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

Edmon edmon at isoc.hk
Sun May 5 05:12:26 UTC 2013


Sounds good.
Edmon



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net]
> Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2013 8:51 AM
> To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim
> Cc: Edmon; JJS; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List
> Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] [ALAC] Draft Statement on TMCH and
> Variants
> 
> Hi Rinalia
> 
> I think the sentence strikes the right balance.  Well done
> 
> Holly
> On 04/05/2013, at 4:09 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
> 
> > 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=418836
> 44#co
> >> mment-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+th
> >>>> e+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
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> -----
> 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