" processes (objections, dispute resolution processes, challenge processes, etc.). By doing so, we've taken half the tools out of the toolkit. I just finished working on the reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive Rights WG where we were dealing (at this point) with reserving/restricting national Red Cross/Red Crescent society names. In this case, a preventive rights approach made sense -- the names of the various national societies are essentially unique, identified only with that one entity, third party uses are almost certainly done in bad faith and with bad intent, and there's no real underlying policy disagreement. In some cases (e.g., name collisions, certain reserved names) there is also a strong technical component. This is how preventive rights have generally been used in ICANN policy -- for "slam-dunk" cases. There are few, if any, "slam-dunk" cases in our work. A good case can be made for 2-letter letter-letter combinations. Perhaps a good case can be made for some of the remaining classifications in this first set or potential recommendations. However, as we move "down the list", so to speak, we get further away from "slam-dunk" situations. We could potentially make more headway on some of the classifications of names if we considered "curative" processes, instead of being so intensely focused on "preventive" rights. This tends to turn our discussions into "all or nothing" choices -- but this is a false menu, since there are other options aside from the binary "all/nothing" that should be on the menu. Let's keep this in mind as we move forward. Greg On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I agree with Paul and think we should declare agreement where we have it, and build on that to find other agreement down the line. The process is supposed to involve incremental steps and building blocks along the way, and that is how we will eventually arrive at a consensus. To take the “nothing until everything” approach will keep us spinning our wheels indefinitely, cause confusion, and risks unexpected results, which is in no one’s interest. Best, Robin On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach. This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise. If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear Co-Leads and Martin: I disagree with the method proposed. 1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed. 2. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Regards CW El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió: Hi Christopher, In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods. We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1. Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms. These include : - all other geographical terms - geographical indications - several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names. Thankyou and regards Christopher Wilkinson El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió: Dear Work Track members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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

Apologies, I sent before finishing: We will, as you can see from the work plan, cover broader categories and where we have heard suggestions to improve the process and to ..... ..consider different ways concerns can be managed, including curative processes. Overall, the work plan is designed to help us progress discussions but also to build the set of recommendations based on what we have already covered (much of which has been previously discussed in other formal and informal ICANN groups over the past few years. I hope this is helpful. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone On 7 Aug 2018, at 09:53, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote: Thank you Katrin and others for comments and suggestions, this is helpful towards maximising our time on the call this week. I thought it would be helpful to clarify the following in view of the exchanges below. The draft proposed recommendations are limited to a sub-set of our deliberations, namely the country and territory names, where there was a good level of agreement (and compromise) to maintain the “conditions” that were applied to the AGB. We will, as you can see from the work plan, cover broader categories and where we have heard suggestions to improve the process and to Sent from my iPhone On 7 Aug 2018, at 09:15, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote: Hi All, we could substitute „restrictions“ with „conditions “ to frame our discussion and recommendations in a positive manner, kind regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Kavouss Arasteh Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. August 2018 10:11 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Carlos +1 Kavouss On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:47 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, Carlos wrote: I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible. This reminded me that we have so far talked almost exclusively about what are generally called "preventive" processes (reserve lists, permission requirements, blocking lists, etc.), and very little about what are generally called "curative" processes (objections, dispute resolution processes, challenge processes, etc.). By doing so, we've taken half the tools out of the toolkit. I just finished working on the reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive Rights WG where we were dealing (at this point) with reserving/restricting national Red Cross/Red Crescent society names. In this case, a preventive rights approach made sense -- the names of the various national societies are essentially unique, identified only with that one entity, third party uses are almost certainly done in bad faith and with bad intent, and there's no real underlying policy disagreement. In some cases (e.g., name collisions, certain reserved names) there is also a strong technical component. This is how preventive rights have generally been used in ICANN policy -- for "slam-dunk" cases. There are few, if any, "slam-dunk" cases in our work. A good case can be made for 2-letter letter-letter combinations. Perhaps a good case can be made for some of the remaining classifications in this first set or potential recommendations. However, as we move "down the list", so to speak, we get further away from "slam-dunk" situations. We could potentially make more headway on some of the classifications of names if we considered "curative" processes, instead of being so intensely focused on "preventive" rights. This tends to turn our discussions into "all or nothing" choices -- but this is a false menu, since there are other options aside from the binary "all/nothing" that should be on the menu. Let's keep this in mind as we move forward. Greg On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I agree with Paul and think we should declare agreement where we have it, and build on that to find other agreement down the line. The process is supposed to involve incremental steps and building blocks along the way, and that is how we will eventually arrive at a consensus. To take the “nothing until everything” approach will keep us spinning our wheels indefinitely, cause confusion, and risks unexpected results, which is in no one’s interest. Best, Robin On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach. This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise. If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear Co-Leads and Martin: I disagree with the method proposed. 1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed. 2. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Regards CW El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió: Hi Christopher, In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods. We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1. Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms. These include : - all other geographical terms - geographical indications - several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names. Thankyou and regards Christopher Wilkinson El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió: Dear Work Track members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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 _______________________________________________ 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

