<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Thanks Mary,</div><div><br></div><div>I note that your text includes footnotes. Can you kindly provide the full text including any notes.</div><div><br></div><div>As for considering the point, even assuming there is substance to the possible amendment, it requires substantial background work (see belo) and I thus continue the suggestion that it be tabled until 2015. I think the discussion as to the Sov. Immunity issue will consume the time available during next call.<br><br>as to the amendment:</div><div><br></div><div>1. As to the 6ter reference, my initial comments are:</div><div><br></div><div> It is duplicative of any coverage under trademark laws. </div><div> It also precludes any analysis as to whether it is capable of TM protection under applicable law (the lack of vetting is oft cited as a reason for not allowing US state tms).</div><div><br></div><div>2. As for the treaty coverage, my initial comments are:</div><div><br></div><div> Any such treaty would be required to be either unanimous or agreed to by the states wherein the registrar, registrant and complainant reside. Otherwise there would be no basis in law to provide foundation. For example, would a reference in a treaty as between Mexico and Guatemala provide a sufficient basis?</div><div><br></div><div> What type of treaties would be included? Tax treaties, trade agreements, etc??</div><div><br></div><div> It would seriously expand the complexity of UDRP/URS as panels would need to be aware of all of the various treaties between the various member states AND the legal status of such treaties (e.g. Whether ratified, whether or not exceptions have been noted, etc).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><span style="font-size: 13pt;">Paul Keating</span></div><div><br>On 12 Dec 2014, at 5:07 am, Mary Wong <<a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org">mary.wong@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>Dear all,</span><br><span></span><br><span>This is not intended to take any position on the issue of standing;</span><br><span>rather, we as support staff thought the WG might find useful the draft</span><br><span>text that was produced for the GNSO Council in 2007 for an alternative</span><br><span>dispute resolution procedure (DRP) (attached). As you¹ll recall this was</span><br><span>part of the scoping that had been done at the time for an Issue Report</span><br><span>which, however, did not lead to any policy work for lack of requisite</span><br><span>votes on the GNSO Council.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Of particular note is the modification of the UDRP requirements for a</span><br><span>complaint and thus a mandatory administrative proceeding under 4(a) of the</span><br><span>UDRP to be as follows:</span><br><span></span><br><span> </span><br><span> </span><br><span> </span><br><span> </span><br><span> </span><br><span> </span><br><span> </span><br><span> </span><br><span>"(i) the registration or use, as a domain name, of the name or</span><br><span>abbreviation of the complainant that has been communicated under Article</span><br><span>6ter of the Paris</span><br><span>Convention is of a nature:</span><br><span></span><br><span>(a) to suggest to the public that a connection exists between the domain</span><br><span>nameholder and the complainant; or</span><br><span> (b) to mislead the public as to the existence of a connection between</span><br><span>the domain</span><br><span>name holder and the complainant; or</span><br><span></span><br><span>(ii) on the ground that the registration or use, as a domain name, of a</span><br><span>name or</span><br><span>abbreviation of the complainant protected under an international treaty</span><br><span>violates</span><br><span>the terms of that treaty.²</span><br><span></span><br><span>The draft text therefore suggests two alternative grounds for standing in</span><br><span>lieu of trademark rights.</span><br><span></span><br><span>FWIW the draft text also deals with the sovereign immunity issue by</span><br><span>defining ³Mutual Jurisdiction² to be an arbitral tribunal constituted</span><br><span>under the rules either of the AAA, ICDR, WIPO or the London Court of</span><br><span>International Arbitration (see Definitions under the Rules of Procedure,</span><br><span>3.B.) </span><br><span></span><br><span>I hope this is helpful.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Cheers</span><br><span>Mary</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>Mary Wong</span><br><span>Senior Policy Director</span><br><span>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)</span><br><span>Telephone: +1 603 574 4892</span><br><span>Email: <a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org">mary.wong@icann.org</a></span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>-----Original Message-----</span><br><span>From: <Dorrain>, Kristine <<a href="mailto:kdorrain@adrforum.com">kdorrain@adrforum.com</a>></span><br><span>Date: Friday, 12 December 2014 10:09</span><br><span>To: Jim Bikoff <<a href="mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com">jbikoff@sgbdc.com</a>></span><br><span>Cc: "<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>></span><br><span>Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] - Final SG/C Letter and Questions to</span><br><span>Consider</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>Agree.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent from my iPhone</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Dec 11, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Jim Bikoff</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com">jbikoff@sgbdc.com</a><<a href="mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com">mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com</a>>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Agree.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Jim</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>James L. Bikoff</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>1101 30th Street, NW</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Suite 120</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Washington, DC 20007</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Tel: 202-944-3303</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Fax: 202-944-3306</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com">jbikoff@sgbdc.com</a><<a href="mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com">mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent from my iPad</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Dec 11, 2014, at 7:34 PM, David W. Maher</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:dmaher@pir.org">dmaher@pir.org</a><<a href="mailto:dmaher@pir.org">mailto:dmaher@pir.org</a>>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>+1</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>David W. Maher</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Senior Vice President Law & Policy</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Public Interest Registry</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>312 375 4849</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>From: Mike Rodenbaugh <<a href="mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com">mike@rodenbaugh.com</a><<a href="mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com">mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com</a>>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Date: Thursday, December 11, 2014 5:14 PM</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>To: Paul Keating <<a href="mailto:Paul@law.es">Paul@law.es</a><<a href="mailto:Paul@law.es">mailto:Paul@law.es</a>>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Cc: "<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>>"</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] - Final SG/C Letter and Questions to</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Consider</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Generally agree with Paul, and had the same basic feeling: "My reaction</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>to the standing issue is that there is absolutely no reason to even</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>consider it. The UDRP has always been founded on the pre-requisite of</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>a trademark. "</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I am curious to hear if anyone could pose any other remotely justifiable</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>basis for standing, other than trademark rights.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Best,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Mike</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Mike Rodenbaugh</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>RODENBAUGH LAW</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://rodenbaugh.com">http://rodenbaugh.com</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Paul Keating</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:Paul@law.es">Paul@law.es</a><<a href="mailto:Paul@law.es">mailto:Paul@law.es</a>>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Thank you Steve,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Regarding the questions noted below, I wanted to respond to a comment I</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>believe that Peder made during the call regarding the requirement that</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>trademarks were no longer the standing requirement they once were in the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>UDRP. I believe he used the example of famous people's names. I have</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>not listened to the MP3 recording so, if I am mistaken in attributing the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>comment to Peder, let me be the first to apologize for my error.