[ALAC] [IDN-WG] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants

JJS jjs.global at gmail.com
Sat May 4 12:02:44 UTC 2013


*Thank you Rinalia, that's fine for me.*
*Jean-Jacques.*


2013/5/4 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>

> Dear Jean-Jacques and Edmon,
>
> Would the following be an acceptable middle ground?
>
>
> "In principle, the At-Large community does not support over-extensive
> trademark protection measures.
> However, we do strongly believe that users from all language communities
> should be protected from confusion equally, irrespective of the
> characters of the trademarks."
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rinalia
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon at isoc.hk> wrote:
>
>> I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for:
>>
>> “ICANN should treat all trademarks equally”
>>
>> Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are different
>> types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, Unregistered, etc...
>> and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for certain
>> TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM from Paris
>> “might” be appropriately given priority over others...
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement
>> sending the message to the board than the specifics.  If people feel
>> strongly about the sentence, I can live with it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Edmon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* JJS [mailto:jjs.global at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM
>> *To:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim
>> *Cc:* Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List
>> *Subject:* Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH
>> and Variants
>>
>>
>>
>> *Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,*
>>
>>
>>
>> *I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the deletion
>> of the following sentence? *
>>
>> "However, we do strongly believe that ICANN should treat all trademarks
>> equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademarks, and that users
>> from all language communities should be protected from confusion equally."
>>
>>
>>
>> *Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Jean-Jacques.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>
>>
>> Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement.
>>
>> Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions?  Indications of support or
>> disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated.  If you have questions
>> or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them
>> as
>> well.
>>
>> If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to
>> amend the statement.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Rinalia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon at isoc.hk> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Everyone,
>> >
>> > Sorry for the late comments.  I read the draft at:
>> >
>> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants+Workspace?focusedCommentId=41883644#comment-41883644
>> >
>> > And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement.
>> > I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN
>> > Variants is real and it will be too late before long.  The TMCH MUST
>> > implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot
>> > based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their
>> > applications.
>> >
>> > I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
>> >
>> > 1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling
>> > The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first
>> > rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted
>> > certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from
>> implementing
>> > “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such
>> “variant
>> > or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
>> >
>> > 2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH
>> > Model
>> > To take out the sentence: " However, we do strongly believe that ICANN
>> > should treat all trademarks equally, irrespective of the characters of
>> the
>> > trademarks, and that users from all language communities should be
>> > protected from confusion equally."
>> >
>> > 3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH
>> > Model
>> > To expedite the development of appropriate solutions, the ALAC
>> recommends
>> > that the Board request from the ICANN CEO an interim mechanism that can
>> > yield such solutions efficiently and on an urgent basis.  ICANN already
>> has
>> > all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and
>> IDN
>> > Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the
>> > application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
>> >
>> >
>> > I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could
>> > help improve the statement.
>> >
>> > Edmon
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:
>> alac-bounces at atlarge-
>> > > lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels
>> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM
>> > > To: Alan Greenberg
>> > > Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo
>> > > Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH
>> and
>> > > Variants
>> > >
>> > > What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration.
>> > > What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for
>> variants.
>> > >
>> > > I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems
>> > variants
>> > > would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are
>> > > considered common data items and stored in the common database.
>> > >
>> > > -Carlton
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ==============================
>> > > Carlton A Samuels
>> > > Mobile: 876-818-1799
>> > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>> > > =============================
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg
>> > > <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Note that the TMCH has two separate components.
>> > > > The backend and the interface with registries is, I believe, a
>> single
>> > > > database and is being run under contract to ICANN by IBM. The
>> > > > interface to TM holders and the validation service is contracted to
>> > > > Deloitte. The design explicitly allows for distributed user
>> interfaces
>> > > > and validation services to ensure proper handling of different
>> > > > languages, scripts and TM law.
>> > > >
>> > > > Alan
>> > > >
>> > > > At 23/04/2013 07:17 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
>> > > > >Also agree with Yaovi on removing the word "centralized"
>> > > > >And thanks to Hong and Rinala for the work done on this statement.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Dev Anand
>> > > > >
>> > > > >On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > > +1
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > In any case, the opening of offices in Turkey and Singapore
>> makes
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > hard
>> > > > > > to argue that ICANN isn't at least making an attempt to
>> > decentralize.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > (Please don't see my relative silence as lack of interest, but
>> > > > > > rather
>> > > > lack
>> > > > > > of depth in the issue)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - Evan
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On 23 April 2013 14:19, Yaovi Atohoun <yaovito at yahoo.fr> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> Hi all,
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> In the statement we can read :
>> > > > > >> "... we strongly urge ICANN to move away from a model that is
>> > > > centralized,
>> > > > > >> inflexible and unfriendly to variants. "
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> My question : Is is not possible to have a model that is
>> > > > > >> centralized
>> > > > and
>> > > > > >> taking into account IDN variant issues?