Dear Greg, as Carlos expressed “In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible.” it is about a positive wording of our recommendations. That has nothing to do with the type of recommendations we make, rather with the language. Best regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. August 2018 18:11 An: Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Katrin, That seems to be a semantic distinction without a substantive difference, unless I misunderstand your point. How would conditions differ from restrictions (or permissions, consents, non-objections, vetos, blocking rights, preventive rights, pre-emotive rights, conditional reservations, approvals, or any other term that has or could be used)? Whatever the words, the substance seems to come down to either: A. A permission-type process where an application can’t move forward unless a governmental authority allows it to move forward. B. A challenge-type process where an application can move forward unless a governmental authority initiates a challenge process of some sort and succeeds in that process. We could come up with neutral terms (“apple” and “banana” for A and B above) but we need to move beyond terminology and deal with substance. Greg On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 4:14 AM Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote: Hi All, we could substitute „restrictions“ with „conditions “ to frame our discussion and recommendations in a positive manner, kind regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28<https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> 10823 Berlin<https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> Deutschland - Germany<https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin<https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin&entry=gmail&sourc...> Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Kavouss Arasteh Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. August 2018 10:11 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Carlos +1 Kavouss On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:47 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, Carlos wrote: I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible. This reminded me that we have so far talked almost exclusively about what are generally called "preventive" processes (reserve lists, permission requirements, blocking lists, etc.), and very little about what are generally called "curative" processes (objections, dispute resolution processes, challenge processes, etc.). By doing so, we've taken half the tools out of the toolkit. I just finished working on the reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive Rights WG where we were dealing (at this point) with reserving/restricting national Red Cross/Red Crescent society names. In this case, a preventive rights approach made sense -- the names of the various national societies are essentially unique, identified only with that one entity, third party uses are almost certainly done in bad faith and with bad intent, and there's no real underlying policy disagreement. In some cases (e.g., name collisions, certain reserved names) there is also a strong technical component. This is how preventive rights have generally been used in ICANN policy -- for "slam-dunk" cases. There are few, if any, "slam-dunk" cases in our work. A good case can be made for 2-letter letter-letter combinations. Perhaps a good case can be made for some of the remaining classifications in this first set or potential recommendations. However, as we move "down the list", so to speak, we get further away from "slam-dunk" situations. We could potentially make more headway on some of the classifications of names if we considered "curative" processes, instead of being so intensely focused on "preventive" rights. This tends to turn our discussions into "all or nothing" choices -- but this is a false menu, since there are other options aside from the binary "all/nothing" that should be on the menu. Let's keep this in mind as we move forward. Greg On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I agree with Paul and think we should declare agreement where we have it, and build on that to find other agreement down the line. The process is supposed to involve incremental steps and building blocks along the way, and that is how we will eventually arrive at a consensus. To take the “nothing until everything” approach will keep us spinning our wheels indefinitely, cause confusion, and risks unexpected results, which is in no one’s interest. Best, Robin On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach. This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise. If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear Co-Leads and Martin: I disagree with the method proposed. 1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed. 2. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Regards CW El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió: Hi Christopher, In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods. We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1. Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms. These include : - all other geographical terms - geographical indications - several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names. Thankyou and regards Christopher Wilkinson El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió: Dear Work Track members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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

Dear Greg: I expect that we shall find that, politically, all geographical names will be subject to preventative rules, at least in the first instance. The existing 'curative' procedures appear to me to be quite unsuitable for global application at the level of disagregation that we are currently considering. Regards Christopher

El 7 de agosto de 2018 a las 7:46 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió:

All,

Carlos wrote:

I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible.

This reminded me that we have so far talked almost exclusively about what are generally called "preventive" processes (reserve lists, permission requirements, blocking lists, etc.), and very little about what are generally called "curative" processes (objections, dispute resolution processes, challenge processes, etc.). By doing so, we've taken half the tools out of the toolkit.

I just finished working on the reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive Rights WG where we were dealing (at this point) with reserving/restricting national Red Cross/Red Crescent society names. In this case, a preventive rights approach made sense -- the names of the various national societies are essentially unique, identified only with that one entity, third party uses are almost certainly done in bad faith and with bad intent, and there's no real underlying policy disagreement. In some cases (e.g., name collisions, certain reserved names) there is also a strong technical component. This is how preventive rights have generally been used in ICANN policy -- for "slam-dunk" cases.

There are few, if any, "slam-dunk" cases in our work. A good case can be made for 2-letter letter-letter combinations. Perhaps a good case can be made for some of the remaining classifications in this first set or potential recommendations. However, as we move "down the list", so to speak, we get further away from "slam-dunk" situations. We could potentially make more headway on some of the classifications of names if we considered "curative" processes, instead of being so intensely focused on "preventive" rights. This tends to turn our discussions into "all or nothing" choices -- but this is a false menu, since there are other options aside from the binary "all/nothing" that should be on the menu.

Let's keep this in mind as we move forward.

Greg

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org mailto:robin@ipjustice.org > wrote:

> > I agree with Paul and think we should declare agreement where we have it, and build on that to find other agreement down the line. The process is supposed to involve incremental steps and building blocks along the way, and that is how we will eventually arrive at a consensus. To take the “nothing until everything” approach will keep us spinning our wheels indefinitely, cause confusion, and risks unexpected results, which is in no one’s interest.

...

Best, Robin

> > > On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com > wrote:

...

I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach. This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise. If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point.

Best, Paul

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org > On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Dear Co-Leads and Martin:

I disagree with the method proposed.

1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed.

2. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Regards

CW

> > > > El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org > escribió:

...

Hi Christopher,

In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods.

We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request.

Kind regards,

Martin

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu > wrote:

> > > > >

...

Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1.

Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms.

These include :

- all other geographical terms

- geographical indications

- several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names.

Thankyou and regards

Christopher Wilkinson

> > > > > > El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org > escribió:

...

Dear Work Track members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB

On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.

As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.... .

If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org .

Kind regards,

WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton

The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.

> > > > >

> > > > > > _______________________________________________

...

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > > _______________________________________________

...

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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...

> > > >

> > >

--------------------------------------------- The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

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

I agree with Greg and would add that many of us would be far less resistant to the concept of “geo names” if the underlying right/privilege provided was a curative right (rather than preventative). For some, the biggest problem we have with “geo names” is the presumption of restrictions (in this case a “veto power” to a single actor) so moving discussion towards curative rights could be a very useful way of working toward an ultimate consensus. Thanks, Robin

On Aug 7, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Christopher,

You can’t just throw the word “politically” into the middle of an unsupported claim and expect to be persuasive (or even understood). I don’t see any reason or reasoning where would find “all geographic names” to be subject to any rules, much less preventative rules. Quite the contrary. Can you explain your use of “politically” and what that implies? Where do you see politics coming into the ICANN policy-making process, and which politics are you referring to?

Curative procedures have been successfully invoked since the dawn of ICANN (and long, long before, in a multitude of settings) to allow someone to assert a claim against another party’s actions on the basis of agreed-upon standards. To write off the entire concept as “unsuitable,” again without support, seems both extreme and premature. New curative procedures were created for the 2012 round, and we could adapt those or create something different if we wanted to. On a policy level, there’s absolutely no reason for curative procedures to be “unsuitable.” Indeed, for reasons I very recently stated, they are far more suitable than preventative rights for the vast majority of terms with geographic meanings. Helping them work appropriately is an implementation-level concern that should not impede good policy-making.