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Peder, your comment was entirely incorrect. Those UDRPs involving famous</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>names have turned on whether the complainant's use of the name amounted</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>to a common law trademark right. In cases of mere fame without</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>commercialization, panels have found no t trademarks. In those in which</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>the names were clearly linked to commercial activities (music, books,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>etc), the panels have found a common law trademark to exist. I know of</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>absolutely no UDRP decision in which the panel found a famous name</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>sufficient without also finding the requisite common law trademark right.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>If you have one to mind, please share it and I will stand corrected.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>My reaction to the standing issue is that there is absolutely no reason</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>to even consider it. The UDRP has always been founded on the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>pre-requisite of a trademark. The WIPO White Paper was clear that the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>UDRP should not be a vehicle for the creation or expansion of</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>intellectual proper rights in cyber-space beyond those existing in the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>"real world". Notwithstanding the clear "identical and confusingly</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>similar" language, panels have watered down the 1st Element to one of</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>mere standing which as I have previously said, is such a low barrier</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>that a worm could easily cross. The panels did so by progressively</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>ignoring the clear language ("identical or confusingly similar") which is</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>a widely recognized and well-honed term of art in trademark infringement</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>to one which is merely a text vs t ext comparison. However, this is not</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>and can never, IMHO be, a reason to ignore the language entirely and</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>permit some other substitution to a registered or common law mark.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Further, to do so would require a wholesale amendment to the UDRP (and</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>URS). This would require an amendment to the ICANN/Registrar agreement</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>AND a change to the Registrar/Registrant agreement.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Finally, although it was within our initial charter to consider</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>amendments, I feel seriously doing so would be impractical. In addition</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>to the above reasons, given that it would require an amendment to the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>UDRP, I believe that such a task is better left to a Working Group</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>assigned for such purpose because once the suggestion is made to open an</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>amendment process, it will quickly include other and competing views on a</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>variety of subjects.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>It is for this reason I suggested our next session focus on the issue of</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sovereign Immunity and we leave the issue of rights expansion to January.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Finally, please allow me to apologize once again for not seeming to "get</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>it" with the audio portion of my participation. Someday I will be able</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>to arrange my black box to accurately interact with all of those</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>interconnected tubes in the "web"Š..:-)</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Warmest regards,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Paul</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>From: Steve Chan <<a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org">steve.chan@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org">mailto:steve.chan@icann.org</a>>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Date: Thursday, December 11, 2014 1:26 AM</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>To: "<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>>"</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] - Final SG/C Letter and Questions to Consider</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Dear WG Members,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Attached, please find the final version of the letter drafted to solicit</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>input from the stakeholder groups and constituencies; this letter was</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>sent to the chairs of each of the SG/Cs yesterday.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>In addition, it was agreed on today¹s call that at least for the moment,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>the group would not break up into sub groups and would instead work</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>together over the list to debate the following item from the group¹s work</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>plan: "Develop potential considerations (e.g. qualifying requirements,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>authentication criteria and appeal processes) for IGOs and INGOs that</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>would be relevant to their use of dispute resolution proceedings</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>(existing or new)²</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>The WG may want to consider the following questions when thinking about</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>this item:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> *</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>What might be a justifiable, principled basis for ³standing² other than</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>TM rights, whether under the UDRP, URS or a new dispute resolution</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>procedure?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> *</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Assuming for the moment that sovereign immunity is a problem for IGOs</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>(pending responses from the GAC and the IGOs), what type of appeal</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>process other than what is now in the UDRP and URS might be a solution</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>that would still offer adequate protection to registrants?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Best,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Steve</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Steven Chan</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sr. Policy Manager</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>ICANN</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org">steve.chan@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org">mailto:steve.chan@icann.org</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>direct: +1.310.301.3886<tel:%2B1.310.301.3886></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:%2B1.310.339.4410></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:%2B1.310.301.5800></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:%2B1.310.823.8649></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>list <a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a></span><br></blockquote><span></span><br></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><Staff Draft Text for IGO DRP & Rules - Sept 2007.pdf></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a></span></div></blockquote></body></html>