>> > > > > >> If so my recommendation is to remove the word "Centralized" in
>> > > > > >> the sentence above.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Yaovi
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> ________________________________
>> > > > > >>  De : JJS <jjs.global at gmail.com>
>> > > > > >> À : Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> Cc :
>> > > > > >> apralo <apac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; No name <
>> > > > > >> idn-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ALAC Working List <
>> > > > > >> alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé le : Dimanche 21 avril
>> 2013
>> > > > > >> 4h11 Objet : Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and
>> > > > > >> Variants
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> *Dear Rinalia,*
>> > > > > >> *
>> > > > > >> *
>> > > > > >> *you've done a very thorough job, thank you. * *Below, my
>> > > > > >> **suggested modifications in red.*
>> > > > > >> *
>> > > > > >> *
>> > > > > >> *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark
>> > > > > Clearinghouse and IDN Variants
>> > > > > >> *
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is deeply concerned by
>> the
>> > > > > >> implementation model outlined in the “Trademark Clearinghouse:
>> > > > > >> Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements” published
>> > > > > on April 6, 2013.  We view the
>> > > > > >> model to be deficient in that it overlooks the critical issue
>> of
>> > > > > >> IDN variants; thus implemented, the model would clearly run
>> > > > > >> against the
>> > > > public
>> > > > > >> interest in the pertinent
>> > > > > >> user communities.*
>> > > > > >> *
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> *(1) Domain Name Matching*
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Language communities have requested that TMCH services factor
>> > > > IDN-script
>> > > > > >> trademarks involving variants and that ICANN consider adopting
>> > > > > >> community-based solutions to address this issue since October
>> > 2011.
>> > > > > >> Despite
>> > > > > >> concerns raised by language community experts in the TMCH
>> > > > Implementation
>> > > > > >> Assistance Group (IAG), the domain name matching requirements
>> of
>> > > > > >> the
>> > > > TMCH
>> > > > > >> still does not take into account trademarks in IDN scripts
>> > > > > >> involving variants.  Variant matching is critical in certain
>> > > > > >> languages and particularly in Chinese.  To illustrate, when a
>> > > > > >> trademark holder registers a simplified Chinese word-mark and
>> not
>> > > > > >> its
>> > > > traditional
>> > > > > >> equivalent, the TMCH will accordingly generate only one
>> trademark
>> > > > record.
>> > > > > >> The
>> > > > > >> new gTLD registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and
>> > > > trademark
>> > > > > >> claims for trademarks recorded in the TMCH.  Without variant
>> > > > > >> matching requirements in place, only that registered simplified
>> > > > > >> word-mark will
>> > > > be
>> > > > > >> eligible for trademark protection.  This leaves the traditional
>> > > > word-mark
>> > > > > >> equivalent open for cybersquatting.  Given that both simplified
>> > > > > >> and traditional writings of the word-mark are deemed identical
>> by
>> > > > > >> Chinese communities worldwide (and by norm few trademarks are
>> > > > > >> registered in
>> > > > both
>> > > > > >> writings),
>> > > > > >> ruling out the un-registered writing by not
>> > > > > allowing variant matching would
>> > > > > >> make the TMCH completely useless to Chinese
>> > > > > trademarks, and would result in
>> > > > > >> an unfair penalty against users of Chinese.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> *A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model*
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Trademarks have a very important function in safeguarding the
>> > > > > >> public interest by identifying the source of goods and
>> services.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> *The rest seems fine.*
>> > > > > >> *
>> > > > > >> *
>> > > > > >> *Best regards,*
>> > > > > >> *Jean-Jacques.*
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 2013/4/20 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> > Dear Members of the IDN WG, APRALO and ALAC Colleagues,
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > I have revised the proposed " *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board
>> > > > > >> > on
>> > > > > >> Trademark
>> > > > > >> > Clearinghouse and IDN Variants*" based on Hong's draft,
>>  input
>> > > > received
>> > > > > >> in
>> > > > > >> > Beijing and my own consultation with IDN Variant experts.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Please review and comment on the draft on
>> > > > > the wiki for tracking purposes.