As a group trying to reach consensus, we should not put all of our eggs into the one basket of preventative measures — no matter how much some participants want us to do so. I understand the allure of preventative processes over curative processes — you don’t need to watch anything, you don’t need to initiate anything, you don’t need to prove anything, and you don’t even need to explain anything. It’s a completely one-sided approach — which is good for one-sided, slam-dunk situations. Conversely, they are not particularly good where there are two sides to the story. Perhaps there is a concern that in a “curative” process over terms with geographic meanings, the “objectors” will not be able to succeed very often — that often there really is no basis for a claim. If that is the case, it is even more critical that we identify and agree upon the bases for these claims — whether they are exercised preventatively or curatively. We can’t put (or keep) a preventative privilege in place without clear-cut reasons that this privilege exists, and clear-cut reasons that the claim must be granted preventative status.

Preventative rights are equivalent to “guilty until proven innocent,” except that there’s no forum for such proof — it is entirely at the discretion of the privilege-holder. Curative rights, on the other hand, are “innocent until proven guilty,” with a forum and a process for that determination to be made by an uninterested entity/person(s). I tend to prefer “innocent until proven guilty” as a general concept.

Best regards,

Greg

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:22 AM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Greg:

I expect that we shall find that, politically, all geographical names will be subject to preventative rules, at least in the first instance.

The existing 'curative' procedures appear to me to be quite unsuitable for global application at the level of disagregation that we are currently considering.

Regards

Christopher

...

El 7 de agosto de 2018 a las 7:46 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió:

All,

Carlos wrote:

I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible.

This reminded me that we have so far talked almost exclusively about what are generally called "preventive" processes (reserve lists, permission requirements, blocking lists, etc.), and very little about what are generally called "curative" processes (objections, dispute resolution processes, challenge processes, etc.). By doing so, we've taken half the tools out of the toolkit.

I just finished working on the reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive Rights WG where we were dealing (at this point) with reserving/restricting national Red Cross/Red Crescent society names. In this case, a preventive rights approach made sense -- the names of the various national societies are essentially unique, identified only with that one entity, third party uses are almost certainly done in bad faith and with bad intent, and there's no real underlying policy disagreement. In some cases (e.g., name collisions, certain reserved names) there is also a strong technical component. This is how preventive rights have generally been used in ICANN policy -- for "slam-dunk" cases.

There are few, if any, "slam-dunk" cases in our work. A good case can be made for 2-letter letter-letter combinations. Perhaps a good case can be made for some of the remaining classifications in this first set or potential recommendations. However, as we move "down the list", so to speak, we get further away from "slam-dunk" situations. We could potentially make more headway on some of the classifications of names if we considered "curative" processes, instead of being so intensely focused on "preventive" rights. This tends to turn our discussions into "all or nothing" choices -- but this is a false menu, since there are other options aside from the binary "all/nothing" that should be on the menu.

Let's keep this in mind as we move forward.

Greg

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I agree with Paul and think we should declare agreement where we have it, and build on that to find other agreement down the line. The process is supposed to involve incremental steps and building blocks along the way, and that is how we will eventually arrive at a consensus. To take the “nothing until everything” approach will keep us spinning our wheels indefinitely, cause confusion, and risks unexpected results, which is in no one’s interest.

Best, Robin

...

On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote:

I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach. This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise. If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point.

Best, Paul

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Dear Co-Leads and Martin:

I disagree with the method proposed.

1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed.

2. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Regards

CW

El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió:

Hi Christopher,

In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods.

We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request.

Kind regards,

Martin

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:

Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1.

Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms.

These include :

- all other geographical terms

- geographical indications

- several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names.

Thankyou and regards

Christopher Wilkinson

El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió:

Dear Work Track members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB

On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.

As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>.

If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.

Kind regards,

WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton

The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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 <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 <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>

Thanks, Javier. Perhaps dispute resolution providers could engage in an evaluation process that involved a balancing of legitimate interests with respect to the particular GTLD string in contention. This is what we do for other legitimate interests, like the legal rights objections and the community objections, etc. So rather than presume a string can’t go forward if it refers to a word with geographic meaning, someone who believes their interests would be violated by the string would have an opportunity to object and the dispute can be heard without any preconception of a single interest being given automatic preference over all the others. Working in the direction of creating that process seems far more fruitful for this group than people taking entrenched positions on preventative rights and we continue to go in circles. Best, Robin

On Aug 7, 2018, at 10:25 AM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:

Robin, Greg, All

Good conversation. What could some “a posteriori” / “curative” processes for something like “non-AGB geoNames” look like?

Javier Rúa-Jovet

+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua <https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua>

On Aug 7, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:

...

I agree with Greg and would add that many of us would be far less resistant to the concept of “geo names” if the underlying right/privilege provided was a curative right (rather than preventative). For some, the biggest problem we have with “geo names” is the presumption of restrictions (in this case a “veto power” to a single actor) so moving discussion towards curative rights could be a very useful way of working toward an ultimate consensus.

Thanks, Robin

...

On Aug 7, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

Christopher,

You can’t just throw the word “politically” into the middle of an unsupported claim and expect to be persuasive (or even understood). I don’t see any reason or reasoning where would find “all geographic names” to be subject to any rules, much less preventative rules. Quite the contrary. Can you explain your use of “politically” and what that implies? Where do you see politics coming into the ICANN policy-making process, and which politics are you referring to?

Curative procedures have been successfully invoked since the dawn of ICANN (and long, long before, in a multitude of settings) to allow someone to assert a claim against another party’s actions on the basis of agreed-upon standards. To write off the entire concept as “unsuitable,” again without support, seems both extreme and premature. New curative procedures were created for the 2012 round, and we could adapt those or create something different if we wanted to. On a policy level, there’s absolutely no reason for curative procedures to be “unsuitable.” Indeed, for reasons I very recently stated, they are far more suitable than preventative rights for the vast majority of terms with geographic meanings. Helping them work appropriately is an implementation-level concern that should not impede good policy-making.

As a group trying to reach consensus, we should not put all of our eggs into the one basket of preventative measures — no matter how much some participants want us to do so. I understand the allure of preventative processes over curative processes — you don’t need to watch anything, you don’t need to initiate anything, you don’t need to prove anything, and you don’t even need to explain anything. It’s a completely one-sided approach — which is good for one-sided, slam-dunk situations. Conversely, they are not particularly good where there are two sides to the story. Perhaps there is a concern that in a “curative” process over terms with geographic meanings, the “objectors” will not be able to succeed very often — that often there really is no basis for a claim. If that is the case, it is even more critical that we identify and agree upon the bases for these claims — whether they are exercised preventatively or curatively. We can’t put (or keep) a preventative privilege in place without clear-cut reasons that this privilege exists, and clear-cut reasons that the claim must be granted preventative status.

Preventative rights are equivalent to “guilty until proven innocent,” except that there’s no forum for such proof — it is entirely at the discretion of the privilege-holder. Curative rights, on the other hand, are “innocent until proven guilty,” with a forum and a process for that determination to be made by an uninterested entity/person(s). I tend to prefer “innocent until proven guilty” as a general concept.

Best regards,

Greg

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:22 AM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Greg:

I expect that we shall find that, politically, all geographical names will be subject to preventative rules, at least in the first instance.

The existing 'curative' procedures appear to me to be quite unsuitable for global application at the level of disagregation that we are currently considering.

Regards

Christopher

...

El 7 de agosto de 2018 a las 7:46 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió:

All,

Carlos wrote:

I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible.

This reminded me that we have so far talked almost exclusively about what are generally called "preventive" processes (reserve lists, permission requirements, blocking lists, etc.), and very little about what are generally called "curative" processes (objections, dispute resolution processes, challenge processes, etc.). By doing so, we've taken half the tools out of the toolkit.

I just finished working on the reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive Rights WG where we were dealing (at this point) with reserving/restricting national Red Cross/Red Crescent society names. In this case, a preventive rights approach made sense -- the names of the various national societies are essentially unique, identified only with that one entity, third party uses are almost certainly done in bad faith and with bad intent, and there's no real underlying policy disagreement. In some cases (e.g., name collisions, certain reserved names) there is also a strong technical component. This is how preventive rights have generally been used in ICANN policy -- for "slam-dunk" cases.

There are few, if any, "slam-dunk" cases in our work. A good case can be made for 2-letter letter-letter combinations. Perhaps a good case can be made for some of the remaining classifications in this first set or potential recommendations. However, as we move "down the list", so to speak, we get further away from "slam-dunk" situations. We could potentially make more headway on some of the classifications of names if we considered "curative" processes, instead of being so intensely focused on "preventive" rights. This tends to turn our discussions into "all or nothing" choices -- but this is a false menu, since there are other options aside from the binary "all/nothing" that should be on the menu.

Let's keep this in mind as we move forward.

Greg

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I agree with Paul and think we should declare agreement where we have it, and build on that to find other agreement down the line. The process is supposed to involve incremental steps and building blocks along the way, and that is how we will eventually arrive at a consensus. To take the “nothing until everything” approach will keep us spinning our wheels indefinitely, cause confusion, and risks unexpected results, which is in no one’s interest.

Best, Robin

...

On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote:

I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach. This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise. If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point.

Best, Paul

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Dear Co-Leads and Martin:

I disagree with the method proposed.

1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed.

2. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Regards

CW

El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió:

Hi Christopher,

In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods.

We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request.

Kind regards,

Martin

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:

Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1.

Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms.

These include :

- all other geographical terms

- geographical indications

- several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names.

Thankyou and regards

Christopher Wilkinson

El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió:

Dear Work Track members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB

On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.

As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>.

If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.

Kind regards,

WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton

The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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 <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 <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 <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>

Dear All I agree with Katrin. In principle Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 8 Aug 2018, at 08:31, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com> wrote:

Dear Robin,

In the last round, each application went through the geographic names panel. Although this panel apparently did not work perfectly, this body could be enhanced rather than setting up a new body like a dispute resolution process for geo names. Since the geographic names panel check is earlier in the application review process, it would add to predictability and clarity for applicants. Also, the DRP came with a pretty hefty price tag and has been a lengthy process, so an earlier determination whether the applied-for string can proceed, could be favourable for all parties involved. Together with the proposal from Nick of adding further due diligence requirements before filing an application, could reduce the risk of conflicts.

Kind regards Katrin

DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting

DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Robin Gross Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. August 2018 01:14 An: Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Thanks, Javier. Perhaps dispute resolution providers could engage in an evaluation process that involved a balancing of legitimate interests with respect to the particular GTLD string in contention. This is what we do for other legitimate interests, like the legal rights objections and the community objections, etc. So rather than presume a string can’t go forward if it refers to a word with geographic meaning, someone who believes their interests would be violated by the string would have an opportunity to object and the dispute can be heard without any preconception of a single interest being given automatic preference over all the others. Working in the direction of creating that process seems far more fruitful for this group than people taking entrenched positions on preventative rights and we continue to go in circles.

Best, Robin

On Aug 7, 2018, at 10:25 AM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:

Robin, Greg, All

Good conversation. What could some “a posteriori” / “curative” processes for something like “non-AGB geoNames” look like?

Javier Rúa-Jovet

+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Aug 7, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:

I agree with Greg and would add that many of us would be far less resistant to the concept of “geo names” if the underlying right/privilege provided was a curative right (rather than preventative). For some, the biggest problem we have with “geo names” is the presumption of restrictions (in this case a “veto power” to a single actor) so moving discussion towards curative rights could be a very useful way of working toward an ultimate consensus.

Thanks, Robin

On Aug 7, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Christopher,

You can’t just throw the word “politically” into the middle of an unsupported claim and expect to be persuasive (or even understood). I don’t see any reason or reasoning where would find “all geographic names” to be subject to any rules, much less preventative rules. Quite the contrary. Can you explain your use of “politically” and what that implies? Where do you see politics coming into the ICANN policy-making process, and which politics are you referring to?

Curative procedures have been successfully invoked since the dawn of ICANN (and long, long before, in a multitude of settings) to allow someone to assert a claim against another party’s actions on the basis of agreed-upon standards. To write off the entire concept as “unsuitable,” again without support, seems both extreme and premature. New curative procedures were created for the 2012 round, and we could adapt those or create something different if we wanted to. On a policy level, there’s absolutely no reason for curative procedures to be “unsuitable.” Indeed, for reasons I very recently stated, they are far more suitable than preventative rights for the vast majority of terms with geographic meanings. Helping them work appropriately is an implementation-level concern that should not impede good policy-making.