>> > > > > >> > The wiki page for the draft is here -
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Advice+to+the+I
>> > > > CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Once the text is deemed satisfactory, it will be forwarded to
>> > > > > >> > the
>> > > > ALAC
>> > > > > >> for
>> > > > > >> > a vote.  Please try your best to respond with comments by
>> > > > > >> > Friday
>> > > > April
>> > > > > >> > 26th.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Text pasted below for rapid review.  The final version will
>> be
>> > > > proofread
>> > > > > >> > and
>> > > > > >> > a summary of recommendations will be produced as part of the
>> > > > > >> > final
>> > > > > >> version
>> > > > > >> > (as per our norm in giving advice to the Board).
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Best regards,
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Rinalia
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >  *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark Clearinghouse
>> and
>> > > > > >> > IDN Variants
>> > > > > >> > *
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is deeply concerned by
>> > > > > >> > the implementation model outlined in the “Trademark
>> > > Clearinghouse:
>> > > > Rights
>> > > > > >> > Protection Mechanism Requirements” published on April 6,
>> 2013.
>> > > > > >> > We
>> > > > view
>> > > > > >> the
>> > > > > >> > model to be deficient in that it overlooks the critical issue
>> > > > > >> > of IDN variants, which would seriously impact the public
>> > > > > >> > interest in the
>> > > > > >> pertinent
>> > > > > >> > user communities.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > We wish to highlight two areas of particular concern in the
>> > > > Trademark
>> > > > > >> > Clearinghouse (TMCH) requirements:
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > *(1) Domain Name Matching*
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Language communities have requested that TMCH services factor
>> > > > IDN-script
>> > > > > >> > trademarks involving variants and that ICANN consider
>> adopting
>> > > > > >> > community-based solutions to address this issue since October
>> > 2011.
>> > > > > >> >  Despite
>> > > > > >> > concerns raised by language community experts in the TMCH
>> > > > Implementation
>> > > > > >> > Assistance Group (IAG), the domain name
>> > > > > matching requirements of the TMCH
>> > > > > >> > still does not take into account trademarks in IDN scripts
>> > > > > >> > involving variants.  Variant matching is critical for certain
>> > > > > >> > languages and particularly for the Chinese language.  To
>> > > > > >> > illustrate, when a
>> > > > trademark
>> > > > > >> > holder registers a simplified Chinese word-mark and not its
>> > > > traditional
>> > > > > >> > equivalent, the TMCH will accordingly
>> > > > > generate only one trademark record.
>> > > > > >> >  The
>> > > > > >> > new gTLD registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and
>> > > > trademark
>> > > > > >> > claims for trademarks recorded in the TMCH.  Without variant
>> > > > matching
>> > > > > >> > requirements in place, only that registered simplified
>> > > > > >> > word-mark
>> > > > will be
>> > > > > >> > eligible for trademark protection.  This
>> > > > > leaves the traditional word-mark
>> > > > > >> > equivalent open for cybersquatting.  Given that both
>> simplified
>> > > > > >> > and traditional writings of the word-mark are
>> > > > > deemed identical by the Chinese
>> > > > > >> > community (and by norm few trademarks are registered in both
>> > > > writings),
>> > > > > >> > ruling out the un-registered writing by not allowing variant
>> > > > matching
>> > > > > >> would
>> > > > > >> > make the TMCH completely useless to Chinese trademarks.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > *(2) Domain Name Bundling*
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > The TMCH requirements specifically prohibit any registry from
>> > > > > >> implementing
>> > > > > >> > “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under
>> > > > > >> > such
>> > > > > >> “variant
>> > > > > >> > or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion
>> > > > > of the Sunrise Period.  Such a
>> > > > > >> > restriction would exclude the accommodation of any solution
>> for
>> > > > > >> > IDN trademarks involving variants during the
>> > > > > sunrise period at the TLD level,
>> > > > > >> > even though registries may be willing to address the variants
>> > > > through
>> > > > > >> their
>> > > > > >> > own registration management and at their own expense.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >  *A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model*
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Trademarks have a very important function of safeguarding the
>> > > > > >> > public interest by identifying the source of goods and
>> > > > > >> > services.  If left unaddressed,
>> > > > the
>> > > > > >> > deficiencies of the TMCH model design may likely cause
>> serious
>> > > > public
>> > > > > >> > confusion and result in market chaos.  In principle, the
>> > > > > >> > At-Large
>> > > > > >> community
>> > > > > >> > does not support over-extensive trademark protection
>> measures.