As a group trying to reach consensus, we should not put all of our eggs into the one basket of preventative measures — no matter how much some participants want us to do so. I understand the allure of preventative processes over curative processes — you don’t need to watch anything, you don’t need to initiate anything, you don’t need to prove anything, and you don’t even need to explain anything. It’s a completely one-sided approach — which is good for one-sided, slam-dunk situations. Conversely, they are not particularly good where there are two sides to the story. Perhaps there is a concern that in a “curative” process over terms with geographic meanings, the “objectors” will not be able to succeed very often — that often there really is no basis for a claim. If that is the case, it is even more critical that we identify and agree upon the bases for these claims — whether they are exercised preventatively or curatively. We can’t put (or keep) a preventative privilege in place without clear-cut reasons that this privilege exists, and clear-cut reasons that the claim must be granted preventative status.

Preventative rights are equivalent to “guilty until proven innocent,” except that there’s no forum for such proof — it is entirely at the discretion of the privilege-holder. Curative rights, on the other hand, are “innocent until proven guilty,” with a forum and a process for that determination to be made by an uninterested entity/person(s). I tend to prefer “innocent until proven guilty” as a general concept.

Best regards,

Greg

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:22 AM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Dear Greg: I expect that we shall find that, politically, all geographical names will be subject to preventative rules, at least in the first instance. The existing 'curative' procedures appear to me to be quite unsuitable for global application at the level of disagregation that we are currently considering. Regards Christopher

El 7 de agosto de 2018 a las 7:46 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió:

All,

Carlos wrote:

I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible.

This reminded me that we have so far talked almost exclusively about what are generally called "preventive" processes (reserve lists, permission requirements, blocking lists, etc.), and very little about what are generally called "curative" processes (objections, dispute resolution processes, challenge processes, etc.). By doing so, we've taken half the tools out of the toolkit.

I just finished working on the reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive Rights WG where we were dealing (at this point) with reserving/restricting national Red Cross/Red Crescent society names. In this case, a preventive rights approach made sense -- the names of the various national societies are essentially unique, identified only with that one entity, third party uses are almost certainly done in bad faith and with bad intent, and there's no real underlying policy disagreement. In some cases (e.g., name collisions, certain reserved names) there is also a strong technical component. This is how preventive rights have generally been used in ICANN policy -- for "slam-dunk" cases.

There are few, if any, "slam-dunk" cases in our work. A good case can be made for 2-letter letter-letter combinations. Perhaps a good case can be made for some of the remaining classifications in this first set or potential recommendations. However, as we move "down the list", so to speak, we get further away from "slam-dunk" situations. We could potentially make more headway on some of the classifications of names if we considered "curative" processes, instead of being so intensely focused on "preventive" rights. This tends to turn our discussions into "all or nothing" choices -- but this is a false menu, since there are other options aside from the binary "all/nothing" that should be on the menu.

Let's keep this in mind as we move forward.

Greg

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: I agree with Paul and think we should declare agreement where we have it, and build on that to find other agreement down the line. The process is supposed to involve incremental steps and building blocks along the way, and that is how we will eventually arrive at a consensus. To take the “nothing until everything” approach will keep us spinning our wheels indefinitely, cause confusion, and risks unexpected results, which is in no one’s interest.

Best, Robin

On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:

I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach. This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise. If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point.

Best, Paul

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Dear Co-Leads and Martin: I disagree with the method proposed. 1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed.

2. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Regards CW

El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> escribió:

Hi Christopher,

In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods.

We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request.

Kind regards,

Martin

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1. Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms. These include : - all other geographical terms - geographical indications - several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names. Thankyou and regards Christopher Wilkinson El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> escribió:

Dear Work Track members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB

On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.

As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org].

If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.

Kind regards,

WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton

The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org 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

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list 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 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

Dear Greg: I am not advancing a Policy, nor a political position. I am telling you that after 20+ years of DNS experience, including several close encounters with geographical names, that is what I expect. Regards Christopher

El 7 de agosto de 2018 a las 18:53 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió:

Christopher,

You can’t just throw the word “politically” into the middle of an unsupported claim and expect to be persuasive (or even understood). I don’t see any reason or reasoning where would find “all geographic names” to be subject to any rules, much less preventative rules. Quite the contrary. Can you explain your use of “politically” and what that implies? Where do you see politics coming into the ICANN policy-making process, and which politics are you referring to?

Curative procedures have been successfully invoked since the dawn of ICANN (and long, long before, in a multitude of settings) to allow someone to assert a claim against another party’s actions on the basis of agreed-upon standards. To write off the entire concept as “unsuitable,” again without support, seems both extreme and premature. New curative procedures were created for the 2012 round, and we could adapt those or create something different if we wanted to. On a policy level, there’s absolutely no reason for curative procedures to be “unsuitable.” Indeed, for reasons I very recently stated, they are far more suitable than preventative rights for the vast majority of terms with geographic meanings. Helping them work appropriately is an implementation-level concern that should not impede good policy-making.

As a group trying to reach consensus, we should not put all of our eggs into the one basket of preventative measures — no matter how much some participants want us to do so. I understand the allure of preventative processes over curative processes — you don’t need to watch anything, you don’t need to initiate anything, you don’t need to prove anything, and you don’t even need to explain anything. It’s a completely one-sided approach — which is good for one-sided, slam-dunk situations. Conversely, they are not particularly good where there are two sides to the story. Perhaps there is a concern that in a “curative” process over terms with geographic meanings, the “objectors” will not be able to succeed very often — that often there really is no basis for a claim. If that is the case, it is even more critical that we identify and agree upon the bases for these claims — whether they are exercised preventatively or curatively. We can’t put (or keep) a preventative privilege in place without clear-cut reasons that this privilege exists, and clear-cut reasons that the claim must be granted preventative status.

Preventative rights are equivalent to “guilty until proven innocent,” except that there’s no forum for such proof — it is entirely at the discretion of the privilege-holder. Curative rights, on the other hand, are “innocent until proven guilty,” with a forum and a process for that determination to be made by an uninterested entity/person(s). I tend to prefer “innocent until proven guilty” as a general concept.

Best regards,

Greg

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:22 AM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu > wrote:

> >

...

Dear Greg:

I expect that we shall find that, politically, all geographical names will be subject to preventative rules, at least in the first instance.

The existing 'curative' procedures appear to me to be quite unsuitable for global application at the level of disagregation that we are currently considering.

Regards

Christopher

> > > El 7 de agosto de 2018 a las 7:46 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com > escribió:

...

All,

Carlos wrote:

I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible.

This reminded me that we have so far talked almost exclusively about what are generally called "preventive" processes (reserve lists, permission requirements, blocking lists, etc.), and very little about what are generally called "curative" processes (objections, dispute resolution processes, challenge processes, etc.). By doing so, we've taken half the tools out of the toolkit.

I just finished working on the reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive Rights WG where we were dealing (at this point) with reserving/restricting national Red Cross/Red Crescent society names. In this case, a preventive rights approach made sense -- the names of the various national societies are essentially unique, identified only with that one entity, third party uses are almost certainly done in bad faith and with bad intent, and there's no real underlying policy disagreement. In some cases (e.g., name collisions, certain reserved names) there is also a strong technical component. This is how preventive rights have generally been used in ICANN policy -- for "slam-dunk" cases.

There are few, if any, "slam-dunk" cases in our work. A good case can be made for 2-letter letter-letter combinations. Perhaps a good case can be made for some of the remaining classifications in this first set or potential recommendations. However, as we move "down the list", so to speak, we get further away from "slam-dunk" situations. We could potentially make more headway on some of the classifications of names if we considered "curative" processes, instead of being so intensely focused on "preventive" rights. This tends to turn our discussions into "all or nothing" choices -- but this is a false menu, since there are other options aside from the binary "all/nothing" that should be on the menu.

Let's keep this in mind as we move forward.

Greg

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org mailto:robin@ipjustice.org > wrote:

> > > > I agree with Paul and think we should declare agreement where we have it, and build on that to find other agreement down the line. The process is supposed to involve incremental steps and building blocks along the way, and that is how we will eventually arrive at a consensus. To take the “nothing until everything” approach will keep us spinning our wheels indefinitely, cause confusion, and risks unexpected results, which is in no one’s interest.

...

Best, Robin

> > > > > On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com > wrote:

...

I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach. This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise. If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point.

Best, Paul

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org > On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Dear Co-Leads and Martin:

I disagree with the method proposed.

1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed.

2. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Regards

CW

> > > > > > El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org > escribió:

...

Hi Christopher,

In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods.

We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request.

Kind regards,

Martin

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu > wrote:

> > > > > > > > Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1. > > Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms. > > These include : > > - all other geographical terms > > - geographical indications > > - several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names. > > Thankyou and regards > > Christopher Wilkinson > > > > > > > > > > El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org > escribió: > > > > Dear Work Track members, > > > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC: > > > > 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates > > 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan > > 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names > > 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms > > 5. AOB > > > > On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. > > > > As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.... . > > > > If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org . > > > > Kind regards, > > > > WT5 Co-Leads > > Annebeth Lange > > Javier Rua > > Olga Cavalli > > Martin Sutton > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list > > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > > > > > > > > > > > > >

--------------------------------------------- The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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

> >

>

Apologies if I don’t make the call tomorrow since I am currently on vacation (and if I do it will be with grumpy teenagers in the background!) However I would echo Greg’s points here. Below the level of capital cities there are an infinite range of perfectly legitimate uses for a TLD which might also have some geographical or cultural connotations. I’ve listened to the calls and read the list comments and have yet to hear a good solution which is simple and could be explained to my teenage daughter which is my acid test for can something work. Hence my view is to to stick more or less to the 2012 AGB. Three reasons/ clarifications 1. The 2012 round was basically very successful and there are some prominent geo TLDs launched and some great exemplars of the mission to improve choice and competition for domains. Yes there were some problems in a tiny minority of cases but I think that is inherent with this sort of process. There were also problem cases in non geo terms too. Allocating a TLD is not that straightforward- hence the cost and complexity as we all know. 2. I do think that some sort of mediation process in the event of challenge including the option of making a reasonable change to the string you applied for. So if I apply for say .oxford and the town or university or govt or whom ever kick up a fuss then I could change it to .oxfordstreet or .oxfordsciencepark or .oxfordinstruments or .oxfordtriathlonclub or something to reduce the potential user confusion and make it more distinctive of the basis for my wanting it. 3. The term ‘city’ itself in the 2012 AGB was never defined. I think that where an applicant states in its application that the purposes of the TLD include any sort of representation of a place or community then they should a) be expected to do some due diligence ahead of applying and therefore expect some push back from those places or communities and b) submit evidence of support from the places or communities they purport to be representing. If you’re clearly not representing a place or a community then there shouldn’t be a basis for blocking the application. (If that turns out to be false then the TLD applicant should rightly face compliance action and even potentially lose the TLD). I would be glad to see any advance on the above and hope we can find some common ground. Best wishes Nick Sent from my iPhone On 6 Aug 2018, at 23:47, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, Carlos wrote: I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible. This reminded me that we have so far talked almost exclusively about what are generally called "preventive" processes (reserve lists, permission requirements, blocking lists, etc.), and very little about what are generally called "curative" processes (objections, dispute resolution processes, challenge processes, etc.). By doing so, we've taken half the tools out of the toolkit. I just finished working on the reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive Rights WG where we were dealing (at this point) with reserving/restricting national Red Cross/Red Crescent society names. In this case, a preventive rights approach made sense -- the names of the various national societies are essentially unique, identified only with that one entity, third party uses are almost certainly done in bad faith and with bad intent, and there's no real underlying policy disagreement. In some cases (e.g., name collisions, certain reserved names) there is also a strong technical component. This is how preventive rights have generally been used in ICANN policy -- for "slam-dunk" cases. There are few, if any, "slam-dunk" cases in our work. A good case can be made for 2-letter letter-letter combinations. Perhaps a good case can be made for some of the remaining classifications in this first set or potential recommendations. However, as we move "down the list", so to speak, we get further away from "slam-dunk" situations. We could potentially make more headway on some of the classifications of names if we considered "curative" processes, instead of being so intensely focused on "preventive" rights. This tends to turn our discussions into "all or nothing" choices -- but this is a false menu, since there are other options aside from the binary "all/nothing" that should be on the menu. Let's keep this in mind as we move forward. Greg On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I agree with Paul and think we should declare agreement where we have it, and build on that to find other agreement down the line. The process is supposed to involve incremental steps and building blocks along the way, and that is how we will eventually arrive at a consensus. To take the “nothing until everything” approach will keep us spinning our wheels indefinitely, cause confusion, and risks unexpected results, which is in no one’s interest. Best, Robin On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach. This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise. If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear Co-Leads and Martin: I disagree with the method proposed. 1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed. 2. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Regards CW El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió: Hi Christopher, In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods. We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1. Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms. These include : - all other geographical terms - geographical indications - several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names. Thankyou and regards Christopher Wilkinson El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió: Dear Work Track members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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