>> > > >  However,
>> > > > > >> we
>> > > > > >> > do strongly believe that ICANN should treat all trademarks
>> > > > > >> > equally, irrespective of the characters of the
>> > > > > trademarks, and that users from all
>> > > > > >> > language communities should be protected from confusion
>> equally.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > In September 2012, the ALAC statement on
>> > > > > the TMCH called for a “more open
>> > > > > >> > and flexible model” that can address our community’s concerns
>> > > > regarding
>> > > > > >> the
>> > > > > >> > limitations of a uniform model, which would be applied to all
>> > > > > >> > gTLD registries irrespective of their differences and
>> > > > > >> > competencies.  We
>> > > > > >> believe
>> > > > > >> > that new gTLD registries require a more open and flexible
>> TMCH
>> > > > model to
>> > > > > >> be
>> > > > > >> > successful and we strongly urge ICANN to move away from a
>> model
>> > > > that is
>> > > > > >> > centralized, inflexible and unfriendly to variants.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > In light of the considerations above, the ALAC urges the
>> ICANN
>> > > > Board to
>> > > > > >> > call for a more open and flexible TMCH model.  Towards this
>> > > > > >> > end, we
>> > > > urge
>> > > > > >> > the Board to support a community-based, bottom-up solution
>> for
>> > > > > >> > TMCH implementation and to ensure that the IDN variant issue
>> is
>> > > > > >> > addressed
>> > > > > >> before
>> > > > > >> > the TMCH begin providing services to the new gTLD registries.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > We understand that addressing the IDN Variant issue in a
>> > > > > >> > holistic
>> > > > way
>> > > > > >> > requires the development of Label Generation Rules (LGR) for
>> > > > > >> > the
>> > > > Root
>> > > > > >> Zone,
>> > > > > >> > which experts and Staff have projected to
>> > > > > require a minimum of 12 months.
>> > > > > >> >  We
>> > > > > >> > appreciate that the LGR development requires conscientious
>> > > > > >> > effort to maintain the security and stability of the
>> Internet,
>> > > > > >> > but we are also mindful that the business and practical
>> > > > > >> > requirements of new gTLD applicants, especially from
>> developing
>> > > > > >> > economies, call for urgent implementation.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > To expedite the development of appropriate
>> > > > > solutions, the ALAC recommends
>> > > > > >> > that the Board request from the ICANN CEO an interim
>> mechanism
>> > > > > >> > that
>> > > > can
>> > > > > >> > yield such solutions efficiently and on an urgent basis.
>>  This
>> > > > > >> > may
>> > > > > >> require
>> > > > > >> > additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities
>> > > > working in
>> > > > > >> > tandem with community members with relevant expertise.  It
>> may
>> > > > > >> > also
>> > > > > >> require
>> > > > > >> > a consideration of expediting the LGR process for the Han
>> > script.
>> > > >  We
>> > > > > >> > understand that in the general case, the handling of variants
>> > > > > >> > is a
>> > > > > >> complex
>> > > > > >> > issue. However, for variant cases that are well defined and
>> > > > understood,
>> > > > > >> > such as the case of the Han script, ICANN should proceed on a
>> > > > fast-track
>> > > > > >> > basis to include variant support in the TMCH in time to
>> > > > > >> > accommodate
>> > > > the
>> > > > > >> > delegation of the appropriate TLDs.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > END
>> > > > > >> > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > >> > IDN-WG mailing list
>> > > > > >> > IDN-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > > > > >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > IDN WG Wiki:
>> > > > > >> >
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
>> > > > > >> ALAC mailing list
>> > > > > >> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > > > > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working
>> Wiki:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
>> > > Large+Advisory+Committe
>> > > > e+(ALAC)
>> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
>> > > > > >> ALAC mailing list
>> > > > > >> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > > > > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working
>> Wiki:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
>> > > Large+Advisory+Committe
>> > > > e+(ALAC)
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Evan Leibovitch
>> > > > > > Toronto Canada
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Em: evan at telly dot org
>> > > > > > Sk: evanleibovitch
>> > > > > > Tw: el56
>> > > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > > ALAC mailing list
>> > > > > > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > > > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working
>> Wiki:
>> > > > >
>> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
>> > > Large+Advisory+Committe
>> > > > e+(ALAC)
>> > > > >
>> > > > >_______________________________________________
>> > > > >APAC-Discuss mailing list
>> > > > >APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > > > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > ALAC mailing list
>> > > > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> > > >
>> > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
>> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
>> > > Large+Advisory+Committe
>> > > > e+(ALAC)
>> > > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > ALAC mailing list
>> > > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> > >
>> > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
>> > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
>> > > Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>> > >
>> > > -----
>> > > No virus found in this message.
>> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> > > Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date:
>> 04/23/13
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > IDN-WG mailing list
>> > IDN-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
>> >
>> > IDN WG Wiki:
>> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> IDN-WG mailing list
>> IDN-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
>>
>> IDN WG Wiki:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
>>
>
>



More information about the ALAC mailing list