Dear all, I support Nick's ideas and find them very fair to all future applicants. Also Jorge's ideas about some "process steps" below (especially 1, 2, 3 and 5) are raising predictability and certainty for all parties. Kind regards, Sanna (.fi) -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: 8. elokuuta 2018 8:40 To: Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk; gregshatanipc@gmail.com Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear all May I recall some measures that I suggested before the European summer break? Here they go again: == Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 23:34 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] suggested ideas for improving current system for cities Dear all, Reposting these ideas – it would be great to hear reactions, hopefully constructive ones J == Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as (1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request; (2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline; (3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality; (4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple… (5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them; (6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority… Etc. These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts. Hope this may be helpful Best Jorge == These measures (mentioned in the context of non-capital city names) could IMO as well be helpful in dealing with the “non AGB geonames”… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Nick Wenban-Smith Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. August 2018 07:34 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Apologies if I don’t make the call tomorrow since I am currently on vacation (and if I do it will be with grumpy teenagers in the background!) However I would echo Greg’s points here. Below the level of capital cities there are an infinite range of perfectly legitimate uses for a TLD which might also have some geographical or cultural connotations. I’ve listened to the calls and read the list comments and have yet to hear a good solution which is simple and could be explained to my teenage daughter which is my acid test for can something work. Hence my view is to to stick more or less to the 2012 AGB. Three reasons/ clarifications 1. The 2012 round was basically very successful and there are some prominent geo TLDs launched and some great exemplars of the mission to improve choice and competition for domains. Yes there were some problems in a tiny minority of cases but I think that is inherent with this sort of process. There were also problem cases in non geo terms too. Allocating a TLD is not that straightforward- hence the cost and complexity as we all know. 2. I do think that some sort of mediation process in the event of challenge including the option of making a reasonable change to the string you applied for. So if I apply for say .oxford and the town or university or govt or whom ever kick up a fuss then I could change it to .oxfordstreet or .oxfordsciencepark or .oxfordinstruments or .oxfordtriathlonclub or something to reduce the potential user confusion and make it more distinctive of the basis for my wanting it. 3. The term ‘city’ itself in the 2012 AGB was never defined. I think that where an applicant states in its application that the purposes of the TLD include any sort of representation of a place or community then they should a) be expected to do some due diligence ahead of applying and therefore expect some push back from those places or communities and b) submit evidence of support from the places or communities they purport to be representing. If you’re clearly not representing a place or a community then there shouldn’t be a basis for blocking the application. (If that turns out to be false then the TLD applicant should rightly face compliance action and even potentially lose the TLD). I would be glad to see any advance on the above and hope we can find some common ground. Best wishes Nick Sent from my iPhone On 6 Aug 2018, at 23:47, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: All, Carlos wrote: I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible. This reminded me that we have so far talked almost exclusively about what are generally called "preventive" processes (reserve lists, permission requirements, blocking lists, etc.), and very little about what are generally called "curative" processes (objections, dispute resolution processes, challenge processes, etc.). By doing so, we've taken half the tools out of the toolkit. I just finished working on the reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive Rights WG where we were dealing (at this point) with reserving/restricting national Red Cross/Red Crescent society names. In this case, a preventive rights approach made sense -- the names of the various national societies are essentially unique, identified only with that one entity, third party uses are almost certainly done in bad faith and with bad intent, and there's no real underlying policy disagreement. In some cases (e.g., name collisions, certain reserved names) there is also a strong technical component. This is how preventive rights have generally been used in ICANN policy -- for "slam-dunk" cases. There are few, if any, "slam-dunk" cases in our work. A good case can be made for 2-letter letter-letter combinations. Perhaps a good case can be made for some of the remaining classifications in this first set or potential recommendations. However, as we move "down the list", so to speak, we get further away from "slam-dunk" situations. We could potentially make more headway on some of the classifications of names if we considered "curative" processes, instead of being so intensely focused on "preventive" rights. This tends to turn our discussions into "all or nothing" choices -- but this is a false menu, since there are other options aside from the binary "all/nothing" that should be on the menu. Let's keep this in mind as we move forward. Greg On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: I agree with Paul and think we should declare agreement where we have it, and build on that to find other agreement down the line. The process is supposed to involve incremental steps and building blocks along the way, and that is how we will eventually arrive at a consensus. To take the “nothing until everything” approach will keep us spinning our wheels indefinitely, cause confusion, and risks unexpected results, which is in no one’s interest. Best, Robin On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote: I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach. This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise. If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear Co-Leads and Martin: I disagree with the method proposed. 1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed. 2. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Regards CW El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > escribió: Hi Christopher, In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods. We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> > wrote: Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1. Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms. These include : - all other geographical terms - geographical indications - several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names. Thankyou and regards Christopher Wilkinson El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > escribió: Dear Work Track members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....> . If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> . Kind regards, WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

And now is a great opportunity to share views and ideas amongst the group, as suggested on the last call. Feel free to start a new thread titled ‘Non-AGB Terms”. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone On 7 Aug 2018, at 12:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Paul: You might recall that my initial position more than six months ago was - and still is - that WT5 should be discussing non-AGB names, first. Regards Christopher El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 23:16 "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> escribió: I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach. This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise. If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear Co-Leads and Martin: I disagree with the method proposed. 1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed. 2. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Regards CW El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió: Hi Christopher, In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods. We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1. Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms. These include : - all other geographical terms - geographical indications - several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names. Thankyou and regards Christopher Wilkinson El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió: Dear Work Track members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

Adobe still non-responsive 15.15 CEST - ?? CW

El 7 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:48 Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch escribió:

Dear Martin

I guess we may also discuss the ideas already put forward and which (if I recall correctly) were included in the working doc…

Best regards

Jorge

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Martin Sutton Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. August 2018 14:42 An: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

And now is a great opportunity to share views and ideas amongst the group, as suggested on the last call.

Feel free to start a new thread titled ‘Non-AGB Terms”.

Kind regards,

Martin

Sent from my iPhone

On 7 Aug 2018, at 12:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu > wrote:

> >

...

Dear Paul:

You might recall that my initial position more than six months ago was - and still is - that WT5 should be discussing non-AGB names, first.

Regards

Christopher

> > >

...

El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 23:16 "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com > escribió:

I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach. This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise. If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point.

Best,

Paul

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org > On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Dear Co-Leads and Martin:

I disagree with the method proposed.

1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed.

2. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Regards

CW

> > > >

...

El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org > escribió:

Hi Christopher,

In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods.

We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request.

Kind regards,

Martin

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu > wrote:

> > > > >

...

Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1.

Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms.

These include :

- all other geographical terms

- geographical indications

- several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names.

Thankyou and regards

Christopher Wilkinson

> > > > > >

...

El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org > escribió:

Dear Work Track members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB

On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.

As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.... .

If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org .

Kind regards,

WT5 Co-Leads

Annebeth Lange

Javier Rua

Olga Cavalli

Martin Sutton

The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.

> > > > >

> > > > > >

...

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

...

_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...

> > > >

> > >

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

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

> >

>

Indeed! so it seems. Hasta mañana CW

El 7 de agosto de 2018 a las 15:16 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> escribió:

Hi Christopher,

The upcoming WT5 call is scheduled for tomorrow Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC.

Kind regards,

Emily

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Reply-To: "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Tuesday, 7 August 2018 at 15:14 To: "martin@brandregistrygroup.org" <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Adobe still non-responsive 15.15 CEST - ??

CW

> >

...

El 7 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:48 Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch escribió:

Dear Martin

I guess we may also discuss the ideas already put forward and which (if I recall correctly) were included in the working doc…

Best regards

Jorge

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Martin Sutton Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. August 2018 14:42 An: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

And now is a great opportunity to share views and ideas amongst the group, as suggested on the last call.

Feel free to start a new thread titled ‘Non-AGB Terms”.

Kind regards,

Martin

Sent from my iPhone

On 7 Aug 2018, at 12:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu > wrote:

> > >

...

Dear Paul:

You might recall that my initial position more than six months ago was - and still is - that WT5 should be discussing non-AGB names, first.

Regards

Christopher

> > > >

...

El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 23:16 "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com > escribió:

I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach. This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise. If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point.

Best,

Paul

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org > On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Dear Co-Leads and Martin:

I disagree with the method proposed.

1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed.

2. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Regards

CW

> > > > >

...

El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org > escribió:

Hi Christopher,

In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods.

We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request.

Kind regards,

Martin

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu > wrote:

> > > > > >

...

Dear Co-Leads: May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1.

Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms.

These include :

- all other geographical terms

- geographical indications

- several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names.

Thankyou and regards

Christopher Wilkinson

> > > > > > > > El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org > escribió: > > Dear Work Track members, > > > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC: > > > > 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates > 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan > 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names > 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms > 5. AOB > > > > On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. > > > > As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org] [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . > > > > If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org . > > > > Kind regards, > > > > WT5 Co-Leads > > Annebeth Lange > > Javier Rua > > Olga Cavalli > > Martin Sutton > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

...

_______________________________________________ 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 [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...

> > > > >

> > > >

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

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

> > >

> >

>

Hi Carlos, Thank you for your email. From the beginning of the WT5 work we have highlighted the fact that 2007 policy does not fully align with the 2012 AGB. Any policy development work must recognise this perspective in any recommendations put forward under Subsequent Procedures PDP. Nevertheless, our discussions have mostly taken the AGB 2012 Procedures as the starting point for our deliberations, using any experiences and examples to guide us through our work. Nevertheless, we still need to reference the existing GNSO policies when we are making any recommendations for changes and you will note that the draft recommendations tie-in the treatment of the AGB. We also have the deliberations recorded and compiled so that these resources can be referenced in any conclusions, rather than just simply quoting the recommendations. I hope this helps clarify. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone On 6 Aug 2018, at 18:57, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> wrote: Hello Martin, After a first Reading I have a systemic problem with the language added to the recommendations. May be a style issue because I´m not an English as a 1st language speaker, or it may be a lack of understanding from my side of the scope of this WT. In any case, for each of the sections that use this language I have the same comment. 1. In case of <quote> This recommendation is a revision to the existing 2007 policy recommendations. <unquote> my comment is that we need clarity if the existing 2007 policy (GAC? GNSO? other?) recommendations are explicitly within scope of the SubPro PDP 2. In case of <quote> The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should be established to determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names. <unquote> my disagreement is much larger, as I was assuming it was to this WT5 to make a specific recommendation in that sense and stop the ping pong that we have been playing since 2012 when th ccNSO WG, and then the joint ccNSO and GNSO CWG have been avoiding to propose a solution to the issue. What exact mechanism is the WT5 proposing here? Maybe some redrafting may solve my doubts, maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture. But I have serious considerations about the use of this specific wording/style in what would be clear cut recommendations. I'm afraid they don't go beyond the lack of consensus instead of helping to measure any consensus, because of their restrictive nature and lack of a clear path forward. I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible. Please find attached my comments on the v2 for the record, so I don't spoil the call Best regards --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-06 06:42, Martin Sutton escribió: Dear Work Track members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <Recommendations - country and territory names - 6 August 2018 v2.pdf> <Recommendations - country and territory names - 6 August 2018 v2.docx> <Work Track 5 - Path to Initial Report 6 August 2018.pdf> <Recommendations - country and territory names - 6 August 2018 Comments CRGutierrez.pdf>